Morality = subjective??

[ForeverDreamWithinADream]

Esisis-
Quoting isn't working on the iPad but anyways.

Sorry, but I disagree. If it wasn't subjective, almost everyone would share the same values, no matter the religion or where they are from. Opinions are just that, opinion. You don't to need to have them qualified to have them, they aren't the same as facts. Opinions can't be wrong, just different as they aren't the same thing as facts, which are proven and backed up. That's why we have diversity and why people in the even in same religion or country don't share the same views or have the same morals.  

[Lady Kayura]

Esiris

Lady Kayura

It most certainly is subjective and varies from culture to culture.

Just because a culture believes something is right- that doesn't make it so. See above about the Nazi and Jewish executions of LGBT people.

I don't understand why you quoted me. Are you trying to counter my point that morality is subjective? If so, try again.  

[Esiris]

Lady Kayura

Esiris

Lady Kayura

It most certainly is subjective and varies from culture to culture.

Just because a culture believes something is right- that doesn't make it so. See above about the Nazi and Jewish executions of LGBT people.

I don't understand why you quoted me. Are you trying to counter my point that morality is subjective? If so, try again.

If you reread the post you'll note I explained in detail why it isn't subjective- which contradicts the claim I bolded in your post above, and how it is different from cultural pluralism, as italicized above. So- I quoted you because I have explained with logic why your claim is contradictory and false.
The first one is addressed by the logical refutation of relativism.

Playboy Karasu Uchiha

Esisis-
Quoting isn't working on the iPad but anyways.

Sorry, but I disagree. If it wasn't subjective, almost everyone would share the same values, no matter the religion or where they are from.

That isn't true- people have motivations that cause them to act in immoral ways.

Quote:

Opinions are just that, opinion. You don't to need to have them qualified to have them, they aren't the same as facts

Opinions are opinions- but some are qualified opinions and some are unqualified opinions. This is addressed by Plato when he discussed which opinions should bear weight and which shouldn't because having an opinion doesn't mean it has the support of facts.

Quote:

Opinions can't be wrong,

Opinions can be wrong- and you haven't shown they can't. You're just saying they can't be.

If you have the opinion that 1+1=452, you're wrong. It's ok to be wrong, but that doesn't make the opinion right just because it's what you think. Doctors give their medical opinions when they diagnose, but a misdiagnosis doesn't magically transform the virus a person is sick with into the virus they diagnosed someone as having.
These are two solid examples that directly contract your claim and show your opinion to be false.

Quote:

That's why we have diversity and why people in the even in same religion or country don't share the same views or have the same morals.

Please don't confuse diversity with justifying immorality in the guise of cultural pluralism- cultural pluralism allows for the fact that cultures have differences- but it doesn't spontaneously turn immoral actions into moral ones. Raping a child doesn't become moral just because it's commonly accepted in some cultures. The harm done to them- which can be objectively shown through medical and psychological examination doesn't disappear.

Please support any responses to me with evidence- just repeating unsupported claims is like repeating 1+1=452.  

[Lady Kayura]

Esiris

If you reread the post you'll note I explained in detail why it isn't subjective- which contradicts the claim I bolded in your post above, and how it is different from cultural pluralism, as italicized above. So- I quoted you because I have explained with logic why your claim is contradictory and false.

Why should I even think that the entire post was directed at me when the quote was half way down? And the part that was clearly in response wasn't a good counter.

As for rereading the post, there's one thing I don't often say to people.

TL;DR.

Nor do I plan to. Based on what you've shown me directly (by response to my quote) you haven't countered my point. I don't plan to spend time reading all your writing to find you didn't counter my point. Work on waffling less and get to the point.
 

[Esiris]

Lady Kayura

Why should I even think that the entire post was directed at me when the quote was half way down? And the part that was clearly in response wasn't a good counter.

As for rereading the post, there's one thing I don't often say to people.

TL;DR.

Nor do I plan to. Based on what you've shown me directly (by response to my quote) you haven't countered my point. I don't plan to spend time reading all your writing to find you didn't counter my point. Work on waffling less and get to the point.

Just because you don't feel like reading someone whose post proves you wrong, doesn't make you right.
Moral relativism is self defeating- because the moment someone disagrees with it, it creates a paradox, by supporting objective morality- it means that it can no longer be absolute.

If there can't be any such thing as absolute truth, then even that claim can't be true.

Personal relativism would mean than individuals who support objective morality are either right- according to moral relativism, or wrong- creating a concrete example as proof moral relativism is wrong.

The agnostic moral relativism means you can't know that you can't know, which is self defeating.

If you go for an argument from "it's not my reality", you break the very meaning of what reality is, defeating the argument.

If you say we only see what we want- you can't know that you're not self-deluding.

Every argument that makes up your stance is addressed. What you haven't addressed is proof that objective morality doesn't exist, or how simply claiming that something isn't immoral because people think so suddenly makes it moral- regardless of the objective damage it does that we can test and verify.

Could you stop the slight of hand arguments and address the facts?  

[Lady Kayura]

Esiris

Just because you don't feel like reading someone whose post proves you wrong, doesn't make you right.

While true, I read part of your post and it didn't prove me wrong. Ergo, I still see myself as right. And frankly I don't care enough about the debate to even read past the line I quoted. So feel free to keep trying to prove your point but I doubt I'll read.  

[Esiris]

Lady Kayura

While true, I read part of your post and it didn't prove me wrong.

Why don't you address why it doesn't instead of just saying it doesn't?

If you don't read why people disagree- you're pretty much just spamming which I think is against the rules.  

[Lady Kayura]

Esiris

Why don't you address why it doesn't instead of just saying it doesn't?

If you don't read why people disagree- you're pretty much just spamming which I think is against the rules.

What part of "I read the part right after you quoted me" are not not comprehending? It didn't counter my point. And I already explained that I'm not vested in the discussion enough to care to even try to sway you.

If you think I'm spamming then feel free to report me to one of the in guild mods. And here I thought I was being polite by responding to you and you decide to threaten.  

[Esiris]

Lady Kayura

It didn't counter my point.

Just saying that doesn't mean it doesn't though- explain how it doesn't instead of repeating yourself please.

Quote:

you decide to threaten.

When did making an observation that repeating yourself without any substance is spam become a threat?

I mean- you're in a GSA, people here are threatened with being killed for being different an someone saying "this looks like spam- do something different to avoid it looking like spam which is against the rules" is somehow a threat?  

[Lady Kayura]

Esiris

Lady Kayura

It didn't counter my point.

Just saying that doesn't mean it doesn't though- explain how it doesn't instead of repeating yourself please.

Quote:

you decide to threaten.

When did making an observation that repeating yourself without any substance is spam become a threat?

I mean- you're in a GSA, people here are threatened with being killed for being different an someone saying "this looks like spam- do something different to avoid it looking like spam which is against the rules" is somehow a threat?

What part of "I am not emotionally vested in this" do you not get? I don't care to explain myself or try to sway your opinion. It's that simple.

And yes, I saw your comment about spam as a threat. "Do something different or I'll report you" was the implied meaning I got from it. It comes off as a threat as a way to get me to discuss something I don't really care about. Did you mean to threaten me? Perhaps not. But I perceive it as such. So I'll repeat, if you feel I'm spamming so much and it bothers you, then report me.

As for comparing your threat to me and others being threatened with violence and harm, there are varying degrees of most things in life, including threats. The point of a threat is to invoke fear. Now, you can't do much to me since we're online. I don't have a reason to fear that you'll find me and beat me. So perhaps you're hinting at another way to possibly hurt me.

Though frankly, if I'm spamming so are you. I've made my point clear and you keep bothering me to debate it with you. I'm not. And I'm growing tired of being polite in replying to you.  

[Esiris]

Lady Kayura

I don't care to explain myself

Then why post at all? Why have an opinion that is splattered about in a discussion thread?

This is another contradiction:

Quote:

Did you mean to threaten me? ...The point of a threat is to invoke fear.

If the point of a threat is to evoke fear (invoke is to cause something in yourself, evoke is to cause something outside yourself)- then you're projecting your feelings onto others. This is another good example of why subjective perspectives are flawed.  

[Taeryyn]

Stop derailing the thread (both of you) and leave each other alone.  

[Matasoga]

This depends on whether you mean how morality is defined, or what morality actually is.  

[Esiris]

Matasoga

This depends on whether you mean how morality is defined, or what morality actually is.

I don't think people have really tried to define morality in this thread- instead they just list examples.