Submitted by bluelotus214 t3_10nht8x in worldnews
history_fan40 t1_j69w09e wrote
Reply to comment by dadude100 in Ukraine: ‘Fast-track’ talks underway for missiles, planes by bluelotus214
Objective means factual. Good and bad are not fact-based.
Further, one could argue that action is actually doing the person a favor.
It’s not nonsense just because you disagree. It’s actually what this sub is generally obsessed with, nuance.
vkstu t1_j6a4knr wrote
>Good and bad are not fact-based
It's objectively bad to drink bleach, to maintain well being.
history_fan40 t1_j6a550y wrote
That’s conditional, not really objective.
What happens as a result of that isn’t objectively bad, and besides, that will happen to us all no matter what.
vkstu t1_j6a63za wrote
Of course it's conditional, life is conditional. You can objectively say genocide is bad based on the conditions provided. And if that condition is that life is 'sacred' or whether genocide itself is outlawed, then you cannot but conclude that what is happening in Ukraine is objectively bad.
history_fan40 t1_j6a7ded wrote
Right, but life is not “sacred”.
Something being illegal also doesn’t make it objectively bad. For example, atheism is criminalized in Saudi Arabia, but it isn’t objectively bad (again, nothing is).
However, I do agree with you in subjectively determining that genocide is not good (it is also not objectively good, as nothing is). It is also not objectively bad.
Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.
vkstu t1_j6a85df wrote
I think you missed the point of it being conditional... It's a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely objective, it's also a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely subjective. Conditions are which will decide whether something is subjectively or objectively good or bad.
As for whether life is 'sacred', it's why I added quotation marks around it. I don't mean it in the literal sense, I mean it in the conventions we've universally decided on.
> Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.
Ah, it's flawed, yet I see no argument as to why. Interesting.
history_fan40 t1_j6bdcwi wrote
Ah, but I was talking in terms of ethics. Ethical good and bad are entirely subjective.
If the goal is to maintain stable health, drinking water does help, but it’s not objectively good. A goal of maintaining stable health is also not objectively good to have.
vkstu t1_j6bhem9 wrote
I suggest you start reading about ethical objectivism. You've clearly skipped this part in philosophy.
history_fan40 t1_j6c19om wrote
I’ve read about it and can clearly see it is nonsensical. “Morality” and “ethics” are concepts we invented.
vkstu t1_j6c7etp wrote
Hahaha, well then our discussion is done. You clearly haven't understood the meaning of it. Your view is too black and white. At this point our argument will devolve in your position is nonsensical, no yours, no yours.
As for whether we invented it or not. Did we invent maths or are they part of fundamental truths of the universe? Why can't that hold for (parts of) morality or ethics?
history_fan40 t1_j6d0gf0 wrote
Math is objective. One cannot simply say “2 + 2 is 85 because I said so”. 2 + 2 is in fact not 85.
Morality and ethics are not objective. There’s no such thing as “fundamental truths of the universe”. In some cases, an action is considered bad, while in others, it is considered good. Meanwhile, 2 + 2 is always equal to 4.
Life did not always exist and will not always exist. One person having a certain idea of ethics does not make it objective. Further, any decision made by humans or other complex animals is entirely based on the electrical signals being transmitted among their neurons. You can’t judge these actions.
vkstu t1_j6d4ne1 wrote
Why? You haven't explained why it can't be so at all. In fact every building block in the world is based on those fundamental laws, so in essence, however complex we are we still are build and limited by it. Ergo, ethics and morality can therefore also be fundamental. One may consider something good, but be wrong. Exactly like someone who says 2+2=85 is wrong. Just because there are more opinions, doesn't negate the fact it can logically be a wrong opinion.
Also funny you speak of electrical signals as basis of our consciousness, if anything that proves my point.
history_fan40 t1_j6d5v5d wrote
How can something be objectively ethically good or bad? That entirely depends on what a person considers “desirable”, which is subjective.
How does it prove your point? You do realize parts of our brains are for subjective things, right?
vkstu t1_j6dclwf wrote
A universe based on fundamental truths cannot create something that does not adhere by those fundamental truths. It's based on objectivity and thus we cannot suddenly have subjectivity. Differing opinions does not mean that it is therefore subjective, it means that the parameters have changed. For something good to one, can make it bad to another due to their internal parameters (their life). Where genocide of one species, can be good for another, it still is fundamentally bad for the species being genocided.
history_fan40 t1_j6dl2wv wrote
Ethics and morality are not “fundamental truths”.
You’re again subjectively placing a positive value on life and existence.
vkstu t1_j6dm1xb wrote
That's not a response at all. You're merely saying it isn't because you think it isn't, there isn't an argument in there. Nature itself is based on fundamental laws, your brain uses fundamental laws to work, your thoughts therefore are based on fundamental laws. It can of course reach faulty conclusions, or think 'different' based on different parameters used, creating the illusion of subjectivity.
I am not placing any value on it, I'm saying that ending existance is a negative to existance. That's objective. It's like saying 0-1=-1 is a negative.
history_fan40 t1_j6dmmw5 wrote
Life didn’t always exist, so ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life. Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.
> negative to existence
Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.
vkstu t1_j6dodnb wrote
> Life didn’t always exist
Define life.
> So ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life.
Nor is that its intention, that does not make them unable to be objective. It's a false equivalence.
> Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.
I think quantum theory would like a word with you. But, that still does not argue that morality can't be objective. Just because we've thought of them, does not make them illogical or non objective.
> Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.
Sure, so living is a positive then. I figured you would've wanted me to express existance as a 0 (nihilism), hence my example.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments