Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Good & Bad, Subjective or Objective?

  1. #21
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 30th, 2008 @ 06:21 PM
    Age
    46
    Posts
    449
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rivalin View Post
    No source, just common sense. I respect people who have faith in God, but they are startlingly few. In England something like 80% of people say they are Christian, and yet 2% of people go to church, what kind of belief do you have if you are too lazy to drag yourself out of a bed on a Sunday morning to go and sit down in a room for an hour? Professing a belief in God is irrelevant if that belief does not inform the way in which you live your life.
    But I proved, with a source, that 69% of Swedes believed in a 'higher power'/God as of 1999. There is nothing to suggest that those who attend church are somehow better at believing than those who don't. You were, and you still are, talking about those who believe in God. Is it somehow disturbing to you that there are people who believe in God without attending church?
    God expects but one thing of you,
    and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made
    and let God be God in you.

    Meister Eckhart


    Do U believe in God? | Svensk förskola | Vem äger media? | CA ban on mom & dad | Birth control causes breast cancer

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Posts
    771
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Personally I think somethings are relatively subjective, but most aren't. In such cases where they are not obvious, one should look to a traditional response for an answer, since most have already been answered and their effects can be seen via history. A very simplistic response, I suppose.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    I am not sure why the notion of objective moral truths is so unnerving. Logical and mathematical (especially geometric) truths are both irrefutably true and objective. A fool can ignore them, but that does not invalidate them.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    sophia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 28th, 2008 @ 03:31 PM
    Age
    35
    Posts
    334
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SineNomine View Post
    I am not sure why the notion of objective moral truths is so unnerving. Logical and mathematical (especially geometric) truths are both irrefutably true and objective. A fool can ignore them, but that does not invalidate them.
    I just don't understand how there can be such a thing. What is good for a bacteria might be evil for a human, where is the objectivity?

    Is it morally wrong for the bacteria to infect the human? Of course a bacteria is not a moral agent, but if it were, would it be wrong? I don't think so, it would be what a bacteria should do, it would be wrong for a bacteria to say "no actually I thinking hurting people and making them ill is bad and this is what comes from infecting people so I shall have to stop". A bacteria who did that would be negating life even in its refusal to participate in the destruction of life.

    It would be equally wrong for a human to allow a bacteria to destroy him or his family or whatever had he the power to stop them, to not do so would be negating life even in the refusal to kill living beings. (Except of course people can have complex motives that don't quite fit this pattern where it might become ok).

    Doesn't the same apply on a smaller level for people? So that the farmer cannot act according to the morality of a soldier and a soldier cannot act according to the morality of a farmer because the situation warrants a different set of virtues?
    A* I’m a dreadful reactionary, Mrs. Helena. I don’t like this progress one bit.
    H* Like Nana.
    A* Yes, like Nana. Does Nana have a prayer book?
    H* A big fat one.
    A* And are there prayers in it for various occurrences in life? Against storms? Against illness?
    H* Against temptation, against floods -
    A* But not against progress, I suppose?
    H* > I think not.
    A* That’s a shame.

  5. #25
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    @sophia: One should distinguish between the general concept of the Good (which is objective and can be imagined as justice, or harmonious organisation; to each his own) and what this general Idea demands of concrete entities in concrete circumstances. As you pointed out, the ethos appropriate for a soldier may not be appropriate for a farmer; different vocations require different virtues. However, this is not sufficient proof for the absence of an objective standard of the Good; rather the general Good informs us whether a particular ethos is indeed appropriate or right for the concrete farmer or soldier.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    sophia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 28th, 2008 @ 03:31 PM
    Age
    35
    Posts
    334
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Adalwulf View Post
    @sophia: One should distinguish between the general concept of the Good (which is objective and can be imagined as justice, or harmonious organisation; to each his own) and what this general Idea demands of concrete entities in concrete circumstances. As you pointed out, the ethos appropriate for a soldier may not be appropriate for a farmer; different vocations require different virtues. However, this is not sufficient proof for the absence of an objective standard of the Good; rather the general Good informs us whether a particular ethos is indeed appropriate or right for the concrete farmer or soldier.
    What then is that standard?
    A* I’m a dreadful reactionary, Mrs. Helena. I don’t like this progress one bit.
    H* Like Nana.
    A* Yes, like Nana. Does Nana have a prayer book?
    H* A big fat one.
    A* And are there prayers in it for various occurrences in life? Against storms? Against illness?
    H* Against temptation, against floods -
    A* But not against progress, I suppose?
    H* > I think not.
    A* That’s a shame.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sophia View Post
    I just don't understand how there can be such a thing. What is good for a bacteria might be evil for a human, where is the objectivity?
    Objective, for humans. Water generally does not have a good relation with metal; it does so with humans though, and this is objectively ascertainable. Humans possess the capacity to reason, and via this method to yield certain objective, noncontigent truths (e.g. A =/= ~A, cogito, ergo sum etc.); ethical truths may be amongst these. Provided we realize such reasoning is fallibilistic (i.e. we may go wrong, somewhere in our deductions/inductions), there is no harm.

    Is it morally wrong for the bacteria to infect the human? Of course a bacteria is not a moral agent, but if it were, would it be wrong? I don't think so, it would be what a bacteria should do, it would be wrong for a bacteria to say "no actually I thinking hurting people and making them ill is bad and this is what comes from infecting people so I shall have to stop". A bacteria who did that would be negating life even in its refusal to participate in the destruction of life.
    Given that it isn't a moral agent, it'd have no concept of right or wrong, no set of possible ethics to follow. It is a mindless organism of the lowest level. If it evolved a level of rationality that made reasoning with it possible, that'd change things; if it decided to assail humans in spite of this, they'd have every reason to treat it as an aggressive invader.

    Doesn't the same apply on a smaller level for people? So that the farmer cannot act according to the morality of a soldier and a soldier cannot act according to the morality of a farmer because the situation warrants a different set of virtues?
    A general set of rules, let's say ethics, governing how a society is to be organized is certainly possible (to justify an aristocracy, for instance - if possible - something more than mere claims of divine commandments are necessary; something like a Hobbesian social contract.) Personal codes, let's say morals, on the other hand will naturally differ between individuals. The former can thus be constructed on an abstract, universal level; the latter may not. The problem in my view lies in determining which ethical code is correct, rather than descending into subjectivism or nihilism. Logic and reason are there to guide us; they already constrain which set of ethics are justifiable.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 12:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,989
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    67
    Thanked in
    67 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysium View Post
    Some societies think there is no difference between murdering and killing someone. Where as other societies think you can easily justify killing someone depending on the actions of that person.

    Anti-Racism is detrimental to more than just "society" but it is considered a godly occupation.
    I think that the general principles are still more or less universal, and based on human nature.

    In regards to murder/killing, nearly all societies consider killing someone at random, or to take their stuff, to be wrong. Even societies that allowed killing over minor insults generally reserved that to the upper classes. The concept that the society may not end the life of even those individuals who have proven themselves extremely detrimental to that society, and equating this act with murder, it is a fairly recent development and found only in those places dominated by an extreme variant of humanism in western Europe and the 'cosmopolitan' areas of North America. Even this development I believe is more of a defacto religious tradition meant to reinforce the concept that 'all humans are equal', than a bona-fide belief in the value of the lives of these people.

    Likewise, human nature has been to identify with those most like ourselves, thus morality has generally been to give greater consideration to those most like you, and work to advance the interests of one's own group (family, clan, tribe, ethnicity, race, etc). 'anti-racism' I would view in the same light as radical humanism, a defacto religion which is advanced primarily by ethnic minorities in western countries, which in fact is a result of racist sentiment amongst those minorities.


    Quote Originally Posted by SineNomine View Post
    I am not sure why the notion of objective moral truths is so unnerving. Logical and mathematical (especially geometric) truths are both irrefutably true and objective. A fool can ignore them, but that does not invalidate them.
    Quote Originally Posted by sophia View Post
    (Except of course people can have complex motives that don't quite fit this pattern where it might become ok).

    Doesn't the same apply on a smaller level for people? So that the farmer cannot act according to the morality of a soldier and a soldier cannot act according to the morality of a farmer because the situation warrants a different set of virtues?
    Well yes, if morality is based on human nature and instinct as I believe, then there would be 'objective' morality which is based on universal aspects of human nature, and 'subjective' morality which is based on aspects of human nature which are more unique to that particular group.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

  9. #29
    New Member
    Konrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 @ 09:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    To handle this question we have to go to the basics of philosophy.

    In the german philosophy we understand God as a "Unity of all". All what is is God. This means also that duality is a part from God. So also the duality good-bad exist within God. God is not good or bad, and at the same time he is both. God is God.

    Out of the Unity becomes Duality. We see this duality in many ways in the world: Good-bad, dark-light, negativ-positiv, man-woman, black-white, Satan-Lucifer ...

    But it is essential to understand that duality is transformed to unity (with another quality as the "old" unity) by the three-unity. This transformation is completed by adding a 3rd element to the dual elements. This 3rd element has the qualities of both dual elements in itself. This 3rd element we call "coherence". Coherence can only exist by the 2 polarized elements. It is like a bridge. The bridge can only exist by both shores. The coherent element we meet in our daily lives as "love".

    Every human beeing is God. God perceives himself by his creation. Man as a part of the creation is an expression of God. And in the creation God wants to express himself as a whole. This is shown in man as his will, his "True Will". And if we think that someone is bad, but in effect he is doing his own will, he is just dooing what he has to do, he is dooing what Gods Will.

    Wouldn't we agree that dooing Gods Will is good en not dooing Gods will is bad?

  10. #30
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 30th, 2008 @ 06:21 PM
    Age
    46
    Posts
    449
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SwordOfTheVistula View Post
    Likewise, human nature has been to identify with those most like ourselves, thus morality has generally been to give greater consideration to those most like you, and work to advance the interests of one's own group (family, clan, tribe, ethnicity, race, etc). 'anti-racism' I would view in the same light as radical humanism, a defacto religion which is advanced primarily by ethnic minorities in western countries, which in fact is a result of racist sentiment amongst those minorities.
    While I agree that ethnic minorities play an important part in advancing policies that favour them, I don't think that it is the whole truth in this matter.

    Moralist gentiles have played and continue to play a very important part, and I would say that it is an even more important part, since the direct or indirect consent of gentiles has been and is a necessary commodity. Interestingly, the moralizers are very often driven by their own racism to make up for it. Their motive, in moralizing and promoting the interests of minority groups, is usually that they pity them.

    And these moralists consider themselves to be better and out of reach, which is certainly a lethal deception.
    God expects but one thing of you,
    and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made
    and let God be God in you.

    Meister Eckhart


    Do U believe in God? | Svensk förskola | Vem äger media? | CA ban on mom & dad | Birth control causes breast cancer

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Good, the Bad, and That's It.
    By Wittmann in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, August 22nd, 2010, 10:44 AM
  2. Album covers both good and bad
    By nordicdusk in forum Music & Hymns
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Sunday, June 18th, 2006, 12:16 AM
  3. Beauty Is Objective, Not Subjective
    By Ventrue in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, December 12th, 2005, 06:55 AM
  4. Reality: Objective or Subjective?/The Object
    By Stríbog in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: Monday, September 19th, 2005, 03:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •