Morals Are Completely Subjective

[Freedomcry]

Ok, so replace "legal" with "social conditioning" and answer the question.

Ok

So basically, the only reason you are against it is because of social conditioning. If you weren't socially conditioned that way, you would no longer be "pained" by the act?

I'll answer first by saying that the painful reaction could be equally cause by biology (in contrast with sociology).

If biology does not play a role then the following would be true:
If I was socially conditioned to not view rape as "wrong", then.....I would have been socially conditioned to not view rape as wrong. Hence, I would not view rape as wrong.

However, that's not the society I live in. Rape is wrong in our society and I have been raised accordingly.

 

[Nineveh]

I doubt that it would be OK to me, but then again, if "I" were raised in another culture, I wouldn't really be me anymore. I think it is wrong for all people in all cultures to rape 3 year olds.

Well, who cares what you think? What you think won't convict a freak who commits this rape.

So, to determine whether an action is moral or immoral you wait until you have a Bible around and then you look it up in Exodus? Or, do you have the Law of the Creator memorized?

Reading through it once was enough to familiarize myself with what is known as "the milk", that being basic right and wrong.

And the reason you believe that raping a 3 year old comatose girl is wrong is because that is what it says in Exodus?

I know it absolutely.

 

[Nineveh]

I'll answer first by saying that the painful reaction could be equally cause by biology (in contrast with sociology).

Random misfirings of the chemicals of the brain...right right.

Glad you ditched that idea rather easily because it sounds sort of silly to blame it on chemicals.

If I was socially conditioned to not view rape as "wrong", then.....I would have been socially conditioned to not view rape as wrong. Hence, I would not view rape as wrong.

That is the most pathetically sad thing I think I've read you say.

Please don't ever assume "your standard" is anything more than the lowest and most base.

 

[Freedomcry]

Wow, has the idea of putting others before yourself ever crossed your mind?

Yes. In fact, I was raised in a family where others always come before yourself. But I'm not so naive to think that altruism is somehow virtuous. Altruistic people put others before themselves because they derive pleasure from doing it, and pain from not doing it. Those are the same mechanics that drive a rapist.

 

[SUTG]

Well, who cares what you think? What you think won't convict a freak who commits this rape.

Alot of people care what I think.

I care what I think.

You must care quite a bit what I think, since you were so eager to have me answer your question.

And, yes, what I think will help to convict a creep who commits a rape. I am a registered voter, and have served on several juries.

Reading through it once was enough to familiarize myself with what is known as "the milk", that being basic right and wrong.

I think I've found my answer!!

I know it absolutely.

What does this even mean?

 

[Nineveh]

Yes. In fact, I was raised in a family where others always come before yourself. But I'm not so naive to think that altruism is someone virtuous. Altruistic people put others before themselves because they derive pleasure from doing it, and pain from not doing it. Those are the same mechanics that drive a rapist.

Not everyone has such low and base ideas as you, it's a false hope you have there.

 

[Freedomcry]

Random misfirings of the chemicals of the brain...right right.

Glad you ditched that idea rather easily because it sounds sort of silly to blame it on chemicals.

Yes, I don't believe biology plays a large role (or any). But I'm not going to entirely abandon the idea.

That is the most pathetically sad thing I think I've read you say.

Please don't ever assume "your standard" is anything more than the lowest and most base.

You've expressed your disagreement. Can you please now state why you think my view is incorrect?

 

[Nineveh]

Yes, I don't believe biology plays a large role (or any). But I'm not going to entirely abandon the idea.

I can see why... even chemicals are a good place to lay the blame for your lack of morality. I'd try to find a scape goat, too.

You've expressed your disagreement. Can you please now state why you think my view is incorrect?

It's only because of a certain set of factors you "believe" raping a comatose 3 year old is wrong, but only for you.

 

[Freedomcry]

I can see why... even chemicals are a good place to lay the blame for your lack of morality. I'd try to find a scape goat, too.

Low blows don't help.

It's only because of a certain set of factors you "believe" raping a comatose 3 year old is wrong, but only for you.

But don't you also use "factors" in determining what you constitute as moral? For example, the Bible, your gut feeling, etc.

 

[Nineveh]

Low blows don't help.

That was the flat out truth of it. If I found I could not say without a doubt raping a 3 year old comatose girl was absolutely wrong always, but I was still too prideful to find a better standard, I'd try to find something to blame.

But don't you also use "factors" in determining what you constitute as moral? For example, the Bible, your gut feeling, etc.

Yes, I have a standard. So do you. I have a Higher Authority, you have a lower base one.

 

[Freedomcry]

Yes, I have a standard. So do you.

At least we agree on something.

 

[Nineveh]

At least we agree on something.

Everyone has a standard. The question is, are they all just as good or valid?

 

[SUTG]

Everyone has a standard.

That is the same as saying that morals are relative.

The question is, are they all just as good or valid?

No.

 

[Freedomcry]

Everyone has a standard. The question is, are they all just as good or valid?

Are they all valid?

In a general sense, I would say yes.

In a strict sense, I would say no, givin this definition of valid:

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.

The problem is that these definitions use relative and subjective wording, just like all definitions. Reminds me of the quote, "If I definte the laws with words, with what words will I define the words that define the laws?"

 

[Nineveh]

Are they all valid?

In a general sense, I would say yes.

In a strict sense, I would say no, givin this definition of valid:

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.

The problem is that these definitions use relative and subjective wording, just like all definitions. Reminds me of the quote, "If I definte the laws with words, with what words will I define the words that define the laws?"

Is the definition different for "general" vs "strict"? Seems you can definately say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. Let's make this easy:

Are all moral standards sound, just and/or well founded?

 

[Real Sorceror]

I find Nineveh's approach to morality be problematic, but it is not as flimsy as the position which says there is absolutely no basis at all for morality besides arbitrary social conditioning. That is really a morally bankrupt position.

Agreed . Both extremes are innacurate and incomplete. Morals are not absolute or subjective.

 

[Nineveh]

Agreed . Both extremes are innacurate and incomplete. Morals are not absolute or subjective.

Let's make this simple:

When is it moral to rape a 3 year old comatose girl?

 

[Freedomcry]

Agreed . Both extremes are innacurate and incomplete. Morals are not absolute or subjective.

Now you're getting somewhere. This is my feelings exactly. However, I find that the mental progression usually goes, Absolute -> then -> Subjective -> then -> Absolutely Subjective, Subjectively Absolute.

I can't define subjective without first defining absolute, and vice versa. It's one big circle.

Let's make this simple:

When is it moral to rape a 3 year old comatose girl?

When is it moral for me? Never. When is it moral for you? I don't know. I don't know your morals well enough. Although I'm assuming it's never moral for you either.

Given my understanding of general human nature, most humans find it immoral to rape.

 

[Nineveh]

When is it moral for me?

No. Ever.

 

[Freedomcry]

No. Ever.

I can't speak for someone else. I can only speak for myself.