You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Ethics Are What The Majority Invent in Order to Keep Themselves Enslaved
So morality is all arbitrary and subjective? I just hope you are consistent in that stance meaning that you don't have any grounds on which to criticize any action as "unjust". Child rape? Nah it's not bad because morality is subjective and to the rapist, there is no issue with morality. The Holocaust? Nothing to see there either. Again, Hitler was doing what he believed to be right, so where is the problem?
the problem is that in both examples you have stated someone is using force against someone else against their will...It is violation of someones rights...that is not a matter of what is moral and what is not...
Morality has everything to do with imposing itself on other's rights. Is murder not a moral issue? Or stealing property from someone else? It is a form of morality to even suppose that people have "rights" as you say. What gives them these "rights"? There are cultures that exist with different moral codes where these same rights do not exist.
@kyriacos is simply putting out the information. Of course morality is simply an abstract concept synthesized from humans. It is nothing, just as good and bad are nothing. You don't look into nature and see remorse from the wolves who eat the sheep. You don't see the bear feeling bad for eating the fish. Of course here are things we would consider "unjust" if it were happening all our lives, it would be normal.
The Aztecs would tear peoples' hearts out for their god. Was that wrong? Not for them, it was the best they could give. You mention the Holocaust, there are many worst events than the holocaust; I'm white and my ancestors infested Northern America and wiped out an entire race almost. Over land.
Animals do the same. We are animals. We are not above the others.
That is not a fact, but a reflection of your own belief system. I, for instance, see such force being used in moral terms, and not in terms of rights-as-defined-in-some-theory.
I never said it is a fact...it clearly is just my opinion...and the very same can be said about your "definition".
I defined nothing, and most certainly not for others.
It is not "just your opinion", as your statement derives straight from an economical and societal theory other people came up with, yet is stated as fact. Don't you get you are making his point for him?
I don’t get what you’re trying to accomplish here...he said that in order for the author to be consistent he has to find holocaust ok...that is completely invalid...
What if I had that opinion even prior finding out about libertarianism? Is it still not just my opinion (the fact that some others share doesn’t make it “not just my opinion”? I don’t care what others think about it or if there is any movement that shares the point of view that I reached by my own conclusions...Nothing like purely new thought exists...Every opinion is based on what other people came up with...
You defined this for yourself (I never said you defined it for someone else...why are you defending yourself against something i never said? I defined what I said for myself and i shared my point of view the same way you have shared yours...i did not force my opinion onto anyone and i was interested what he will say about it yet you step in with your blame that what I said is not a fact - I never claimed it to be one.
With what I said i think I refuted his statement that
This is how discussion are held. People exchange their opinions. What is the aim of your intervention kind sir? If it was an effort of showing me that I am making his points for him then you certainly are not correct...so either explain yourself and discuss with me correctly or just stop wasting my time:)
Most, if not al, of it is. How could it not be? That doesn't mean one shouldn't have morals, or accept any and all behaviour "because subjective". I don't think that is what is being said above. All I read there is that you perhaps should roll your own morals, and not automatically give in to, or take over, the morals of others, be they individuals or institutions or cultures.
We just have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of truth and how that relates to morality. I believe in absolute objective truth, although I don't believe that someone can ever have full knowledge of that absolute truth. My only point is that if morality really is subjective, and there is no objective way of arguing for the superiority of one moral code versus another one, then there are no grounds in which one could ever say something is "evil" or unjust. How could they? It's just a different set of moral values.
I get your point, I think we have a different approach to the subject.
I don't think it is a matter of superiority or being right, or closest to the truth, or finding a set of universals that apply everywhere. A subjective set of morals is still a set of moral values that can be applied by individuals to specific cases. Such sets of moral values will overlap among individuals, so and there can be agreement in specific cases (or disagreement, as the case may be). If there is sufficient overlap, such people can function together in a group and judge behaviour within that group in a fairly consistent manner, though not necessarily outside that group.
I don't think the superiority of a set of moral values needs to be somehow proven first before moral judgments can be made; no universality of codes is necessary for that. Even when subjective, judgements can be made, the only problem being, that other groups may disagree, and there not being a "universal judge" to tell who is "right". I don't think there can be, and I don't think there need be.