|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 20:56:23 GMT
Murder is subjective. What you are talking about is the law around killing, and it varies depending on the circumstances. You can kill in war if you kill accidentally it's manslaughter If you kill on pupose it's murder. Laws reflect societies current understanding of ethics, otherwise it would be perfectly fine to keep slaves. Youre avoiding the question. Why should I not be permitted to rape someone if ethics is subjective? No I answered your question perfectly. You tried murder, but it is subjective, now you try rape. marital rape was not a crime until the 60's rape laws have changed. why should you not be permitted to rape someone? I assume from your question that it is just a simple case of rape, you should not rape someone, it causes damage, but that is subjective, if raping someone saved 40 lives then raping someone is the ethically correct choice (according to utilitarianism). Let me ask you the question you implicitly avoided, it ethics is objective, why have laws changed?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 21:09:07 GMT
Laws are different in that they are imposed onto everyone subject to them for the purpose of establishing good order in society. Laws are established by the state, not the individual. Laws may be based on morality and ethics, however they exist independently of them, and on occasions conflict with them. Laws are made in order to avoid unethical outcomes. No, they are not. It has nothing to do with ethics at all! It used to be the law that women could not vote and blacks had to sit at the back of the bus. Interracial marriage was illegal at one time, and in some states gay marriage is still illegal. None of those things are unethical; on the contrary, rather it was the law that was unethical. The reason they were laws is because most people were at one point sexist, racist, and homophobic. So just because something is a law doesn't mean it is designed to avoid an unethical outcome. In some cases, the law created the unethical outcome in the first place. Because allowing murder would lead to anarchy and a disfunctional society. The fact that murder is considered unethical by nearly every society on earth (and has been throughout various ideologies and religious) has only gone to ensure that most people support laws against murder. The law exists to serve public safety and security, not to serve subjective ethical standards.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 21:09:47 GMT
No I answered your question perfectly. You tried murder, but it is subjective, now you try rape. marital rape was not a crime until the 60's rape laws have changed. why should you not be permitted to rape someone? I assume from your question that it is just a simple case of rape, you should not rape someone, it causes damage, but that is subjective, if raping someone saved 40 lives then raping someone is the ethically correct choice (according to utilitarianism). Let me ask you the question you implicitly avoided, it ethics is objective, why have laws changed? If it's just a matter of opinion then who cares if someone is raped? If it just comes down to your personal preferences like disliking or liking a movie then who cares? Laws have changed because people have changed. People used to think the earth was flat. If the earth being is subjective then why have people's opinions changed? Outside reality is independent of thought. Apples and oranges. It's not just a matter of opinion, it is an agreed upon opinion based on societies norms. Also I am not sure how you got matter of opinion out of my example, what changed was not opinion, but the circumstances. Laws have changed because people have changed, because their ethical stance changed, I challenge you to find a law that changed because we found out the earth was round, but I can find numerous laws that change because ethics change. How about slavery? I also notice you avoided the example I made where rape was clearly the ethical choice, care to comment on that, I think it might illuminate the subjectivity of ethics. Can you provide an objective ethical example?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 21:47:41 GMT
Apples and oranges. It's not just a matter of opinion, it is an agreed upon opinion based on societies norms. Also I am not sure how you got matter of opinion out of my example, what changed was not opinion, but the circumstances. Laws have changed because people have changed, because their ethical stance changed, I challenge you to find a law that changed because we found out the earth was round, but I can find numerous laws that change because ethics change. How about slavery? I also notice you avoided the example I made where rape was clearly the ethical choice, care to comment on that, I think it might illuminate the subjectivity of ethics. Can you provide an objective ethical example? So now you are making an argumentum ad populem argument for what the laws should be. If pedophilia were to all of a sudden become common practice would we be justified in legalising it? Laws are just a product of the majority belief. So again the situations are the same I ignored it because it wasn't relevant. Laws are essentially what is popularly correct, yes that is why they change as ethical stances among the population change. At one point pedophilia (I knew it would not take long for you to bring this up) was essentially legal, 12 year old brides were common in older times, this has changed because of societies change of ethics. Laws are a product of majority belief (agreement is the word you are looking for) and the are applied subjectively by the courts, which is why we have trials. You ignored it because it demonstrated your stance to be wrong. Can you provide an objective ethical example?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 22:32:20 GMT
You think you know more about the earth then flat earthers don't you? Well that is Incorrect, that is only based on a difference of opinion. No it isn't. That the earth is round is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. A fact that has been discovered and proved by scientists through observable evidence for centuries. Opinion becomes irrelevant in the face of contradicting facts. Empirical claims aren't provable. And if they're not open to revision, it's not science. Also, it's a fact that there is no objective ethical progress, no objective ethical judgments.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 22:36:09 GMT
Laws are different in that they are imposed onto everyone subject to them for the purpose of establishing good order in society. Laws are established by the state, not the individual. Laws may be based on morality and ethics, however they exist independently of them, and on occasions conflict with them. Laws are made in order to avoid unethical outcomes. Why make murder illegal if it being unethical is subjective? That ethics is subjective in no way implies that people don't have views about ethics, that they don't want their preferences to dominate, etc.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 24, 2017 22:50:55 GMT
Murder is subjective. What you are talking about is the law around killing, and it varies depending on the circumstances. You can kill in war if you kill accidentally it's manslaughter If you kill on pupose it's murder. Laws reflect societies current understanding of ethics, otherwise it would be perfectly fine to keep slaves. Youre avoiding the question. Why should I not be permitted to rape someone if ethics is subjective? Easy. Majority rule.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 23:04:00 GMT
If pedophilia were to all of a sudden become common practice would we be justified in legalising it? Pedophilia would never become a "common practice" because it's not a practice at all. It's a abnormal mental condition which influences someone to be attracted to young children, and is usually the result of some psycho-sexual trauma suffered in youth that distorts and retards the individual's sexual development. Sexually functional adults never become pedophiles. In some countries that is true. But in most secular societies with constitutions similar to the US Constitution, laws are not solely derived from the will of the people. If the law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what the majority wants. More to my original point, the fact that laws do changed based on the majority opinion is not evidence that morality changes or is subjective, so much is that society's knowledge and abilities objectively evaluate what is ethical evolves.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 23:07:46 GMT
Explain how saying the universe came into being because if the big bang is different to saying rape is wrong. There is no difference, you have yet to even explain the difference between them. Dafuq did I just read? The Big Bang Theory = rape?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 23:09:29 GMT
Laws are essentially what is popularly correct, yes that is why they change as ethical stances among the population change. At one point pedophilia (I knew it would not take long for you to bring this up) was essentially legal, 12 year old brides were common in older times, this has changed because of societies change of ethics. Laws are a product of majority belief (agreement is the word you are looking for) and the are applied subjectively by the courts, which is why we have trials. You ignored it because it demonstrated your stance to be wrong. Can you provide an objective ethical example? Explain how saying the universe came into being because if the big bang is different to saying rape is wrong. There is no difference, you have yet to even explain the difference between them. one is a statement of scientific theory, one is a declaration of opinion. That I have to explain this really indicates to me that you do not understand the subject matter. Can you explain why rape laws have changed? have the ethics surrounding rape changed? Perhaps you would like to tell me your theory on marital rape? Can you provide an objective ethical example?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 23:12:46 GMT
If pedophilia were to all of a sudden become common practice would we be justified in legalising it? Pedophilia would never become a "common practice" because it's not a practice at all. It's a abnormal mental condition which influences someone to be attracted to young children, and is usually the result of some psycho-sexual trauma suffered in youth that distorts and retards the individual's sexual development. Sexually functional adults never become pedophiles. In some countries that is true. But in most secular societies with constitutions similar to the US Constitution, laws are not solely derived from the will of the people. If the law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what the majority wants. More to my original point, the fact that laws do changed based on the majority opinion is not evidence that morality changes or is subjective, so much is that society's knowledge and abilities objectively evaluate what is ethical evolves. with regards to pedophilia, we have to assume he just means sex with underage persons, what he is avoiding is that it was pretty common for 13 year old women to get married historically so to that extent pedophilia was accepted previously, it's just that we don't accept intercourse with pre-pubescent people. (yes I know that is the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia , but I think Sarodh likes to conflate the two)
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 23:15:13 GMT
No it isn't. That the earth is round is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. A fact that has been discovered and proved by scientists through observable evidence for centuries. Opinion becomes irrelevant in the face of contradicting facts. Empirical claims aren't provable. That's like saying "water isn't wet". Do you know what empirical evidence actually means? Wrong! Scientific laws are not open to revision (otherwise they wouldn't be "laws"). If they are open to revision then they would not be laws. And observable facts can't be revised, other than by saying what was previously observed was not in fact observed. So what you're saying right now is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works. But I'm not not going to let a flat earther hijack a thread about genital mutilation (and the ethics associated with it). But more relevant is the fact that anything argued as "ethical" must also be reasonable. If it cannot be demonstrated to be reasonable, then there is no reason for the majority (or the law) to recognize it as ethical.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 23:18:01 GMT
with regards to pedophilia, we have to assume he just means sex with underage persons, what he is avoiding is that it was pretty common for 13 year old women to get married historically so to that extent pedophilia was accepted previously, it's just that we don't accept intercourse with pre-pubescent people. (yes I know that is the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia , but I think Sarodh likes to conflate the two) All the more reason to correct him (and indeed anyone else guilty of this mistake). I prefer not to speculate about what people mean when they say erroneous or crazy sounding things. Rather I respond in a matter that corrects their ignorance as not to perpetuate it any further.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 24, 2017 23:24:13 GMT
with regards to pedophilia, we have to assume he just means sex with underage persons, what he is avoiding is that it was pretty common for 13 year old women to get married historically so to that extent pedophilia was accepted previously, it's just that we don't accept intercourse with pre-pubescent people. (yes I know that is the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia , but I think Sarodh likes to conflate the two) All the more reason to correct him (and indeed anyone else guilty of this mistake). I prefer not to speculate about what people mean when they say erroneous or crazy sounding things. Rather I respond in a matter that corrects their ignorance as not to perpetuate it any further. Fair enough. I am still waiting for an example of an objective ethical stance.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 25, 2017 1:19:49 GMT
Empirical claims aren't provable. That's like saying "water isn't wet". Do you know what empirical evidence actually means? Wow. You're a friggin ignorant moron. You don't even know science methodology 101.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 25, 2017 1:34:16 GMT
That's like saying "water isn't wet". Do you know what empirical evidence actually means? Wow. You're a friggin ignorant moron. You don't even know science methodology 101. Is not one of the definitions of empirical claims that they are verifiable?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 25, 2017 7:50:15 GMT
Empirical claims aren't provable. That's like saying "water isn't wet". Do you know what empirical evidence actually means? Wrong! Scientific laws are not open to revision (otherwise they wouldn't be "laws"). If they are open to revision then they would not be laws. And observable facts can't be revised, other than by saying what was previously observed was not in fact observed. So what you're saying right now is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete ignorance of how science works. But I'm not not going to let a flat earther hijack a thread about genital mutilation (and the ethics associated with it). But more relevant is the fact that anything argued as "ethical" must also be reasonable. If it cannot be demonstrated to be reasonable, then there is no reason for the majority (or the law) to recognize it as ethical. If we were to discover that Newton's first law is not the case in some circumstances we would revise it as it is incorrect. What's so hard to understand? Einstein himself agreed that empirical claims are not provable. Is he an ignorant moron?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 25, 2017 10:03:06 GMT
That ethics is subjective in no way implies that people don't have views about ethics, that they don't want their preferences to dominate, etc. I never suggested that was the case. Well, so that's why things like murder and rape are illegal. It doesn't have anything to do with them being objectively wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 25, 2017 10:41:47 GMT
Wow. You're a friggin ignorant moron. You don't even know science methodology 101. Is not one of the definitions of empirical claims that they are verifiable? What we do in the sciences is provisionally verify a claim, in lieu of falsification. But all claims are falsifiable, or they're not scientific. Claims do not cease to be falsifiable just because we've provisionally verified them. If something has been proved, however, it wouldn't be falsifiable; at least not without an overarching paradigm change. Something that has been proved can not be wrong, or it has not been proved. Falsification isn't always a cut and dried procedure in practice, of course--see the Duhem-Quine thesis, for example, but falsificationism is still a fundamental hallmark of science, even if it's not employed perfectly (and even if a disheartening number of scientists are very sloppy with their language in public contexts--and perhaps some do not know or recall the basics of science methodology very well, so that they do talk about things being proved at times).
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 25, 2017 11:06:16 GMT
Explain how saying the universe came into being because if the big bang is different to saying rape is wrong. There is no difference, you have yet to even explain the difference between them. Your first sentence does not make sense. Assuming you meant "Explain how saying the universe came into being because of the big bang is different to saying rape is wrong.": The first part is about physics, the second part about ethics. There is no theory about there even being a correlation between the Big Bang and occurrences of rape. In short, these statements have nothing to do with each other. Claiming that there is no difference between them is bold, to say the least.
|
|