Freethought & Rationalism Archive

daemon · 04-10-2002, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ginseng:
We don't stone people to death, and we will never stone people to death again. Why?? Because we realized it was wrong.

Demonstrably false--stonings still occur, and are asserted to be right by those who stone.

Now, they claim it is right to stone; you say it is wrong. Given this, it is apparent that morality is not objective.

DRFseven · 04-10-2002, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Ginseng: Ethics are objective. I know this fact troubles you, but it is true.

Says Ginseng, Arbitor of All That Is True.

Ginseng · 04-10-2002, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Ginseng, Arbitor of All That Is True.[/QB]

More name-calling I see... This adds nothing to the discussion, and it's (dare I say) WRONG!

Maverick · 04-10-2002, 12:49 PM

Hey folks,

There are plenty of threads around about subjective vs. objective ethics. Could we try move this arguement to one of those, or can one of you start your own thread?

Thanks!

Maverick

tronvillain · 04-10-2002, 12:49 PM

If it's wrong, why are we supposed to accept your assertions?

Ginseng · 04-10-2002, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by daemon:
Demonstrably false--stonings still occur, and are asserted to be right by those who stone.

Now, they claim it is right to stone; you say it is wrong. Given this, it is apparent that morality is not objective.

What? I don't care who claims it is right to stone a person to death! It is still wrong. Or do you think it is fine to stone people to death?

Again, let me make the point that human beings do not become less ethical. Stoning people to death used to be considered appropriate. And yes, some people still consider it so. That does not mean it IS so! Will the US ever institute stoning people to death again? Will we ever make slavery legal again? Why wouldn't we? Could it be because we KNOW it is wrong??

Bill Snedden · 04-10-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ginseng:
Ethics are objective. I know this fact troubles you, but it is true.

You may feel that way, but it is certainly not a self-evident fact to many of us here on the board (the vast majority of which are ethical subjectivists).

If you wish us to accept your assertion, you will have to support it with some evidence and argumentation. You will need to demonstrate the existence of an objective value.

Moral or ethical systems are based on values. But "value" would seem to presuppose a "valuer", meaning that moral and ethical systems are necessarily subjective as they only exist as the result of activity within the mind.

In order to demonstrate the existence of an objective value, you will need to show something that retains value independent of the mind (the definition of "objective"). Good luck.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

<Edited to add: Oops! Sorry Maverick. If this is going to be an Objective/Subjective discussion, it probably should be taken into another thread.>

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

droolian · 04-10-2002, 01:17 PM

Proving that eating animals is wrong is difficult with the current Western world’s moral standard, which I guess comes from Christianity. Here atheists are living in this moral standard---sort of dissenting I guess. It’d be funny to see what percentage of atheists are vegetarian. I feel it’s morally wrong and I think it’s been shown as wrong by both Tom Regan and Peter Singer. But I do think denial comes into play for meat eaters. I don’t mean this as an insult, because I was a meat eater. I think I’m better than no one is.
Peter Singer:

Quote:

People who eat pieces of slaughtered nonhumans every day find it hard to believe that they are doing wrong; and they also find it hard to imagine what else they could eat. On this issue, anyone who eats meat is an interested party. They benefit—or at least they think they benefit—from the present disregard of the interests of nonhuman animals. This makes persuasion more difficult. How many southern slaveholders were persuaded by the arguments used by the northern abolitionists, and accepted by nearly all of us today? Some, but not many.

Valmorian · 04-10-2002, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ginseng:

Ethics are objective. I know this fact troubles you, but it is true.

So prove it. What's the objective standard for ethics. WHY is it unethical to eat meat, OBJECTIVELY? Note that an appeal to ethical standards would be circular, if you claim ethics are objective, there must be an objective reason.

Quote:

A lot of things that are ethically wrong exist--what's your point? Murder exists, but it IS wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that murder exists because it is right?? Stoning people to death is wrong too. It is not subjectively wrong, it is objectively wrong. You know it as well as I do. Why? Because ethics are inherent in us all.

No, I believe stoning people to death is wrong because it is part of my subjective moral code. That we happen to share that part of a moral code doesn't make it objective.

There are people in this world who consider the stoning of people to be RIGHT under certain circumstances. What OBJECTIVE argument can you give to show them wrong?

Quote:

We don't stone people to death, and we will never stone people to death again. Why?? Because we realized it was wrong. We do not become LESS ethical. We have abolished slavery. Why? Because it was wrong. Why is this so difficult for people to understand??

We don't stone people to death because as a society we have decided that it is wrong. There is no objective standard to indicate that it is wrong, there is simply the cultural/societal contract that we have made to deem it so.

Quote:

Is there anyone here who thinks slavery is right?

On this board? Probably not.

In the world? Almost certainly.

Quote:

Are you ethically opposed to slavery?

Yes, I am.

Quote:

Is it a subjective viewpoint??

Yes. I subjectively believe slavery is wrong.

Quote:

If slavery is objectively wrong, then your argument falls flat because it proves that ethics are objective.

But I don't believe slavery is objectively wrong, because I don't believe there are ANY objective ethics. Ethical codes are created, not discovered.

[/quote]
[/qb]

tronvillain · 04-10-2002, 01:25 PM

While I have no problem with you considering it morally wrong to eat meat, Peter Singer hasn't shown that it is.

Oh, and comparisons to slavery are unjustified as justifications of slavery often involved assertions of inherent inferiority that are in fact untrue. If the justification was simply that slaves were useful and Africa was just an easy place to get them, it would be a purely subjective disagreemtn. We would still consider them wrong, but it wouldn't be because of their arguments.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

04-10-2002, 01:25 PM	#120
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	While I have no problem with you considering it morally wrong to eat meat, Peter Singer hasn't shown that it is. Oh, and comparisons to slavery are unjustified as justifications of slavery often involved assertions of inherent inferiority that are in fact untrue. If the justification was simply that slaves were useful and Africa was just an easy place to get them, it would be a purely subjective disagreemtn. We would still consider them wrong, but it wouldn't be because of their arguments. [ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2002, 12:49 PM	#114
Maverick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin Posts: 6,367	Hey folks, There are plenty of threads around about subjective vs. objective ethics. Could we try move this arguement to one of those, or can one of you start your own thread? Thanks! Maverick

04-10-2002, 12:49 PM	#115
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	If it's wrong, why are we supposed to accept your assertions?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.