| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2013 10:22:45 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So why is it that sometimes it's moral to burn heretics at the stake and at other times it isn't? |
All that matters to objective morality is that given the situation it IS moral or it isn't. Their action was either in-line or out-of-line and what they considered about their own situation does not play in the answer.
EDIT: I see we've gone to a new page. Make sure to see the previous posts as well.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 14:25:17. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:24:54 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Within the two scenarios I laid out, why is this subjective? Put yourself in the role of the time machine guy, or the voice hearing guy. The situation is objective, the reaction is subjective. |
Right. I think I'm following you. The time machine scenario lays out specific details of the story. The question I'm trying to raise, is if you gave this scenario to ten people and five answered it WAS correct and five answered it WASN'T correct, is one answer more valid than the other or are they equally valid (or invalid)? A viewer brings their own subjective experience and thoughts to the table, the question is whether those matter to the answer. Artwork morality would say those experiences and thoughts are very important to the answer while math morality would say those experiences do not matter to the answer. |
The "correct" answer is that it depends on your system of ethics, and your culture, time, beliefs, etc.
I spent a full semester studying this, as an honors course, so believe me when I tell you that the answer to this is VERY subjective, and depends on culture as much as anything (culture includes religion)...
Remember that for many cultures, sacrificing their own was not only consider acceptable, but indeed it was seen as desirable - for them, it was perfectly correct - for us, that is completely incorrect.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 14:29:55. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:26:28 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So why is it that sometimes it's moral to burn heretics at the stake and at other times it isn't? |
All that matters to objective morality is that given the situation it IS moral or it isn't. Their action was either in-line or out-of-line and what they considered about their own situation does not play in the answer. |
Morality is based upon beliefs, values, and ethics - effectively, it can be said that many laws and cultural norms are the result of morals, rather than ethics - as morals are not always justifiable through logical means, but ethics must, by definition, be defensible though logic. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:26:29 AM · #204 |
| You are correctly answering for a subjective moral system, Cory. You are not correctly answering for an objective moral system. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:28:09 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are correctly answering for a subjective moral system, Cory. You are not correctly answering for an objective moral system. |
See my post from 1 second before yours. :)
I was answering from an ethical standpoint - morals are a nasty business I would prefer to avoid, since they are effectively entirely subjective.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 14:28:59. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:42:40 AM · #206 |
Mmmm hmmm. I saw what you said. I disagree with them personally. The neat this is that, under your subjective system, my objective system is just another subjective system and, thus, is as correct as your own when it comes to ethics and morality.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 14:43:50. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:47:50 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mmmm hmmm. I saw what you said. I disagree with them personally. The neat this is that, under your subjective system, my objective system is just another subjective system and, thus, is as correct as your own when it comes to ethics and morality. |
Do tell me, what makes yours so objective again?
You're being quite the perfect example of the major problem with religions: You believe so strongly that you actually forget that your beliefs are not objective facts - I understand that they seem very objective to you, but yes, to the rest of us, they are very much subjective. How is it that you can't see such a simple and plain thing? Or have I just completely misunderstood what you were saying? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:53:50 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Artwork morality would say those experiences and thoughts are very important to the answer while math morality would say those experiences do not matter to the answer. |
But Artwork Morality differs from Math Morality only in the most simplistic areas. Both are conditional on the broth of culture. 16th century puritans and 20th century liberation theologist both were using "math" but arrived at polar opposite views of economic distribution theory. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:57:06 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Artwork morality would say those experiences and thoughts are very important to the answer while math morality would say those experiences do not matter to the answer. |
But Artwork Morality differs from Math Morality only in the most simplistic areas. Both are conditional on the broth of culture. 16th century puritans and 20th century liberation theologist both were using "math" but arrived at polar opposite views of economic distribution theory. |
Hence, my observations regarding the nature of morality. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:02:54 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Artwork morality would say those experiences and thoughts are very important to the answer while math morality would say those experiences do not matter to the answer. |
But Artwork Morality differs from Math Morality only in the most simplistic areas. Both are conditional on the broth of culture. 16th century puritans and 20th century liberation theologist both were using "math" but arrived at polar opposite views of economic distribution theory. |
Nein. Math morality isn't conditional to culture. The culture is either correct or incorrect with regard to the math morality. So in the hierarchy the culture is subservient to the morality (where in artwork morality it is the other way around). And while we can possibly arrive at polar opposite views on something, we can then have the conversation that one answer is "more correct" than the other (comparing it to some standard). When we arrive at polar opposite views in artwork morality we are then at an impasse. There is, metaphysically speaking, no way to proceed. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:10:11 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Artwork morality would say those experiences and thoughts are very important to the answer while math morality would say those experiences do not matter to the answer. |
But Artwork Morality differs from Math Morality only in the most simplistic areas. Both are conditional on the broth of culture. 16th century puritans and 20th century liberation theologist both were using "math" but arrived at polar opposite views of economic distribution theory. |
Nein. Math morality isn't conditional to culture. The culture is either correct or incorrect with regard to the math morality. So in the hierarchy the culture is subservient to the morality (where in artwork morality it is the other way around). And while we can possibly arrive at polar opposite views on something, we can then have the conversation that one answer is "more correct" than the other (comparing it to some standard). When we arrive at polar opposite views in artwork morality we are then at an impasse. There is, metaphysically speaking, no way to proceed. |
This is where the ethical system comes in. Of course, that varies somewhat between cultures as well.
The real answer is that there is no answer - and that what is right is, and likely always will be, subjective to conditions and the culture of the moment.
The only issue I take is that I don't think the culture is subservient to the morality - rather I think just the opposite is true, but I do think at times it LOOKS as though the culture is subservient to the morality - which I suspect may actually indicate that it is time for the morality to be reevaluated, as it is clearly no longer supporting the culture, but rather, it is inhibiting and restricting it. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:13:33 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the hierarchy the culture is subservient to the morality (where in artwork morality it is the other way around). And while we can possibly arrive at polar opposite views on something, we can then have the conversation that one answer is "more correct" than the other (comparing it to some standard). When we arrive at polar opposite views in artwork morality we are then at an impasse. There is, metaphysically speaking, no way to proceed. |
So then you can tell me, who is correct? The Calvanist view of the rich being blessed by God's design, or Liberation theology's view of God commanding us to take care of the poor? Since it is divorced from culture and geography, one is right, and one is wrong. Those without biblical guidance have to wander back and forth between ideals and strike a balance, but surely you have the math to get the right answer. If you can do the math. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:56:59 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Their action was either in-line or out-of-line and what they considered about their own situation does not play in the answer. |
So, burining heretics alive -- which is it, moral or not? The Christian Church has obviously said both, so I'm appealing to a higher authority for a definitive ruling ... |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:05:14 PM · #214 |
Blah Blah Blah....Same arguement another day.
A man walked into a doctor's office and the receptionist asked him what he had. He replied, "I got shingles."
She said, "Fill out this form and supply your name, address, medical insurance number. When you're done, please take a seat."
Fifteen minutes later a nurse's aide came out and asked him what he had. He said, "I got shingles."
So she took down his height, weight, and complete medical history, then said, "Change into this gown and wait in the examining room."
A half hour later a nurse came in and asked him what he had. He said, "I got shingles."
So she gave him a blood test, a blood pressure test, an electrocardiogram, and told him to wait for the doctor.
An hour later the doctor came in and asked him what he had. He said, "Shingles."
The doctor gave him a full-cavity examination, and then said, "I just checked you out thoroughly, and I can't find shingles anywhere. " The man replied, "They're outside in the truck. Where do you want them?
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:09:07 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Blah Blah Blah....Same arguement another day.
|
I appreciate that you don't feel that any of this is worth discussing, but to me that simply indicates that you have ceased with rational thought and have instead decided to simple believe what you believe - that's fine for you, but not for me. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:10:13 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Blah Blah Blah....Same arguement another day.
A man walked into a doctor's office and the receptionist asked him what he had. He replied, "I got shingles."
She said, "Fill out this form and supply your name, address, medical insurance number. When you're done, please take a seat."
Fifteen minutes later a nurse's aide came out and asked him what he had. He said, "I got shingles."
So she took down his height, weight, and complete medical history, then said, "Change into this gown and wait in the examining room."
A half hour later a nurse came in and asked him what he had. He said, "I got shingles."
So she gave him a blood test, a blood pressure test, an electrocardiogram, and told him to wait for the doctor.
An hour later the doctor came in and asked him what he had. He said, "Shingles."
The doctor gave him a full-cavity examination, and then said, "I just checked you out thoroughly, and I can't find shingles anywhere. " The man replied, "They're outside in the truck. Where do you want them? |
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:16:34 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Blah Blah Blah....Same arguement another day.
A man walked into a doctor's office and the receptionist asked him what he had. He replied, "I got shingles."
She said, "Fill out this form and supply your name, address, medical insurance number. When you're done, please take a seat."
Fifteen minutes later a nurse's aide came out and asked him what he had. He said, "I got shingles."
So she took down his height, weight, and complete medical history, then said, "Change into this gown and wait in the examining room."
A half hour later a nurse came in and asked him what he had. He said, "I got shingles."
So she gave him a blood test, a blood pressure test, an electrocardiogram, and told him to wait for the doctor.
An hour later the doctor came in and asked him what he had. He said, "Shingles."
The doctor gave him a full-cavity examination, and then said, "I just checked you out thoroughly, and I can't find shingles anywhere. " The man replied, "They're outside in the truck. Where do you want them? |
|
Mauris purus est, fringilla eu lacinia vitae, pulvinar vitae ligula. Cras vel massa nisl. Cras a erat tortor, quis accumsan diam. Vivamus eu erat at nisi vestibulum eleifend et nec turpis. Mauris pharetra mattis purus, eget sollicitudin urna auctor id. Proin non justo felis, aliquam mattis augue. Nullam molestie sapien vel nisl cursus ornare. Donec nec diam orci, vel accumsan mi.
Curabitur ante augue, porttitor faucibus fringilla eu, vestibulum quis erat. Sed vel tortor at nulla mattis vehicula. Sed sit amet velit dui. Maecenas pulvinar urna ut purus vestibulum ut pharetra sapien dapibus. Pellentesque rhoncus semper sagittis. Pellentesque ligula elit, consequat eget blandit vel, sodales ullamcorper purus. Vivamus ullamcorper, lorem in convallis blandit, lectus felis rutrum mi, sed aliquam enim justo sit amet velit. Suspendisse ultrices sapien sit amet turpis consequat eget scelerisque dui blandit. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Etiam at purus sem, eget tincidunt felis. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:37:24 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Mauris purus est, fringilla eu lacinia vitae, pulvinar vitae ligula. Cras vel massa nisl. Cras a erat tortor, quis accumsan diam. Vivamus eu erat at nisi vestibulum eleifend et nec turpis. Mauris pharetra mattis purus, eget sollicitudin urna auctor id. Proin non justo felis, aliquam mattis augue. Nullam molestie sapien vel nisl cursus ornare. Donec nec diam orci, vel accumsan mi.
Curabitur ante augue, porttitor faucibus fringilla eu, vestibulum quis erat. Sed vel tortor at nulla mattis vehicula. Sed sit amet velit dui. Maecenas pulvinar urna ut purus vestibulum ut pharetra sapien dapibus. Pellentesque rhoncus semper sagittis. Pellentesque ligula elit, consequat eget blandit vel, sodales ullamcorper purus. Vivamus ullamcorper, lorem in convallis blandit, lectus felis rutrum mi, sed aliquam enim justo sit amet velit. Suspendisse ultrices sapien sit amet turpis consequat eget scelerisque dui blandit. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Etiam at purus sem, eget tincidunt felis. |
Lauren Ibsen, I love you! :-) |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:39:37 PM · #219 |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:46:04 PM · #220 |
I always find it a nice addition to a discussion to have someone pipe up and tell us we are all stupid and talking about pointless things. It takes me right back to junior high.
No one does on threads about football, of the Nikon v. Cannon threads, just the silly stupid subjects that should be resolved quickly or even better never even thought upon. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:52:52 PM · #221 |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:56:26 PM · #222 |
You talking about my sweetie Lauren Ibsen, sir? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 12:59:52 PM · #223 |
| Just spelling it the way the site does ... seems she has a "thing" for graphic designers though; I didn't know she was that into photographers ... :-) |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:00:32 PM · #224 |
| And I thought Ibsen was hard to make sense of. Is she related? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:00:48 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You talking about my sweetie Lauren Ibsen, sir? |
I suspect he's just making sure the uninformed are fully on board with what I was up to, lest they spend days attempting to make sense of my post. :)
ETA: Just to be quite clear, lest anyone not 'get' it - effectively Lorem Ipsum is meaningless random shit that looks like something - just like the post I was responding to. What better response to nonsense than nonsense?
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 17:06:26. |
|
