There is no such thing as good or evil.

No...No it doesn't. If you say the words "human dignity" to anybody who's had an ounce of experience in this topic he or she will immediately know what you're referring to. Honestly, even people who haven't heard of this idea still understand. You're the first person I've ever encountered who's misunderstood the statement.

You have to understand that mixed definitions of an idea is not the same as mixed definitions of a word. Here, you simply interpreted the word differently. What is relevant to our argument is whether people misinterpret the idea.

 

people interpret words differently all the time. look at the word terrorist. he run in fear at the utterance of it, while some radicals are proud to be it.

this is my point.

human dignity is not a physical thing either. it is not like the word chair or bike. you cannot point to one and say this means this.
it is a concept and concepts tend to be more ambiguous.

 

Er, I suspect that the reason a radical would support what we perceive as terrorism is that he does not view his actions as terrorism. Nobody would support wreaking terror.

Honestly, I'm really having difficulty understanding what you're saying. The argument for cultural relativism is not that we misunderstand human dignity, but rather that different peoples have different understandings of what ought to be done. So, in reality, it is irrelevant whether one will confuse the definitions of sacrosanct rights; these notions will be reasoned through and the correct interpretation will be analyzed.

 

who will decide the "correct interpretation"

and yes, most terrorists do intend to wreak havoc in order to get their point across.

your very ignorant and very naive claim that NO ONE would support wreaking terror shows how much you need to learn about proper arguments.

protip: do not make claims about universal human nature, there are always confounds.


ps.
why do you want to argue about cultural relativism?
i never brought it up. is it an attempt to gain some understanding from your limited teachings in philosophy?

 

While morality is more complex than mere colors, it's rather absurd to assert that no objective morality exists.

You've taken an incorrect moral absolute, and then misapplied it to various scenarios. Killing is not immorally; murder is.

The bottom line is this: the changing moral zeitgeist (a term Richard Dawkins often uses, that I find to be a good one) of societies is not evidence that an objective morality does not exist; rather, it shows that we have not (and perhaps never will) find it. That does not mean that we cannot class certain actions as immoral, nor does it mean that we must be uncertain as to the actual immorality of such acts.

 

if no one has found the correct morals then where do they exist?

are they similar to plato's forms?

 

Agree that it's extremely complex.

Define objective.

That entails that law is not a gauge of morals, and I agree.

Before rambling about my point of view on that position, define objective morality first.

 

^ This is not true. Murder is when you kill something with the intention of doing so. When trees deny smaller plants light, THEY cannot do ANYTHING about it, it is nature to do so. However, murder is swerving off the course from nature... It is purposefully ending someones life due to a certain reason. As humans, the MAJORITY do not want to die, and nearly all believe that death is a malevolent event-> Therefore murder->death->evil

 

So your saying no matter what the circumstance in society, the premeditative killing of another human being is evil, or immoral?

 

i bet he is against getting in a time machine and killing hitler

utilitarianism FTW


ontopic:
what about carnivores?
i am sure they are killing intentionally and naturally.
are you saying all carnivores are evil?

 

saying that there is no objective good or bad is not the same as saying you should not create your own versions.

it would obviously be incredibly maladaptive to not have a moral code at all and no one here is advocating this position.

also, i have read through some criticisms of the UPB theory:

 

Objective morality - moral principles are valid, binding, and true independently of whatever one thinks, feels, or believes them to be so.

Law is determining the killing from morality.

Law makes murder moral--murder is not immoral.

"Killing is not immoral" does entail that law is a "gauge" of morals since it says what killing is moral and what killing is immoral.

Natural law.

And I realize that you don't realize you're part of the man-species because apparently with your statement you have a higher authority over distinguishing good and evil and claiming it is "man made."
As for the relevancy point, yes, indeed that is true, but that does not sequester all good and all evil as merely vote.

So you're saying that because the human tribes thought it was "good" to loot and pillage then therefore their actions are indicative of the fact that good and bad are nothing but opinionated picks, but then you say "it is looked down upon" (meaning bad), contradicting yourself (or are you saying we should do it at any impetus or volition?).

This is rather farcical and quite honestly, risible. If such actions with our concomitant "civilized" position are looked down upon, then you more or less adhere to the fact that it is naturally bad not whether one does not think of it as such or not.

That's your perception of it.

That is incoherent, and falls into the category of: unversed opinionated jargon. This is, by the way, not a productive way of engaging issues of this sort. There is plenitude of room for an audible explanation and more coherent interpretation of your retort if you disagree with me.

Picture this: if I cut off your foot, is the evil I perpetrated subjective? To who: me or you? Or is it objectively evil to you and subjectively evil to me? If I did it with an "objective" in mind, wouldn't that make it objective to me as well as to you? What if I taped a film of you in the shower and it "showed everything." Then I placed it on the intra-webs. Sure I might go to a penitentiary, but that's legal. So the morality: was it objectively or subjectively evil to you? What would make it one thing or the other? What if I was so intoxicated when I performed it I was in a black out, and woke up the following day with no clue as to what I had done. Could I even be said to have done an evil thing, if I didn't know I was doing it? Illegal, by all means; but evil? It was not me--it was my evil sub-consciousness that takes over when I have had one too many drinks, also without knowing that that has happened. The only time evil is subjective is when the standards called "good" and "evil" have nothing to do with reality, but everything to do with "made-up standards." That is, what a cult-leader for example tells his followers is subjective, because if his standards were based on reality he would not be a cult leader, he would just be a leader.

"Personal" morals "derive" from personal preference, and not "modern day ethics."

Illustrate your "advancement of civilizations" by explaining exactly what has differed in our current advanced civilization in respect to ethics.

Thanks.

It has once been said:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

Think about someone taking your daughter from her bed, raping, torturing, and then finally killing her and leaving her body in a ditch somewhere. When they catch the guy, do you tell him he was wrong because he broke a social statute? No, you tell him that he is evil. Why is that? Is there intrinsic value in your daughter's life?

 

^ is the reason. ^_^

 

That arbitrary moral code changes over time.

K.

You conclude law is a gauge of morals.

Laws change over time, and conflict each other over time.

Therefore morals are subjective if we are heeding to the conclusion that law are a gauge of morals.

Define your version of natural law.

I don't have a higher authority over distinguishing good and evil. If good and evil is not man made then please what makes something good and what makes something evil?

'as merely vote' what do you mean?

There is no universal law on what is and isn't moral, it is not set in stone. It is relevant to each situation and thus it is subjective.

You misunderstand.

In the time, looting and pillaging wasn't bad it was something tribes had/wanted to do. Because of this lotting and pillaging wasn't morally wrong.

Now however when we look back, if I were to loot and pillage, or someone was to it would be considered morally wrong. This is because it is relevant to the time, and society has 'advanced' to a point where it determines pillaging and looting to be morally wrong.

I do not contradict myself at all, you just don't take things into context.

So your saying that back in the middle ages becoming a knight was an evil deed?

Maybe, but I'm sure there was a context behind that statement.

It is not incoherent.

It is a simple fact. While it may be moral for me to do x, on the same token it could also be immoral for you to do x.
x being the same denominator.

Your using acts that would be viewed as immoral today and extrapolating them to be immoral FOREVER.

So they are subjective.

Many things have once been said, your point?

Your situation, at present society would consider this morally wrong. In future however, societies view on this may diminish, or not.
Cannibalism was once a widely accepted practice. Now it is widely unaccepted.

 

objectively better? what do you mean by better?
if you mean better at killing people then, yes, the serial killer is better.
if you mean better in utilitarian terms, then the hospital builder is better.


what is your argument exactly sythe?
are you saying there is an objective moral code?

are you saying it is terrible to create your own moral code?


PS.
i feel we have all already adopted arbitrary moral codes.
some are just more in line with laws, religion ect.

 

Did you even read my original post? Reason decides what the "correct interpretation is". You're actually so hypocritical and supercilious. You claim that arguments about "universal human nature" are not proper, yet you insist on asserting that "most terrorists do intend to wreak havoc in order to get their point across.". ??
There are those that would support terror, yes, but to the vast majority it is never so one-sided as you present it. Humans are not merciless beasts.
Cultural relativism is the argument that morality is subjective among peoples...Honestly, based on your persistently irrelevant and misplaced arguments, I'd be surprised if you've ever read a full work of philosophy in your life.

 

whose reason will decide?

terrorism:
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

is it not fair to say that most terrorists committing terrorist acts know that they are terrorizing and wreaking havoc?

saying that humans are not merciless beasts is unnecessary, as it is personal opinion. although, to follow your odd trail of thought, I say we are merciless beasts sometimes. look at the holocaust and the countless wars.

sorry that i did not define the theory we are talking about correctly. i know it is an unforgivable offense in your eyes.

um serial killers, revolutionaries, mercenaries .......hello