Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community

. . Ok, so I was thinking . . .


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by phuturephunk

. . . but morals do have significant objective value. . They prove to the subject being subjectified that he/she/it can objectively state that there are people indeed subjectifying it to something other than the objective conclusion that it exists . . .

. . .Try again kiddo . . .

Not sure what you mean by "conclusion", but...

What you're talking about a moral code (if I'm understanding you correctly). The fact that I'm being subjectified and given a value doesn't mean that which is subjectifying me is objectively significant. All that it proves to me is that such a moral standpointexists, which in it self means practically nothing in terms of moral value. Don't forget that in order for a moral code to be objective, it has to hold true and stand up to any and EVERY kind of challenge to exactly why its prescription stands. All you're saying is the moral code exists, which isn't anything more than a description.

. . .Try again kiddo . . .

(and you just HAD to do this while I'm at work, DIDN'T YOU?!?!?!?!?! :mad: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by xpander

Not sure what you mean by "conclusion", but...

What you're talking about a moral code (if I'm understanding you correctly). The fact that I'm being subjectified and given a value doesn't mean that which is subjectifying me is objectively significant. All that it proves to me is that such a moral standpointexists, which in it self means practically nothing in terms of moral value. Don't forget that in order for a moral code to be objective, it has to hold true and stand up to any and EVERY kind of challenge to exactly why its prescription stands. All you're saying is the moral code exists, which isn't anything more than a description.

. . .Try again kiddo . . .

(and you just HAD to do this while I'm at work, DIDN'T YOU?!?!?!?!?! :mad: )

. . No no no, you're missing the point . . . Morals are subjective, considering the fact that two human beings from different backgrounds, or even the same in many instances, will view the amount of 'right' and 'wrong' in a situation differently . . . Observing that something exists is an objective conclusion (e.g. you either ARE or ARE NOT standing in front of me eating a hotdog. . ) in and of itself. All morals are inherantly amoral because we have posed that morals are inherantly subjective to the view of the observer and therefore cannot be truly moral.

Observing that something exists is an observation that has no weight of 'right' and 'wrong' attached to it . While you're eating soup, there either IS or IS NO spoon, there is no grey area of the spoon half existing . . The spoon either IS or IS NOT in your hand and currently lifting the steamy soup to your mouth . . . Therefore, we can say that observing somethings existence is inherantly devoid of justice and morality, therefore validating my claim that observing things in our universe is both moral and objective . . . hence, true objectivity . . .

. . Q.E.D. . . . :aright: . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by phuturephunk

. . No no no, you're missing the point . . . Morals are subjective, considering the fact that two human beings from different backgrounds, or even the same in many instances, will view the amount of 'right' and 'wrong' in a situation differently . . . Observing that something exists is an objective conclusion (e.g. you either ARE or ARE NOT standing in front of me eating a hotdog. . ) in and of itself. All morals are inherantly amoral because we have posed that morals are inherantly subjective to the view of the observer and therefore cannot be truly moral.

Observing that something exists is an observation that has no weight of 'right' and 'wrong' attached to it . While you're eating soup, there either IS or IS NO spoon, there is no grey area of the spoon half existing . . The spoon either IS or IS NOT in your hand and currently lifting the steamy soup to your mouth . . . Therefore, we can say that observing somethings existence is inherantly devoid of justice and morality, therefore validating my claim that observing things in our universe is both moral and objective . . . hence, true objectivity . . .

. . Q.E.D. . . . :aright: . . .

mor·al __Pronunciation Key__(môrl, mr-)

adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

I think we're discussing different aspects of Morals here. I still don't see how you're justifying observing anything as inherently devoid of justice and morality. I mean, it is, but then again, so is smelling pumpkin pie. Exactly how is that moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...