Submitted by bluelotus214 t3_10nht8x in worldnews
history_fan40 t1_j69phpv wrote
Reply to comment by ThessierAshpool in Ukraine: ‘Fast-track’ talks underway for missiles, planes by bluelotus214
There’s no such thing as objectively wrong, so no, it’s not objectively wrong. However, most of us may agree in subjectively considering it wrong.
Head_of_Lettuce t1_j69qoer wrote
That was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing
history_fan40 t1_j69smpz wrote
What?
Head_of_Lettuce t1_j69tgcr wrote
My point is that you're not really addressing the point of that person's comment.
history_fan40 t1_j69wolk wrote
I did, though. They’re claiming it’s objectively wrong.
NozE8 t1_j6ao56o wrote
What is your point? The human mind is not capable of being truly objective ergo nothing is truly objective. However in this context the use of the word is acceptable. Murder is wrong. This is a statement of fact and law not one based on feelings. Just because you can find a handful of crazy people that think they should be able to kill someone for any reason in their head doesn't invalidate the claim of objectivity.
You must be fun at parties.
history_fan40 t1_j6btj8m wrote
> Murder is wrong
Not objectively. You say it is a statement of fact and not feeling, yet it is a statement of feeling. Everyone who was born is going to die anyways, so by your reasoning I’m assuming you also consider reproduction wrong? I mean in that case I would agree but for different reasons, but that is irrelevant.
NozE8 t1_j6bzzzx wrote
The human mind is not capable of being truly objective ergo nothing is truly objective as I have said.
In the real world contemporary society has agreed that to function we have a certain set of rules that we agree in a way to be objectively true. Splitting this hair will get you no where.
history_fan40 t1_j6c0hfe wrote
We agree it to be subjectively considered true, not objectively.
[deleted] t1_j6ak8oh wrote
[removed]
dadude100 t1_j69t2ry wrote
Murder is not objectively wrong? You’re just spewing nonsense, fuck off.
Number6isNo1 t1_j6auyd8 wrote
Sounds like one of my friends in college after he took Philosophy 101. Thought he was fucking Aristotle after being assigned an excerpt from Nicomachean Ethics. Insufferable for a month or so.
history_fan40 t1_j69w09e wrote
Objective means factual. Good and bad are not fact-based.
Further, one could argue that action is actually doing the person a favor.
It’s not nonsense just because you disagree. It’s actually what this sub is generally obsessed with, nuance.
vkstu t1_j6a4knr wrote
>Good and bad are not fact-based
It's objectively bad to drink bleach, to maintain well being.
history_fan40 t1_j6a550y wrote
That’s conditional, not really objective.
What happens as a result of that isn’t objectively bad, and besides, that will happen to us all no matter what.
vkstu t1_j6a63za wrote
Of course it's conditional, life is conditional. You can objectively say genocide is bad based on the conditions provided. And if that condition is that life is 'sacred' or whether genocide itself is outlawed, then you cannot but conclude that what is happening in Ukraine is objectively bad.
history_fan40 t1_j6a7ded wrote
Right, but life is not “sacred”.
Something being illegal also doesn’t make it objectively bad. For example, atheism is criminalized in Saudi Arabia, but it isn’t objectively bad (again, nothing is).
However, I do agree with you in subjectively determining that genocide is not good (it is also not objectively good, as nothing is). It is also not objectively bad.
Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.
vkstu t1_j6a85df wrote
I think you missed the point of it being conditional... It's a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely objective, it's also a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely subjective. Conditions are which will decide whether something is subjectively or objectively good or bad.
As for whether life is 'sacred', it's why I added quotation marks around it. I don't mean it in the literal sense, I mean it in the conventions we've universally decided on.
> Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.
Ah, it's flawed, yet I see no argument as to why. Interesting.
history_fan40 t1_j6bdcwi wrote
Ah, but I was talking in terms of ethics. Ethical good and bad are entirely subjective.
If the goal is to maintain stable health, drinking water does help, but it’s not objectively good. A goal of maintaining stable health is also not objectively good to have.
vkstu t1_j6bhem9 wrote
I suggest you start reading about ethical objectivism. You've clearly skipped this part in philosophy.
history_fan40 t1_j6c19om wrote
I’ve read about it and can clearly see it is nonsensical. “Morality” and “ethics” are concepts we invented.
vkstu t1_j6c7etp wrote
Hahaha, well then our discussion is done. You clearly haven't understood the meaning of it. Your view is too black and white. At this point our argument will devolve in your position is nonsensical, no yours, no yours.
As for whether we invented it or not. Did we invent maths or are they part of fundamental truths of the universe? Why can't that hold for (parts of) morality or ethics?
history_fan40 t1_j6d0gf0 wrote
Math is objective. One cannot simply say “2 + 2 is 85 because I said so”. 2 + 2 is in fact not 85.
Morality and ethics are not objective. There’s no such thing as “fundamental truths of the universe”. In some cases, an action is considered bad, while in others, it is considered good. Meanwhile, 2 + 2 is always equal to 4.
Life did not always exist and will not always exist. One person having a certain idea of ethics does not make it objective. Further, any decision made by humans or other complex animals is entirely based on the electrical signals being transmitted among their neurons. You can’t judge these actions.
vkstu t1_j6d4ne1 wrote
Why? You haven't explained why it can't be so at all. In fact every building block in the world is based on those fundamental laws, so in essence, however complex we are we still are build and limited by it. Ergo, ethics and morality can therefore also be fundamental. One may consider something good, but be wrong. Exactly like someone who says 2+2=85 is wrong. Just because there are more opinions, doesn't negate the fact it can logically be a wrong opinion.
Also funny you speak of electrical signals as basis of our consciousness, if anything that proves my point.
history_fan40 t1_j6d5v5d wrote
How can something be objectively ethically good or bad? That entirely depends on what a person considers “desirable”, which is subjective.
How does it prove your point? You do realize parts of our brains are for subjective things, right?
vkstu t1_j6dclwf wrote
A universe based on fundamental truths cannot create something that does not adhere by those fundamental truths. It's based on objectivity and thus we cannot suddenly have subjectivity. Differing opinions does not mean that it is therefore subjective, it means that the parameters have changed. For something good to one, can make it bad to another due to their internal parameters (their life). Where genocide of one species, can be good for another, it still is fundamentally bad for the species being genocided.
history_fan40 t1_j6dl2wv wrote
Ethics and morality are not “fundamental truths”.
You’re again subjectively placing a positive value on life and existence.
vkstu t1_j6dm1xb wrote
That's not a response at all. You're merely saying it isn't because you think it isn't, there isn't an argument in there. Nature itself is based on fundamental laws, your brain uses fundamental laws to work, your thoughts therefore are based on fundamental laws. It can of course reach faulty conclusions, or think 'different' based on different parameters used, creating the illusion of subjectivity.
I am not placing any value on it, I'm saying that ending existance is a negative to existance. That's objective. It's like saying 0-1=-1 is a negative.
history_fan40 t1_j6dmmw5 wrote
Life didn’t always exist, so ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life. Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.
> negative to existence
Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.
vkstu t1_j6dodnb wrote
> Life didn’t always exist
Define life.
> So ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life.
Nor is that its intention, that does not make them unable to be objective. It's a false equivalence.
> Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.
I think quantum theory would like a word with you. But, that still does not argue that morality can't be objective. Just because we've thought of them, does not make them illogical or non objective.
> Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.
Sure, so living is a positive then. I figured you would've wanted me to express existance as a 0 (nihilism), hence my example.
vkstu t1_j6a3lyj wrote
I'd love to hear your explanation of how genocide can be (morality wise) good, to counter an 'it's objectively wrong' argument. For it to be unable to be called objectively wrong, one needs to be able to prove it can be good (subjectively or otherwise).
history_fan40 t1_j6a4f8p wrote
Things can be neither good nor bad (and objectively, they are always neither of those). But if you want me to name one thing I would consider a positive, if it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again. I don’t support it, because this is selective, which means treating groups unequally with no reason, which I don’t agree with. So no, I don’t consider it good.
However, nothing can be objectively wrong no matter what it is, because “wrong” is a subjective statement, just as “right” or “good” are.
vkstu t1_j6a4wrp wrote
You're wrong.
As I replied to another post of yours, you can very well make objectively good and bad statements.
It is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being. For example.
> If it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again.
Making a huge assumption here that they are or were suffering before being genocided. So that's adding a precondition that isn't necessarily so to the question asked.
history_fan40 t1_j6a6zvr wrote
> it is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being
Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.
“Maintaining well being” cannot be considered objectively good. Nothing can, just as nothing can be considered objectively bad.
> assumption that they are or were suffering
Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers. If you doubt that, suffering is literally defined as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”. One technically undergoes hardship while trying to get food, which one needs in order to live.
vkstu t1_j6a7k9s wrote
> Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.
No, because you in this case subjectively add that expanding territory is always a positive. It may not be for multitude of reasons. Not hydrating yourself properly is never a positive for your well being.
> Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers.
Ah, a nihilism hardliner are we? Most people would put the cons and pros against each other to decide whether they're suffering in life, rather than only look at the bad to decide they're suffering.
history_fan40 t1_j6a8hbg wrote
> you in this case subjectively add
You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.
> decide whether they’re suffering
I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.
vkstu t1_j6a91zc wrote
>You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.
That's not what subjective means. Expanding territory is in this case meant as always being a positive, which doesn't have to be so. Well being is clearly defined, your body dying is not maintaining well being. Hence always objectively good and bad by the condition provided. I think you've missed the part of philosophical teachings regarding good and bad that states regarding health issues and a few other things it can very well be made to be objective.
>I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.
You have not. You implied all people suffer by definition, but that is not the case. People suffer when they have more hardship to deal with than pleasure they feel. You're looking at it from a very nihilistic and negative view, that any bit of hardship means people suffer. If we follow your reasoning, I can also argue all people are joyous. For they have moments in their life that are joyful, tasting food for example.
progrethth t1_j6a4wpi wrote
Technically correct but pointless, like the rest of your comments.
history_fan40 t1_j6a5tsf wrote
Agreed.
nagrom7 t1_j6b6coa wrote
> There’s no such thing as objectively wrong
Believe it or not, this is objectively wrong. If someone says 2+2=85, they are objectively wrong. There are a lot of things in this word that are not just a matter of opinion, as much as certain groups of delusional people disagree.
history_fan40 t1_j6bd0yr wrote
I was saying one can’t judge something as ethically “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”.
Obviously someone saying 2 + 2 = 85 is objectively wrong.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments