|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 20:04:28 GMT
Utilitarianism is 100% subjective, not objective. It holds that each action must be evaluated based on the circumstances, and in some circumstances it is ok to kill (for example) while in others it is not. How would that make it subjective? In terms of morality and ethics, objective is independent of the observer, in all cases a moral rule would be the same, subjective is dependent on the observer, as utilitarianism requires that the circumstance is measured by the observer for it's utility, it is subjective. Moreover as humans (and this is the fault of Utility as a moral code) we evaluate things based on personal feelings and desires, making utilitarianism subjective in both the moral definition and the dictionary definition.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 26, 2017 20:33:54 GMT
You can feel compelled to be as douchy and insulting as you want to be, even in the face of facts that categorically paint your argument as nonsensical. I hope that serves you well, but none of that is going to make you correct about anything or garner respect from anyone else here (something you should probably work on). At the end of the day your position at best has been explained or rationalized poorly to the extreme; at worst it smply makes no sense at all and lacks a logical foundation. You are at liberty to update, correct, or expand upon your initial comments in hopes of making a coherent, logical statement that has some impact with respect to the thread. Your strawman have done nothing but make you look like I fool. There was no straw man. You said: "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?"The reason your statement was so hard to understand is because it defies all logic and reason. The idea that a law may not be the case in some circumstances is indicative of you not understanding what the word law means (scientifically speaking). A law always applies under specific circumstances spelled out by that law, otherwise it is by definition NOT a law. Scientific laws are discovered and then written in such a way as to specify the conditions of which the law applies. Newton's First law for example posits that a body in motion stays in motion UNLESS acted upon by an outside force. So, there are already certain known circumstances allowed for by the law in which an object in motion will NOT stay in motion. But there is no situation allowed for in the law in which an object in motion can suddenly slow down or stop for no apparent reason. That's never been observed before, and there is no reason why anyone should ever expect that to be observed in the future. That's why it's a law! Now, that is the answer to your question (which you brought up). See above!
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 26, 2017 20:47:41 GMT
Your strawman have done nothing but make you look like I fool. There was no straw man. You said: "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?"Scientific laws are discovered and then written in such a way as to specify the conditions of which the law applies. Newton's First law for example posits that a body in motion stays in motion UNLESS acted upon by an outside force. So, there are already certain known circumstances allowed for by the law in which an object in motion will NOT stay in motion. But there is no situation allowed for in the law in which an object in motion can suddenly slow down or stop for no apparent reason. That's never been observed before, and there is no reason why anyone should ever expect that to be observed in the future. That's why it's a law! Now, that is the answer to your question (which you brought up). See above! All I meant by that is that if we were to discover that in some unique situation on object can remain in motion without an unbalanced force then we would revise it to say "In all circumstances bar circumstance x a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a balanced force". Therefore what we consider a law can change. What is so hard to understand you complete and utter moron?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 26, 2017 21:16:44 GMT
There was no straw man. You said: "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?"Scientific laws are discovered and then written in such a way as to specify the conditions of which the law applies. Newton's First law for example posits that a body in motion stays in motion UNLESS acted upon by an outside force. So, there are already certain known circumstances allowed for by the law in which an object in motion will NOT stay in motion. But there is no situation allowed for in the law in which an object in motion can suddenly slow down or stop for no apparent reason. That's never been observed before, and there is no reason why anyone should ever expect that to be observed in the future. That's why it's a law! Now, that is the answer to your question (which you brought up). See above! All I meant by that is that if we were to discover that in some unique situation on object can remain in motion without an unbalanced force then we would revise it to say "In all circumstances bar circumstance x a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a balanced force". Therefore what we consider a law can change. What is so hard to understand you complete and utter moron? You know, this is the third time you've casually thrown out a completely unnecessary insult (I suppose expecting to strengthen your argument in doing so), and I let it slide the first two times. But at this point my give a f*ck meter with respect to anything you have to say has been all but depleted. One of these days you're going to grow up (or not) and realize that ad hominem and childish insults actually make you look weak and desperate in general debate among adults. And eventually you'll figure out (or not) that people are more inclined to take you seriously and give you the time of day when you comport yourself in a mature, respectful manner. I only hope for your sake that day comes sooner rather than later, otherwise you're going to spend most of your time here being embarrassed because everyone else is likely to view YOU as the fool (whether you happen to be correct or not). Good luck with that, and I don't think I have anything else to say to you until you reach that maturity milestone. An apology would be a good first step, but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 26, 2017 22:57:39 GMT
Explain what features of ethical views mean they don't have to be objective. Short answer: All of them. Longer answer is possible but unnecessary in your case. Just reread gadreel's posts and understand them.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Jul 27, 2017 7:23:55 GMT
Newton's First law for example posits that a body in motion stays in motion UNLESS acted upon by an outside force. So, there are already certain known circumstances allowed for by the law in which an object in motion will NOT stay in motion. Newton's first law of motion: unless acted upon by a net force, a body of mass will remain rectilinearly at constant velocity. Even if a body of mass is at rest, it's still travelling at a constant velocity, i.e. zero acceleration. The first law is a law of motion so it makes no mention of not staying in motion. If you're talking about friction then this has nothing to do with the first law, so I don't understand what you mean by 'certain known circumstances allowed for by the law in which an object in motion will NOT stay in motion'. Given that gravity (an outside force) permeates the whole universe, how are any observations made affirming or rejecting the law?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 9:19:15 GMT
Explain what features of ethical views mean they don't have to be objective. Short answer: All of them. Longer answer is possible but unnecessary in your case. Just reread gadreel's posts and understand them. You're avoiding the question. How is an ethical stance any different then a scientific stance?
|
|
|
Post by Commander_Jim on Jul 27, 2017 9:22:12 GMT
knives and genitals should never meet it's common sense
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 11:13:23 GMT
...religious? Feds expand female genital mutilation probe to three major US cities"Currently, police believe six people conspired to cut prepubescent girls as part of a religious act that Shia Muslims from India's Dawoodi Bohra region practice. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, Mich., is a central figure in the federal probe. Nagarwala is alleged to have mutilated 100 girls' genitalia at a medical clinic in Livonia, Mich, Detroit News reported. He is currently in jail and will ask to be released on bond during a court hearing next week. Nagarwala's lawyer has argued the doctor removed mucous membrane from the girls' genitalia, calling it a benign religious procedure compared to mutilation." Genital Mutilation Federal Probe ExpandsIt's not mutilation of its only "mucous membrane" Male infant circumcision is worldwide scientific concensus, enthusiastically endorsed by the WHO, CDC, NIH, AMA, etc... In case you ever doubted science was a religion. This is false. Male infant circumcision does not have scientific consensus, just the opposite: All alleged benefits of circumcision are highly controversial. There were some trials conducted in Africa, but they were neither double blinded or even completed. Therefore no scientific value, and at any rate contradicted by global statistics. Even the WHO only recommends routine male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa, and nowhere else. But even that is a stupid decision which will backfire when circumcised males find yet another reason not to use condoms.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 12:53:39 GMT
Short answer: All of them. Longer answer is possible but unnecessary in your case. Just reread gadreel's posts and understand them. You're avoiding the question. How is an ethical stance any different then a scientific stance? Ethics are based on how we feel society ought to be. A scientific stance is based on evidence and can be verified (or refuted) objectively.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 27, 2017 12:58:47 GMT
You're avoiding the question. How is an ethical stance any different then a scientific stance? Ethics are based on how we feel society ought to be. A scientific stance is based on evidence and can be verified (or refuted) objectively. That this is even a question in the first place that needs to be explained is astonishing and frankly quite scary as well.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 13:04:01 GMT
Ethics are based on how we feel society ought to be. A scientific stance is based on evidence and can be verified (or refuted) objectively. That this is even a question in the first place that needs to be explained is astonishing and frankly quite scary as well. My impression, from having debated this very question nearly to the point of exhaustion over the years, is that some people feel that if something is subjective, then it doesn't count as much as if it were objective. That if something is subjectively wrong, then it matters less than if it were objectively wrong. They would like to say that such and such is wrong "no matter what", but ethics doesn't work like that.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 27, 2017 13:05:20 GMT
How is an ethical stance any different then a scientific stance? Does it matter? If yes: Why?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 13:11:04 GMT
You're avoiding the question. How is an ethical stance any different then a scientific stance? Ethics are based on how we feel society ought to be. A scientific stance is based on evidence and can be verified (or refuted) objectively. 1) It also says how things are (whether an act was ethical or not). To say "murder is unethical" is to describe a quality of murder. 2) How does that make it subjective? Do you even know what that means? Define it.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 13:12:37 GMT
Ethics are based on how we feel society ought to be. A scientific stance is based on evidence and can be verified (or refuted) objectively. That this is even a question in the first place that needs to be explained is astonishing and frankly quite scary as well. Lol aren't you the same guy who got confused between ethical views and metaethics. You also got confused between revising statements and changing definitions.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 27, 2017 15:10:28 GMT
That this is even a question in the first place that needs to be explained is astonishing and frankly quite scary as well. Lol aren't you the same guy who got confused between ethical views and metaethics. You also got confused between revising statements and changing definitions. Aren't you the same guy who I very clearly called out for inappropriately using insults as part of your argument, and specifically made it clear that unless you demonstrated some maturity I wouldn't be interested in your opinion on any subject? I mean, if you don't even understand how to properly make an argument in support of your views, there's no reason for anyone to believe that you know anything about "science" (or anything else). You have the opportunity to apologize at any time (should humility compel you to do so).
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 15:15:52 GMT
Lol aren't you the same guy who got confused between ethical views and metaethics. You also got confused between revising statements and changing definitions. Aren't you the same guy who I very clearly called out for inappropriately using insults as part of your argument, and specifically made it clear that unless you demonstrated some maturity I wouldn't be interested in your opinion on any subject? I mean, if you don't even understand how to properly make an argument in support of your views, there's no reason for anyone to believe that you know anything about "science" (or anything else). You have the opportunity to apologize at any time (should humility compel you to do so). Lol you were the first one in this thread to insult someone when you called Terrapin an ignorant moron.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 16:59:14 GMT
Ethics are based on how we feel society ought to be. A scientific stance is based on evidence and can be verified (or refuted) objectively. 1) It also says how things are (whether an act was ethical or not). To say "murder is unethical" is to describe a quality of murder. 2) How does that make it subjective? Do you even know what that means? Define it. 1) Ethics do not describe how things are. They don't describe things at all, as it is a metaphysical concept, rather than dealing with physical characteristics. There are no correct or incorrect answers in ethics, only right or wrong. And these change - not based on evidence of any kind, but what people in a society want at any given time. 2) Subjective means it is true or false relative to the eye of the beholder. In other words, something which may be true for me may not be true for you. "Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived" - may be true for me, but that doesn't make it true for you. So it is subjective. It's not correct or incorrect, it is either right or wrong - depending on whom you ask. Ethics are the same. There are only subjective rights and wrongs, as nothing can be proven objectively. Certain acts are right or wrong - according to certain values. But value - any sort of value - only exists in the mind. The universe doesn't care what we do to each other, only we care. And it is because we care that some things are important - to us. Nothing is important, period. Things only have importance insofar as there are people who think they have importance. And if two different people have two different sets of values, there is no objective way to determine who is right and who is wrong. There are only subjective ways.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 27, 2017 17:08:18 GMT
1) It also says how things are (whether an act was ethical or not). To say "murder is unethical" is to describe a quality of murder. 2) How does that make it subjective? Do you even know what that means? Define it. 1) Ethics do not describe how things are. They don't describe things at all, as it is a metaphysical concept, rather than dealing with physical characteristics. There are no correct or incorrect answers in ethics, only right or wrong. And these change - not based on evidence of any kind, but what people in a society want at any given time. 2) Subjective means it is true or false relative to the eye of the beholder. In other words, something which may be true for me may not be true for you. "Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived" - may be true for me, but that doesn't make it true for you. So it is subjective. It's not correct or incorrect, it is either right or wrong - depending on whom you ask. Ethics are the same. There are only subjective rights and wrongs, as nothing can be proven objectively. Certain acts are right or wrong - according to certain values. But value - any sort of value - only exists in the mind. The universe doesn't care what we do to each other, only we care. And it is because we care that some things are important - to us. Nothing is important, period. Things only have importance insofar as there are people who think they have importance. And if two different people have two different sets of values, there is no objective way to determine who is right and who is wrong. There are only subjective ways. 1.I dont think you know what metaphysics is. 2.I don't think anybody would deny that certain people have different models of reality and each person would have a different model of reality. I don't think that is the conventional definitioln of subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 27, 2017 17:14:52 GMT
1) Ethics do not describe how things are. They don't describe things at all, as it is a metaphysical concept, rather than dealing with physical characteristics. There are no correct or incorrect answers in ethics, only right or wrong. And these change - not based on evidence of any kind, but what people in a society want at any given time. 2) Subjective means it is true or false relative to the eye of the beholder. In other words, something which may be true for me may not be true for you. "Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived" - may be true for me, but that doesn't make it true for you. So it is subjective. It's not correct or incorrect, it is either right or wrong - depending on whom you ask. Ethics are the same. There are only subjective rights and wrongs, as nothing can be proven objectively. Certain acts are right or wrong - according to certain values. But value - any sort of value - only exists in the mind. The universe doesn't care what we do to each other, only we care. And it is because we care that some things are important - to us. Nothing is important, period. Things only have importance insofar as there are people who think they have importance. And if two different people have two different sets of values, there is no objective way to determine who is right and who is wrong. There are only subjective ways. 1.I dont think you know what metaphysics is. 2.I don't think anybody would deny that certain people have different models of reality and each person would have a different model of reality. I don't think that is the conventional definitioln of subjective. 1. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just say so. 2. How about you explain why you think ethics are objective.
|
|