In light of this, I would say that, as the trend morally as been towards a system of morals that I agree with, that yes, we have made moral progress over the years. Has it been trending towards objective morality though? Hell if I know.

I would think it has.

This seems to conflict with the relativist position, though. If morality isn't objective, the very idea of "moral progress" is moot, isn't it? If that's what you believe, then we as a society today are no more "moral" than we were back when the slave trade was still going on. That is what you must concede if you are a moral relativist. There can be no moral progress, because that implies a progression towards something greater.

Personally, I think that notion is asinine.

"according to the objective morality I believe to be out there, but that you and I do not know, it is wrong to do something just because you can without making ethical considerations". If I understood your earlier posts in this thread correctly, of course.

I don't think you have. I wasn't saying it's wrong to do things just because you are able to--I just think it's stupid. I wasn't trying to posit a moral argument there--I was merely expressing a pet peeve that I have when people say "because I can" in response to "why did you...?" So I mean, it's neither here nor there.

It's a stupid thing to say because it's physically impossible to do something simply because you are able to do it.
A more accurate statement would be that you wanted to do it. You had a desire to do something, and you did it.

From there, I can ask why you wanted to do it, and so on.

This has nothing to do with my moralistic beliefs.

Again, I have no problem with you having faith in such a thing, but ignoring the fact that morality is relative among humans and then making a moral claim that would have to be considered against the objective morality you know nothing about doesn't work.

Well, this very topic has been discussed numerous times over the past couple weeks, and I've found that the easiest way to grasp my position is that morality is "subjectively objective". In short--an objective truth is out there, and we can never fully grasp it, but we can do our best. That's really it.

also, i noticed you don't have portable ops listed

that would be the next game released in the canon

unless you don't want to get it (even though you have peace walker listed)

Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 24, 2015, 06:15:02 PM

If the objectivist position is true, no, it does not necessarily follow that the moral system inherent would be universally known.

I'm sure we can agree that science is objective, not relative. Yet we debate it, all the time.

I understand where you're coming from with that. Sure, a "correct" morality may exist somehow, and we may not know what it is. But if you do not know what it is, or know that it does, in fact, exist, how can you make any claims to morality at all that are not contextually subjective or relativist?

I can't--I don't think that's what I was doing, either. All being an objectivist means is that you believe in the existence of moral facts--you don't actually have to know of any to make such a concession. I think I have good reason to believe it, and I'll argue for it. Nothing more.

Note that I am not saying that the conclusions made by science are not objectively true as far as we can tell. I am simply stating that science could be done differently. In fact, science is debated so frequently because it is NOT objective, although it attempts to make objective conclusions. Scientists strive to make these objective conclusions but science gets debated because there are sometimes "bad" scientists.

I'm speaking in ontological terms, though. Epistemologically, sure, our interpretations of how the physical world functions could be considered relative, but unless you're some kind of solipsist, I think it would be silly to argue that there isn't an objective interpretation somewhere in the ether. We, as fallible humans, simply lack the sophistication required to glean the exactitude of such an interpretation.

Now, of course, I would argue that the same could be said of morality. We unearth these moral truths just as we unearth physics, and perhaps we'll never be able to realize the full extent of either, but we can make educated guesses.

Would you agree that we've made moral progress over the years?

He will deny it, but this whole thread is literally just the "I'm better than other people because I don't do 'x' like all the other sheep out there do! Btw my favorite movie is Fight Club"

why would i deny that

from whence do you derive your morals,

The existence of sentient creatures who have the capacity to feel pain and experience suffering begets a system of ethics from which we can derive existential "oughts" and "ought-nots"

this, we call morality

a simple example of a basic moral truth: sentient beings ought not to experience gratuitous suffering

and given what you have stated ("My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts."), how do know these to be the objectively/universally correct morals?

Because it's the only one that sings logically. It's the only one I've been able to think of that makes any rational sense. You can argue that others might disagree--but that's why we debate. If morality were subjective, it would be pointless to debate it.

Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 24, 2015, 03:30:28 PM

Cultural relativism is so fucking retarded.

As a moral objectivist, it is not my job to tell you who is "right" in these scenarios.

My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts.

My experience with the types of moral objectivism is limited and it's been a while since I studied any of them for one reason or another. If you are unable to identify any moral facts, that distinguishes you as being morally agnostic; however, does being in this state not, in itself, essentially require you to function as a moral relativist?

How do you mean "function" as a moral relativist?

hey who wants to talk about depressing shit

I'm having a hard time understanding why.

afaik, the only reason you'd want to is if you'd want to reduce sexual pleasure, normally as a deterrent

I'm ambidextrous?

lol no you're not

Meta: Economics
Camnator (he used to be here): Nutella and booty
CK: Winning at Super Smash Brawl tournaments

who are you

Also, it wouldn't hurt to get a simple pre paid phone like psu said. I mean, accidents can happen anywhere to anyone, it wouldn't be a good thing to not have a phone. Even disconnected phones can call 911 i think

i'll look into it

but all this blackberry and iphone and android shit?

fuck that stupid pointless-ass shit

LOL

Pot-smokers should be shot eight octillion times in the face.

weebs - weebery

Because you're not in your right mind. If I developed a condition like that at some point, I wouldn't want the decisions I make in that state to be used as my official will.

I would argue that most people, even healthy ones, are not in their right mind the majority of the time. If we had total sense (as opposed to common sense), then we would be able to make 100% informed decisions at all times. But we can't.

Consent is the basis of morality.
Consent is inherently valuable.
Acts against others break consent.
Acts against yourself don't.
Stopping someone from performing an act that doesn't break consent is breaking consent.
Breaking consent is immoral.

surprise birthday parties are now evil, under this logic