NationStates

Australian rePublic wrote:Assuming that morality is subjective, I propose the following hypotethetical.

Let's say you have a time machine and use it to travel to different periods in time, and across to one alternate world. So you go back in time and you bring back with you Ghana's Khan, Alexander the Great, George III (King of England) and a person from an alternate timeline in the 21st Century, where everything is the same, except for the fact that the NAZIs won the second world war.

You bring these people to our timeline in the 21st Century. After adjusting to life in the twenty-first century, these men now start to try to accomplish their goals

Um. Okay. They have no mechanism for doing so. Genghis hasn't got his Mongol hordes, and even if he did, there's not much horse archers are going to accomplish against Type 99s.

Maybe Greece is willing to hand control of their military over to some wacko claiming (in a language that only a tiny number of historical scholars understand) to be Alexander the Great, but, seriously, Israel is a nuclear power. Greece isn't.

What's George going to do, show up all, "Cheerio, we're Mad King George, turns out we're not dead after all, just abducted by some chap in a police box, and if that Elizabeth woman will just give us our crown back, we'll restore the honour of Old Blighty by starting an overseas war of conquest against the most powerful military on the face of the planet, who also happen to be our closest allies, and who operate multiple military bases right here in England, so it's almost like they've already occupied us."

And, I mean, we've got plenty of home-grown neo-Nazis who are completely out of touch with history and reality already. I don't see what importing another from the Nazi timeline is going to accomplish. Also I notice that you didn't dare go so far as to retrieve actual Hitler and try to claim that his morality was subjective...

Lady Victory wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:His argument was that there is literary evidence by the time of Alexander's lifetime that it was commonly understood that Achilles was the receiving partner to Patroclus, and since Alexander and Hephaestion modelled their relationship on the pair, with Alexander being Achilles, may imply that Alexander was the receiving partner to Hephaestion.

I, for one, did not need to know any of this.

No, it's absolutely essential knowledge.

Punished UMN wrote:I question how much you know about Alexander the Great or George III if you think they would be particularly interested in brutalizing the civilian population.

I never said that Alex would brutalise the civilian population, I said that he wanted to rule of the Middle East benevolently

Alvecia wrote:I would judge them by my personal standards and/or the standards of the society in which I reside.

That they were raised differently isn't particularly relevant, I'd do the same of anyone born in the present day that held their same moral standards.

So then that means that you believe in objective morality

The only reason I’m bringing back George III is to personally shoot him in the face.

Anyone who wants absolute power over people is inherently immoral.

Mercatus wrote:The only reason I’m bringing back George III is to personally shoot him in the face.

Ok this post is so funny to me and I have no idea why I died laughing

Australian rePublic wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I would judge them by my personal standards and/or the standards of the society in which I reside.

That they were raised differently isn't particularly relevant, I'd do the same of anyone born in the present day that held their same moral standards.

So then that means that you believe in objective morality

I mean, no? You don't have to judge other people by their own standards.

I judge everyone by my standards of morality, not theirs. It does not make my morality objective, since no such thing exists, sadly.

Since they have been brought to the 21st century, their morality should be judged based on the laws and states of the 21st century.

In which case if their beliefs lead them to break the law, then I would take issue. But if they remain as merely beliefs, then it’s not really a point of concern.

Albrenia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:So then that means that you believe in objective morality

I mean, no? You don't have to judge other people by their own standards.

I judge everyone by my standards of morality, not theirs. It does not make my morality objective, since no such thing exists, sadly.

So if objective morality doesn't exist, then on what grounds do you base the morality of others upon? What deems your judgement valid if there is no objective standard? I'd someone disagrees with you on what is moral and what is immoral, on what basis would you say that they are wrong? And if you can't say that they are wrong, then how do you judge them as immoral? If morality isnobjective, on what basis would you declare those four men as immoral, considering that they themselves think that they're doing the right thing. If morality is subjective, who are you to judge them as immoral? The fact that you believe that you're some kind of arbiter of morality means that you believe in objective morality

Infected Mushroom wrote:Since they have been brought to the 21st century, their morality should be judged based on the laws and states of the 21st century.

In which case if their beliefs lead them to break the law, then I would take issue. But if they remain as merely beliefs, then it’s not really a point of concern.

So you think that obeying the law is what makes one be moral? In that case, it was immoral for people to hide the Jews from the NAZIs during the Holocaust. If the laws and statues are what make one moralistic, then the oppressors of Uyghurs are moralistic

Australian rePublic wrote:So if objective morality doesn't exist, then on what grounds do you base the morality of others upon? What deems your judgement valid if there is no objective standard? I'd someone disagrees with you on what is moral and what is immoral, on what basis would you say that they are wrong? And if you can't say that they are wrong, then how do you judge them as immoral? If morality isnobjective, on what basis would you declare those four men as immoral, considering that they themselves think that they're doing the right thing. If morality is subjective, who are you to judge them as immoral?

Questions we've been asking ourselves since the dawn of time. Important questions, mind.

If there is no objective standard (and there is certainly no objective standard that humanity can agree on), then all we have is our own moral judgments. We act on them because we believe that they are correct, based on what we know of the world and our own intuitions, and in some cases, our religion. But of course we don't know we have it right.

I do think morality is somewhat subjective to time and place, because the average person tends to fall in with the ethical norms of their society. Obviously if we spoke to someone in the Victorian era about the place of a woman in society, we wouldn't expect them to speak like a 21st Century feminist on it; we judge people differently now because we as a species know differently now. We've evolved, and what seemed appropriate then seems much less so now.

But at the same time, we've always had activists and outliers. Jesus was one, and he basically said give to the poor and treat other people as your brethren. I'm not Christian, but I like those morals, in the absence of any certain ones.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I would judge them by my personal standards and/or the standards of the society in which I reside.

That they were raised differently isn't particularly relevant, I'd do the same of anyone born in the present day that held their same moral standards.

So then that means that you believe in objective morality

That doesn't logically follow.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
I mean, no? You don't have to judge other people by their own standards.

I judge everyone by my standards of morality, not theirs. It does not make my morality objective, since no such thing exists, sadly.

So if objective morality doesn't exist, then on what grounds do you base the morality of others upon? What deems your judgement valid if there is no objective standard? I'd someone disagrees with you on what is moral and what is immoral, on what basis would you say that they are wrong? And if you can't say that they are wrong, then how do you judge them as immoral? If morality isnobjective, on what basis would you declare those four men as immoral, considering that they themselves think that they're doing the right thing. If morality is subjective, who are you to judge them as immoral? The fact that you believe that you're some kind of arbiter of morality means that you believe in objective morality

On the grounds that I believe this is the way I think we should do things, and on many point society agrees with me, though I would hazard a guess that there is at least one moral view that I hold that my society at large does not.

Morals are just like any other opinion. Something everyone has, and something that can be argued, discussed, and championed. I'm very much going to try and convince people that my opinion is correct, but I accept that other people have different opinions and that those opinions may not change.
The discussions are fun nonetheless.

Alvecia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:So then that means that you believe in objective morality

That doesn't logically follow.

Australian rePublic wrote:So if objective morality doesn't exist, then on what grounds do you base the morality of others upon? What deems your judgement valid if there is no objective standard? I'd someone disagrees with you on what is moral and what is immoral, on what basis would you say that they are wrong? And if you can't say that they are wrong, then how do you judge them as immoral? If morality isnobjective, on what basis would you declare those four men as immoral, considering that they themselves think that they're doing the right thing. If morality is subjective, who are you to judge them as immoral? The fact that you believe that you're some kind of arbiter of morality means that you believe in objective morality

On the grounds that I believe this is the way I think we should do things, and on many point society agrees with me, though I would hazard a guess that there is at least one moral view that I hold that my society at large does not.

Morals are just like any other opinion. Something everyone has, and something that can be argued, discussed, and championed. I'm very much going to try and convince people that my opinion is correct, but I accept that other people have different opinions and that those opinions may not change.
The discussions are fun nonetheless.

And the society of the time of these 4 men judged them as moral. Again, on what grounds do you judge them as immoral?

Australian rePublic wrote:

Alvecia wrote:That doesn't logically follow.


On the grounds that I believe this is the way I think we should do things, and on many point society agrees with me, though I would hazard a guess that there is at least one moral view that I hold that my society at large does not.

Morals are just like any other opinion. Something everyone has, and something that can be argued, discussed, and championed. I'm very much going to try and convince people that my opinion is correct, but I accept that other people have different opinions and that those opinions may not change.
The discussions are fun nonetheless.

And the society of the time of these 4 men judged them as moral. Again, on what grounds do you judge them as immoral?

It is no longer the society of their time, nor am I of that time

I mean, the time period is irrelevant really. As I said earlier, I'd judge them if they were brought up in the 21st Century.
I judge everyone's morals, typically I just find them agreeable.
Sometimes I don't and we might talk heatedly about it.

Such is the way of the world.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Alvecia wrote:That doesn't logically follow.


On the grounds that I believe this is the way I think we should do things, and on many point society agrees with me, though I would hazard a guess that there is at least one moral view that I hold that my society at large does not.

Morals are just like any other opinion. Something everyone has, and something that can be argued, discussed, and championed. I'm very much going to try and convince people that my opinion is correct, but I accept that other people have different opinions and that those opinions may not change.
The discussions are fun nonetheless.

And the society of the time of these 4 men judged them as moral. Again, on what grounds do you judge them as immoral?

On the grounds that they don't meet the standard of morality of my own morality specifically. I think murdering an entire city of people because its leaders refuse to submit is evil, obviously the Khanate did not agree with me. Nowadays it seems most people's morality agree with me on the issue, but that does not make mine any more objective.

It would be super nice if there was a magic universal rulebook which said if murdering people for not submitting was wrong or not, but no such thing exists. Plenty of texts claim to be objective, but they contradict each and none offers proof of its objectivity.

Objective morality may well exist, but we don't know what it is, so subjective morality has to do.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Alvecia wrote:That doesn't logically follow.


On the grounds that I believe this is the way I think we should do things, and on many point society agrees with me, though I would hazard a guess that there is at least one moral view that I hold that my society at large does not.

Morals are just like any other opinion. Something everyone has, and something that can be argued, discussed, and championed. I'm very much going to try and convince people that my opinion is correct, but I accept that other people have different opinions and that those opinions may not change.
The discussions are fun nonetheless.

And the society of the time of these 4 men judged them as moral. Again, on what grounds do you judge them as immoral?

I don't think most societies of the time judged Genghis Khan as "moral". The only society that did is probably the Mongolian one that he led, but killing or enslaving the men, raping the women and throwing ancient books into the Tigris until the river ran black with ink is not something that people of the time considered moral and just.

Dakini wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:And the society of the time of these 4 men judged them as moral. Again, on what grounds do you judge them as immoral?

I don't think most societies of the time judged Genghis Khan as "moral". The only society that did is probably the Mongolian one that he led, but killing or enslaving the men, raping the women and throwing ancient books into the Tigris until the river ran black with ink is not something that people of the time considered moral and just.

Honestly, I think a lot of times when this subject comes up people assume the morality of the days past was a lot worse than it probably actually was.
We still get those same kinda people these days, there's just more safeguards against their actions.

Alvecia wrote:

Dakini wrote:I don't think most societies of the time judged Genghis Khan as "moral". The only society that did is probably the Mongolian one that he led, but killing or enslaving the men, raping the women and throwing ancient books into the Tigris until the river ran black with ink is not something that people of the time considered moral and just.

Honestly, I think a lot of times when this subject comes up people assume the morality of the days past was a lot worse than it probably actually was.
We still get those same kinda people these days, there's just more safeguards against their actions.

I'm not sure that we have more safeguards. It's more that the leaders of states send other people into conflict without participating themselves so the people who are committing war crimes aren't as memorable or important.

Dakini wrote:

Alvecia wrote:Honestly, I think a lot of times when this subject comes up people assume the morality of the days past was a lot worse than it probably actually was.
We still get those same kinda people these days, there's just more safeguards against their actions.

I'm not sure that we have the same safeguards. It's more that the leaders of states send other people into conflict without participating themselves so the people who are committing war crimes aren't as memorable or important.

While I would definitely agree that it is still very possible, I do think it more difficult for your average raping, murderous dickhead to go around doing just those things these days.

I'd go back in time and tell Varus that Arminius plots to betray Rome.