Jump to content

Ontology of Morality

Guest

By Guest
in Daily Texan

 Share

Ontology of Morality   

47 members have voted

  1. 1. The existence of moral facts:

    • Moral facts and values exist objectively, independently from anyone's personal beliefs
      31
    • Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture
      19

  2. 2. There are some moral facts that I am willing to insist are true regardless if another culture disagrees

  3. 3. The best normative ethical framework for deciding what one ought to do:

    • Consequentialism (e.g utilitarianism) - one ought to do what brings about the most good and/or least amount of suffering
      14
    • Deontology - one ought to live by certain duties or principles, such as the golden rule or ethic of reciprocity
      19
    • Virtue ethics - one's ethical behavior is measured by a list of virtues, e.g. honesty, courage, kindness, wisdom, dignity, etc
      21

Recommended Posts

Rimbo

Rimbo 25,921

Posted
Posted

This poll sucks. It is a childish thing that reduces reality to black and white.

Negged.

3 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Noam Chomsky on moral relativism: 

 

Also, anyone referencing Chomsky on anything other than Linguistics deserves a neg.

Double negged.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

This poll sucks. It is a childish thing that reduces reality to black and white.

 

 

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

therefore this poll is flawed (and that it treats everything as a dichotomy)

I think the source of the miscommunication is that I should have put "Some moral facts and values exist objectively, independently from anyone's personal beliefs" in the first question to make it more clear.  Would you agree that this resolves the false dichotomy?  I think it is noncontroversial and trivially true that at least some aspects of morality vary and are subjective/culturally based. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25,921

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

 

I think the source of the miscommunication is that I should have put "Some moral facts and values exist objectively, independently from anyone's personal beliefs" in the first question to make it more clear.  Would you agree that this resolves the false dichotomy?  I think it is noncontroversial and trivially true that at least some aspects of morality vary and are subjective/culturally based. 

 

The closer you get to a fair and accurate statement, the closer you get to either:

1. A statement so general as to be tautological, OR

2. a lengthy essay that doesn't fit in a single poll question item.

The problem isn't the answer itself. It's that you're making a poll to begin with. It's a common propaganda technique; any poll question like this is going to introduce a false dichotomy.

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

The closer you get to a fair and accurate statement, the closer you get to either:

1. A statement so general as to be tautological, OR

2. a lengthy essay that doesn't fit in a single poll question item.

The problem isn't the answer itself. It's that you're making a poll to begin with.

You either have some position on the topic you would like to discuss or you do not.  If you would like to give your position, then I will read it and would be glad to discuss.  If  your position is simply that you don't want the topic discussed in a poll or other formats not to your liking, then it will be a short exchange.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25,921

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

If  your position is simply that you don't want the topic discussed in a poll or other formats not to your liking, ...

Yes, that's what I said. More than once.

Quote

... then it will be a short exchange.   

Yes, that's the goal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I think it was a mistake to start this thread on a bye weekend 

No way.  Bye week is why there is such engaging and spirited discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Moral relativism vs moral objectivism is a pointless debate. It pits two wrong answers against each other and generates nothing but nonsense arguments. 

There either are objective moral facts or there are not. You can't just hand-wave it away.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

image.gif.e60bb438373764b427d738fdb44cb3c8.gif

You take exception to excluded middle?  If you want to dispense with the laws of thought, then we are going to get lots of nonsense.  But you should at least outline your own personal rules of logic so that it's at least decipherable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You have either stopped fucking little boys or you have not. You can't just hand-wave it away.

What happened to your goal of keeping the exchange short?  

You either debunked one of the ancient laws of thought with this simple example or you did not.  Turns out you didn't because it can easily be shown to be equivalent to multiple propositions.  

 

 

Edited by axiom of foundation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

See, each time I can get you to post in another attempt at vacuous propaganda, it's another opportunity for me to give you neg rep.

I was hoping to hear more of your brilliant attack on the laws of thought. Shame you gave up on that so soon.

What motive do you think I have or message do you think I am trying communicate here?  Propaganda has some message it tries to communicate or viewpoint it seeks to instill - so what message do you think I am trying to drive home with this thread?  I have not given any positions.  I have no motives other than to hear what people think about this topic, which I thought about recently after the Chomsky video popped up on my feed. 

I didn't come up with the topic or the way it is typically framed, and I didn't come up with the "big words" that are the standard words used in this discussion.  I did not come up with the law of excluded middle.  It has been around for roughly 2500 years.  I do not have the slightest idea why this thread frustrates you, what your positions are on this topic, or why you give a shit about any of this.  This is a message board.  People post shit for the sake of discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This thread angers me for reasons that I can't fully put into words. Muledick.

These threads over the years follow a similar pattern.  Topic posted, 20-30 posts of nerds gif, jerkoff gif, your shits all retarded, etc.  Then a few posters give their positions, and then arguments begin.  Anger and frustration come after the arguments.  Makes no sense to get angered before positions are even given.  What's to be angry about?  Normative ethics? The laws of thought?  Seems a bit unhinged.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25,921

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

These threads over the years follow a similar pattern.  Topic posted, 20-30 posts of nerds gif, jerkoff gif, your shits all retarded, etc.  Then a few posters give their positions, and then arguments begin.  Anger and frustration come after the arguments.  Makes no sense to get angered before positions are even given.  What's to be angry about?  Normative ethics? The laws of thought?  Seems a bit unhinged.  

You think I'm angry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Eight posters selected "Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture," but only two selected false for "There are some moral facts that I am willing to insist are true regardless if another culture disagrees."  For those who believe moral facts are dependent on one's culture but are also willing to insist some facts are true regardless if another culture disagrees, what basis would you use to argue that your moral fact is true?  Genuinely interested in this topic.  

 

I'm surprised by the even split on normative ethics.  I figured there would be more consequentialists.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25,921

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Eight posters selected "Moral facts and values are all completely relative and dependent on one's culture," but only two selected false for "There are some moral facts that I am willing to insist are true regardless if another culture disagrees."  For those who believe moral facts are dependent on one's culture but are also willing to insist some facts are true regardless if another culture disagrees, what basis would you use to argue that your moral fact is true?  Genuinely interested in this topic.  

 

I'm surprised by the even split on normative ethics.  I figured there would be more consequentialists.   

I'm surprised you found 22 people dumb enough to try to answer your poll.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texzilla58

Texzilla58 4,734

Posted
Posted

Jeez this is a Time Machine taking me back to a philosophy 101 class I had to take. The prof was an old Mississippi fruitcake who spoke like Truman Capote. I dropped it after 2 classes after the advice to attend totally stones just ruined a good buzz.

Ohh I did remember that fucking Noam Chomsky can eat a bag of dicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Jeez this is a Time Machine taking me back to a philosophy 101 class I had to take. The prof was an old Mississippi fruitcake who spoke like Truman Capote. I dropped it after 2 classes after the advice to attend totally stones just ruined a good buzz.

Ohh I did remember that fucking Noam Chomsky can eat a bag of dicks.

I don't agree with Chomsky on a number of things, but he gives well-reasoned arguments for his views.  Surprised he is so disliked here.  Typically the Chomksy hate comes from the political right since he is considered a key intellectual figure within the left wing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

There either are objective moral facts or there are not. You can't just hand-wave it away.  

Bullshit.

If I have no problem with nudity/ topless women, but someone else thinks one nip slip is the decline of civilization; neither one of our alleged moralities are "fact."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4,606

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, slorch said:

Bullshit.

If I have no problem with nudity/ topless women, but someone else thinks one nip slip is the decline of civilization; neither one of our alleged moralities are "fact."

So there aren’t objective moral facts in your view. The second option of his alleged “bullshit” statement.

I really don’t understand the reaction to this entire thread. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...