Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-08-2013, 03:47 PM #22
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Do you guys believe morality is subjective/relative or universal?

I firmly sit on the side of relative.
Could be either, depends on the locus.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-08-2013, 04:20 PM #23
IgnoranceInABag
 
 
IgnoranceInABag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Annual Supporting Member
IgnoranceInABag plays in the PSP
IgnoranceInABag plays in the APPA D1 division
morality is purely subjective and every person on this planet has their own view of what is and isnt moral.
__________________
IgnoranceInABag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 04:27 PM #24
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag View Post
morality is purely subjective and every person on this planet has their own view of what is and isnt moral.
The only thing this statement suggests is that ignorance exists.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 04:32 PM #25
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
We know for a fact that peer influence is far more effective than law in affecting individual behavior. It should be a logical conclusion then that our society would take to this model.
1) Why must they be mutually exclusive? I see no reason why we couldn't use both peer pressure and law. Why does peer pressure being effective diminish the function of law?

2) I would think that shock collars would be a better way of promoting good behavior than peer pressure. Come to think of it, total slavery is clearly the best way of promoting behavior we like. If the determining factor is effectiveness, then the "logical conclusion" should be to model our societies after those, should it not?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 04:37 PM #26
IgnoranceInABag
 
 
IgnoranceInABag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Annual Supporting Member
IgnoranceInABag plays in the PSP
IgnoranceInABag plays in the APPA D1 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
The only thing this statement suggests is that ignorance exists.
i could say the same about this post....

do you believe that everyone shares the same moral compass?
__________________

Last edited by IgnoranceInABag : 01-08-2013 at 04:41 PM.
IgnoranceInABag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 04:41 PM #27
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
1) Why must they be mutually exclusive? I see no reason why we couldn't use both peer pressure and law. Why does peer pressure being effective diminish the function of law?

2) I would think that shock collars would be a better way of promoting good behavior than peer pressure. Come to think of it, total slavery is clearly the best way of promoting behavior we like. If the determining factor is effectiveness, then the "logical conclusion" should be to model our societies after those, should it not?
because I believe people adhere to norms best when they do so out of agency, not compulsion. Even if that agency is illusory, you need healthy spirits for a healthy society.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 04:57 PM #28
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag View Post
i could say the same about this post....

do you believe that everyone shares the same moral compass?
Of course not. Your compass is based on what pole it is attuned to. This position does nothing to disprove an objective morality. Again, it would suggest that most, if not all of us lack requisite wisdom to ascertain an objective morality. I'd wager that focusing on the impersonal when deciding your morals is closer to being objective than focusing on what is personal
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 05:11 PM #29
IgnoranceInABag
 
 
IgnoranceInABag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Annual Supporting Member
IgnoranceInABag plays in the PSP
IgnoranceInABag plays in the APPA D1 division
i fail to see how my first post was ignorant.

ones "moral compass" is tuned by many personal and environmental factors. while there may be some things that most, if not all people agree to be moral/immoral there will always be differences.
__________________
IgnoranceInABag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 05:31 PM #30
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag View Post
i fail to see how my first post was ignorant.

ones "moral compass" is tuned by many personal and environmental factors. while there may be some things that most, if not all people agree to be moral/immoral there will always be differences.
I didn't say your post was ignorant. Let me try putting it this way:

The fact that differing moral compasses exist suggests the presence of ignorance, not the absence of objective morality.

I think that looking for objectivity in popular consensus is ignorant though.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 05:39 PM #31
IgnoranceInABag
 
 
IgnoranceInABag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Annual Supporting Member
IgnoranceInABag plays in the PSP
IgnoranceInABag plays in the APPA D1 division
gotcha. that makes much more sense. i get called ignorant quite often so i read your post as a sarcastic attack.
__________________
IgnoranceInABag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 05:45 PM #32
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag View Post
gotcha. that makes much more sense. i get called ignorant quite often so i read your post as a sarcastic attack.
No worries bud.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 05:47 PM #33
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
because I believe people adhere to norms best when they do so out of agency, not compulsion. Even if that agency is illusory, you need healthy spirits for a healthy society.
So, to be clear, your argument is not that peer pressure is more effective than law, but that law is in itself ineffective? Also, how can you conclude that the "healthy spirits" of non-compulsive law always outweigh the improve spirits gained from a properly behaved society?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 06:18 PM #34
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Do you guys believe morality is subjective/relative or universal?

I firmly sit on the side of relative.
How about a bit of everything?

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist. It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal. It is not relative because the subject of this entire discussion is baseless if no people exist for morality to matter. It is, however, morally universal.

Now, we are a complex species with incredibly complex sociological workings and we have not been around nearly long enough to discover the answers to the more complex moral situations. We may never be able to. This is why I believe subjective, relative and universal morals all currently exist.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 06:34 PM #35
kapp_badbloodz
CLASSIFIED
 
kapp_badbloodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: CLASSIFIED
 has been a member for 10 years
kapp_badbloodz supports Cereal Killerz 2
kapp_badbloodz supports our troops
kapp_badbloodz is one of the top 1000 posters on PbNation
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgnoranceInABag View Post
morality is purely subjective and every person on this planet has their own view of what is and isnt moral.
truth

Laws, however, are not solely based on morality. They are based on subjectivity that, at the very least, the majority of people can agree that something is or is not acceptable within a city, state, or country (almost culturally).

This is why there are different laws in different states. EXAMPLE: certain states allow same sex marriages where others do not and it is against the law. EXAMPLE: certain countries do not allow and public display of affection to members of the opposite sex (kissing, hugging, holding hands) as it is offensive and reserved for couples in the bedroom. EXAMPLE: In California it is a misdemeanor to be in possession or use Marijuana without a medical license. In Texas, possession of a controlled substance (such as MJ) can lead to a felony conviction (for POSSESSION!!!)

So in a sense... laws are cultural. They are what, as a society in a specific area (local/state/federal), that provide a basic means of accountability for a person's actions.

There is nothing that says you CANNOT go streaking down the street but there is a local/state ordinance that outlines the repercussions for someone who does. When something is ILLEGAL it doesnt say you CANT do it... laws hold you accountable for WHEN you do it.

Like someone said... its a process that keeps civility and predictability to a populace. The Constitution and various other acts and bills prevent laws from obstructing your rights as human beings.
__________________
OFFICIAL ORVIS WRECKING CREW
ANS GEAR || THE VEST GUY || PINOKIO HOPPERS

"Originally posted by slateman: Air Force . . . serious business"
MGDT: "Originally posted by Marine786: We had one guy get orders for a deployment while on a deployment."
AFDT:"Originally posted by f2f4: Or maybe he meant our exposed and aerated crotches. Privates. Because lord knows our PT gear only encourages "wardrobe malfunctions.""
kapp_badbloodz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 06:39 PM #36
kapp_badbloodz
CLASSIFIED
 
kapp_badbloodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: CLASSIFIED
 has been a member for 10 years
kapp_badbloodz supports Cereal Killerz 2
kapp_badbloodz supports our troops
kapp_badbloodz is one of the top 1000 posters on PbNation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
How about a bit of everything?

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist. It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal. It is not relative because the subject of this entire discussion is baseless if no people exist for morality to matter. It is, however, morally universal.

Now, we are a complex species with incredibly complex sociological workings and we have not been around nearly long enough to discover the answers to the more complex moral situations. We may never be able to. This is why I believe subjective, relative and universal morals all currently exist.


Morals also change depending on situations, experience, and events. You may think to yourself "I am a vegan and I will never harm an animal or eat an animal product". But put yourself in a life/death situation where you need to hunt food you very will have to adjust your moral outlook and adopt eating meat purely for survival.

Also, now that survival was mentioned, I honestly believe that survival instinct will overcome any sense of morality. Its ancient and animalistic but purely for self preservation the human mind will convince you to do the unthinkable. Just look at the mountain climber who chopped off his own arm with a pocket knife! Bad example I know... but somewhat of an example nonetheless

EDIT: Back to the quoted statement. I do think this applies to how laws form over time. With time comes change. With change comes adaptation. Things change therefore laws need to change as well. A good example is that since technology is more superior now than before; speed limits can be increased because drivers are able to navigate safer and faster due to technology.
__________________
OFFICIAL ORVIS WRECKING CREW
ANS GEAR || THE VEST GUY || PINOKIO HOPPERS

"Originally posted by slateman: Air Force . . . serious business"
MGDT: "Originally posted by Marine786: We had one guy get orders for a deployment while on a deployment."
AFDT:"Originally posted by f2f4: Or maybe he meant our exposed and aerated crotches. Privates. Because lord knows our PT gear only encourages "wardrobe malfunctions.""

Last edited by kapp_badbloodz : 01-08-2013 at 06:43 PM.
kapp_badbloodz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 07:03 PM #37
ElJefe13
 
 
ElJefe13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Utah
ElJefe13 has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
ElJefe13 has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
ElJefe13 supports Empire
Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on power, money, and survival of the government.
Let's look at laws against murder. If murder was okay, the tax base would decrease. Same with stuff like the seatbelt law, helmet law, speed limits, sanitation, etc. But the government also places checks on itself for its own protection. How long does a totalitarian government exist nowadays? Not very long, because sooner or later the people will rise up, a coup, or another nation will invade. That's why democracy developed. It's more to protect the government from the people by making the people not threatened by the government, so it can stay in power and make money.
Morality is for church and philosophy. Money and power are what influence politics.
ElJefe13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 08:42 PM #38
benji25
Legen (wait for it) Dary
 
benji25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities
benji25 is a Moderator
benji25 donated to help Peyton Trent
benji25 is playing at Living Legends V
benji25 posts videos on PbNation
benji25 supports our troops
benji25 has perfected Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElJefe13 View Post
Laws aren't based on morality. They're based on power, money, and survival of the government.
Let's look at laws against murder. If murder was okay, the tax base would decrease. Same with stuff like the seatbelt law, helmet law, speed limits, sanitation, etc. But the government also places checks on itself for its own protection. How long does a totalitarian government exist nowadays? Not very long, because sooner or later the people will rise up, a coup, or another nation will invade. That's why democracy developed. It's more to protect the government from the people by making the people not threatened by the government, so it can stay in power and make money.
Morality is for church and philosophy. Money and power are what influence politics.
Are you serious about the motive behind the outlaw of murder being that the government want's that persons tax money?
benji25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 10:59 PM #39
Bloodeagle
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Not taking the hunter's class would not harm anyone. By these terms, it would be a neutral behavior. Remember, we defined negative behavior as that which harms others in the OP. Taking a hunter's class is positive, responsible behavior. Not taking it is simply neutral. Should law be used to promote this?
I think you are drawing a distinction between responsible behavior and negative behavior specifically to make a point.

I am assuming in your hypothetical that the person involved lacks knowledge and training in hunting safety. Am I correct in that assumption?

If so, taking the safety course is still a neutral behavior under your standard. Implementing the lessons learned is positive behavior. I liken it to drunk driving. Driving drunk is, itself, neutral by your strict standard because not all drunk driving inevitably leads to MVA's that injure others. The negative behavior is drunk driving that causes an MVA that would otherwise not have occurred. In our current system, we punish drunk driving not because it always causes accidents but because it increases the chances of it causing an accident that could have been avoided. This is similar to taking the hunting safety course; without that knowledge and training, there is an increased likelihood of an accident while hunting.

My question of how you think the law would promote positive behavior (other than by punishing the opposite) is still pending.
Bloodeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 11:06 PM #40
Bloodeagle
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist. It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal. It is not relative because the subject of this entire discussion is baseless if no people exist for morality to matter. It is, however, morally universal.
Your argument is for societal survival, not morality. You are saying that a practice that predictably results in destruction of the society is per se immoral because it destroys the society. Also, your argument leads to something of a circle. If your hypothetical society infanticides itself out of existence, then there are no longer any people and the moral charge to the people becomes neutral because there are no longer any people in existence.
Bloodeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 11:20 PM #41
Umami
AFK IRL
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist.
True, but

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
It's quite evident that such an act is indeed morally wrong. This isn't subjective because the output is universal.
While the output is universal, that the extinction of said society is morally wrong is a normative statement. It arises because you value the continued existence of society. But there are people who believe society, indeed humanity, should cease to exist. In their eyes, it would not be wrong.

So how is it Universal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
The fact that differing moral compasses exist suggests the presence of ignorance, not the absence of objective morality.

I think that looking for objectivity in popular consensus is ignorant though.
Morality cannot exist without the context of humanity, which is inherently ignorant.
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.

Last edited by Umami : 01-08-2013 at 11:33 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 11:33 PM #42
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Is there objective value in transient things?

Probably not.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump