Morals Are Completely Subjective

[Nineveh]

My basic assertion here is that my actions are not based on external moral judgment. When I said "I would put a rapist to death," I say so not because of some external moral standard, but because I simply don't want to live in a society where rapists are present. I should also point out here that I do not want to live in a society with thieves either. However, I wouldn't support capital punishment in their case. Crime and punishment are another issue that we can start in a different thread if you like.

But as I asked before, who cares what you think? Just because you would put a person to death, by what standing other than "your feelings" justifies their death? Nothing. "Morals are completely subjective". It appears you feel your moral standard is better than someone else's, how can that be? By what measure do you judge this?

When it comes to atrocities like rape, it's easy to let one's emotions take hold. And I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Emotions definitely have their place. However, when discussing the philosophical nature of morality, I attempt to use logic and critical thinking rather than pure emotion.

This doesn't justify vigilantism.

I would be interested to know if you see this view as anarchy. If so, I'll explain further.

You are lucky to live in a society that does not believe (or historically didn't believe) "morals are completely subjective". If you happened to find yourself in the place of the founders, your ideas could only lead to that form of (non) government. People would be the law unto themselves. So while you may or may not find rape to be worthy of death, you would have no stand at all to make that call one way or the other, nor legislate any punishment for it.

 

[Nineveh]

Balder, if you wanna play that tired ol argument again, why not just search your last 10 attempts instead of rehashing it here.

 

[Freedomcry]

But as I asked before, who cares what you think? Just because you would put a person to death, by what standing other than "your feelings" justifies their death?

This is the beauty of democracy. It's not just about what I want, but what everyone wants as a whole.

It appears you feel your moral standard is better than someone else's, how can that be? By what measure do you judge this?

That's not true. My morals are neither better nor worse than anyone else's.

This doesn't justify vigilantism.

I'm no more a vigilante than any other voter in our democratic society. I certainly don't take to the streets to enforce my morals, if that's what you mean.

You are lucky to live in a society that does not believe (or historically didn't believe) "morals are completely subjective". If you happened to find yourself in the place of the founders, your ideas could only lead to that form of (non) government. People would be the law unto themselves. So while you may or may not find rape to be worthy of death, you would have no stand at all to make that call one way or the other, nor legislate any punishment for it.

Collectively, people have taken the law into their own hands. This is the basis of our legal system. As a whole, we have set up rules and regulations for our citizens. I'm not opposed to this.

 

[Nineveh]

This is the beauty of democracy. It's not just about what I want, but what everyone wants as a whole.

So you are willing to judge what is moral by mob vote?

That's not true. My morals are neither better nor worse than anyone else's.

Then it is just to say a rapist has every right to take your life simply because they may feel you are intolerant of their activity and that makes them "feel bad".

I'm no more a vigilante than any other voter in our democratic society. I certainly don't take to the streets to enforce my morals, if that's what you mean.

I was going by this, "I would put a rapist to death. I've said it numerous time already."

Collectively, people have taken the law into their own hands. This is the basis of our legal system. As a whole, we have set up rules and regulations for our citizens. I'm not opposed to this.

They used a standard. I won't argue that since then some folks, mainly the courts, have tinkered with the foundational ideals. I will however say that generally, when they do, nothing good comes of it.

I see you are relying quite a bit on society for your moral basis. Let's say tomorrow rape became legal, what would you do?

 

[Freedomcry]

So you are willing to judge what is moral by mob vote?

No, I judge my best fit action based on my internal thoughts and experiences. My views usually come into action when its time to vote. And if and when I find matters to be extremely out of hand, I'll resort to political activism.

Then it is just to say a rapist has every right to take your life simply because they may feel you are intolerant of their activity and that makes them "feel bad".

One of the key points of my argument thus far has been that I deny the existence of intrinsic "rights". In our society, we have to fight our liberties. This is where we have a disagreement that will never be settled. You take the bible and God's word as a source of moral code and as a descriptor of human rights. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, I do not.

I was going by this, "I would put a rapist to death. I've said it numerous time already."

I didn't literally mean, I would put a rapist to death. If I was asked to administer lethal injection to a rapist, my first response would be, "Why? I'm not a doctor." For more information on my views of capital punishment, look here .

I see you are relying quite a bit on society for your moral basis. Let's say tomorrow rape became legal, what would you do?

Rape has been illegal for most if not all of man's civilized existence. If tomorrow it was somehow made legal, I'd fight against it (along with millions of others, I suppose.) If I were the only one fighting against it, I guess I'd have to go it alone. However, I highly doubt such a law would be passed.

 

[Balder]

Balder, if you wanna play that tired ol argument again, why not just search your last 10 attempts instead of rehashing it here.

I can dredge it up just as often as you can evade it, sister!

 

[Nineveh]

I can dredge it up just as often as you can evade it, sister!

Your tired lines have hardly been evaded at TOL, it's more likely you either didn't like the answers or have forgotten them (again). Here are your options, agree that "morals are completely subjective" and defend that position -or- present your argument against cryfreedom's position -or- make a new thread to go over your often rebutted off topic arguments.

If any of the other pagans should wonder, these are the three options that won't get deleted off this thread.

 

[Nineveh]

No, I judge my best fit action based on my internal thoughts and experiences. My views usually come into action when its time to vote. And if and when I find matters to be extremely out of hand, I'll resort to political activism.

So you judge morals by your own subjective standard. Which leaves you once again trying to justify, "I would put a rapist to death. I've said it numerous time already."

One of the key points of my argument thus far has been that I deny the existence of intrinsic "rights". In our society, we have to fight our liberties. This is where we have a disagreement that will never be settled. You take the bible and God's word as a source of moral code and as a descriptor of human rights. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, I do not.

Sadly for your argument, it seems the founders based their ideas on the standard God put forth (were they 100% accurate? No. But that is for another thread). So when your argument must rely on a society for your personal moral absolute (at this time), you must turn to the founders who turned to God as the granter of human rights. What God gives, only God can take away. What men give, men can take away. So I'm rather thankful they placed the freedom of speech outside of man's ability to take away, as men did not grant that right. Aren't you thankful they didn't choose to allow men to grant the rights you rely upon to make your arguments?

I didn't literally mean, I would put a rapist to death. If I was asked to administer lethal injection to a rapist, my first response would be, "Why? I'm not a doctor." For more information on my views of capital punishment, look here .

But to be consistent with your reply, you would have to say, "I have no "right" to take his life, because morals are completely subjective, therefore I can not judge this person "guilty"."

Rape has been illegal for most if not all of man's civilized existence. If tomorrow it was somehow made legal, I'd fight against it (along with millions of others, I suppose.) If I were the only one fighting against it, I guess I'd have to go it alone. However, I highly doubt such a law would be passed.

Why would you fight against it? Morals are completely subjective. On what grounds would you stand against rape being wrong? If your one man crusade to legislate rape as criminal failed, would you then turn to taking your law into your own hands? "... because I simply don't want to live in a society where rapists are present" or would you move? What if rape were like murder in that certain forms of it started becoming legal in one place after the next. Keep moving?

 

[Frank Ernest]

I would prefer to live in a society where all convicted rapists were put to death. I wouldn't tolerate rape in any shape or form.

Then you are intolerant of people who are differently moral than you.

As for what is right or wrong: Yes, right and wrong are completely subjective. Do I find rape "right"? No. Does a rapist? Maybe, maybe not. You'll have to talk to them.

You just contradicted yourself.

 

[Freedomcry]

So you judge morals by your own subjective standard. Which leaves you once again trying to justify, "I would put a rapist to death. I've said it numerous time already."

No, I don't judge other peoples morals. As I said before, any actions I might take are done so in my best interest.

Sadly for your argument, it seems the founders based their ideas on the standard God put forth (were they 100% accurate? No. But that is for another thread). So when your argument must rely on a society for your personal moral absolute (at this time), you must turn to the founders who turned to God as the granter of human rights. What God gives, only God can take away. What men give, men can take away. So I'm rather thankful they placed the freedom of speech outside of man's ability to take away, as men did not grant that right. Aren't you thankful they didn't choose to allow men to grant the rights you rely upon to make your arguments?

Whether or not you believe those rights to be given by God, the fact remains that those rights were legislated by man. They were given to us by man, and they can be taken away by man. If you want to see a good example of man taking away "God given rights", look to nazi Germany.

But to be consistent with your reply, you would have to say, "I have no "right" to take his life, because morals are completely subjective, therefore I can not judge this person "guilty"."

If by "guilty" you mean broken a law, I could probably do that if I was called for jury duty. If you mean "eternally guilty", than no, I cannot make that judgement. If I were to decide to push the button to kill him, it would be dependent on many factors.

Why would you fight against it? Morals are completely subjective. On what grounds would you stand against rape being wrong?

Why? Because I don't like rape. I'm not sure what you mean by grounds. That seems like a loaded question. One doesn't need grounds when acting.

If your one man crusade to legislate rape as criminal failed, would you then turn to taking your law into your own hands? "... Because I simply don't want to live in a society where rapists are present" or would you move? What if rape were like murder in that certain forms of it started becoming legal in one place after the next. Keep moving?

If I saw someone being raped, I'd most certainly go to their aid. However, you probably wouldn't find me out patrolling the streets for rapists. Not unless it was a very severe problem in my neighborhood and there needed to be some sort of organized "citizens neighborhood watch program."

I've lived in foreign countries before. If this country got so out of hand that my political efforts failed, I may move. That would be a difficult decision.

 

[Freedomcry]

Then you are intolerant of people who are differently moral than you.

I'm intolerant of people that threaten by best interest.

You just contradicted yourself.

How?

 

[Nineveh]

No, I don't judge other peoples morals. As I said before, any actions I might take are done so in my best interest.

You can make no judgements whatsoever. "Morals are completley subjective".

Whether or not you believe those rights to be given by God, the fact remains that those rights were legislated by man. They were given to us by man, and they can be taken away by man. If you want to see a good example of man taking away "God given rights", look to nazi Germany.

Do you want to argue from Nazi Germany or do you want to argue from the society you live in? If it's the latter, the founders of this nation put the rights of men beyond the reach of being legislated away by men. When those rights are legislated downward by men, it comes form denying Who underlies the authority of our rights.

If by "guilty" you mean broken a law, I could probably do that if I was called for jury duty. If you mean "eternally guilty", than no, I cannot make that judgement. If I were to decide to push the button to kill him, it would be dependent on many factors.

You have to bend your belief system to judge at all. You have no basis to put anyone to death for anything.

Why? Because I don't like rape. I'm not sure what you mean by grounds. That seems like a loaded question. One doesn't need grounds when acting.

:sigh: The semantics game.

Why would you fight against it? Morals are completely subjective. On what authority would you stand against rape being wrong?

If I saw someone being raped, I'd most certainly go to their aid. However, you probably wouldn't find me out patrolling the streets for rapists. Not unless it was a very severe problem in my neighborhood and there needed to be some sort of organized "citizens neighborhood watch program."

Back to relying on society again...

I've lived in foreign countries before. If this country got so out of hand that my political efforts failed, I may move. That would be a difficult decision.

Have you considered if folks didn't believe "morals are completely subjective" to begin with, it wouldn't get to that extreme?

 

[Freedomcry]

Do you want to argue from Nazi Germany or do you want to argue from the society you live in? If it's the latter, the founders of this nation put the rights of men beyond the reach of being legislated away by men. When those rights are legislated downward by men, it comes form denying Who underlies the authority of our rights.

Lets talk about this nation. I agree with you here. But man can still amend those rights or simply throw them away altogether.

You have to bend your belief system to judge at all. You have no basis to put anyone to death for anything.

Again, I don't judge whether someone is "right" or "wrong". I can only act in my best interest.

Why would you fight against it? Morals are completely subjective. On what authority would you stand against rape being wrong?

I would fight against it because I don't like it. Why does on prefer coke over pepsi? Because pepsi is morally wrong? No, because one simply prefers one over the other. One doesn't need a basis for making a decision of preference.

Back to relying on society again...

And this is a problem?

Have you considered if folks didn't believe "morals are completely subjective" to begin with, it wouldn't get to that extreme?

Moral relativism is not the source of this countries problems.

 

[Nineveh]

Lets talk about this nation. I agree with you here. But man can still amend those rights or simply throw them away altogether.

By man's error according to the founding documents. You just happen to be lucky to live in a nation who still has a bit of the understanding left. I'm sure, in time, that too shall pass.

Again, I don't judge whether someone is "right" or "wrong". I can only act in my best interest.

Back to yourself again...

I would fight against it because I don't like it. Why does on prefer coke over pepsi? Because pepsi is morally wrong? No, because one simply prefers one over the other. One doesn't need a basis for making a decision of preference.

You are comparing a soda to rape. That's pathetic.

And this is a problem?

Morals are completely subjective, so yes.

Moral relativism is not the source of this countries problems.

Yes it is. In fact, it's at the root of the world's problems.

You know it's wrong to rape, but because you believe "morals are completely subjective" the immorality of rape can only apply to you. You can not judge it, you rightfully can not stop others from doing it. The more people who believe like you, the more criminals will be free to follow their own "completely subjective morality" with nothing there to stop them.

 

[Freedomcry]

Your argument seems to be getting more and more emotional and patronizing. If you decide to not discuss this in a rational way, I'll understand.

The more people who believe like you, the more criminals will be free to follow their own "completely subjective morality" with nothing there to stop them.

Criminals already do follow their own subjective morality. And those who fight to stop them follow their subjective morality. They just happen to be in opposition.

 

[Nineveh]

Your argument seems to be getting more and more emotional and patronizing.

Same now as I've always been.

If you decide to not discuss this in a rational way, I'll understand.

Look, you keep coming back this this when you know it's your standard that's irrational here. You've even sunk to the level of comparing rape to a soft drink. At some points you appeal to yourself, other times to a society. Sometimes you are against judging, other times you aren't. Sometimes for punishement, other times not. All while holding on to the belief "morals are completely subjective". This is the standard you have chosen. Either be proud of it and accept it for what it is or abandon it for a better one that can at least keep you consistent.

Criminals already do follow their own subjective morality. And those who fight to stop them follow their subjective morality. They just happen to be in opposition.

The option you miss is that morals aren't subjective. Rape is always wrong.

 

[Freedomcry]

Look, you keep coming back this this when you know it's your standard that's irrational here. You've even sunk to the level of comparing rape to a soft drink. At some points you appeal to yourself, other times to a society. Sometimes you are against judging, other times you aren't. Sometimes for punishement, other times not. All while holding on to the belief "morals are completely subjective". This is the standard you have chosen. Either be proud of it and accept it for what it is or abandon it for a better one that can at least keep you consistent.

I think we may have a different understanding of the meaning of the statement, "morals are completely subjective."

In addition, I'm not seeing my inconsistencies, so someone will have to point them out.

 

[Nineveh]

I think we may have a different understanding of the meaning of the statement, "morals are completely subjective."

Odd you want to define words on page 7. But ok.

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Completely: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full

Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual

In addition, I'm not seeing my inconsistencies, so someone will have to point them out.

Seven pages haven't done it. How many more would?

 

[Lighthouse]

I can understand why one could see these two sentences as contradictory, so I'll explain further.

My basic assertion here is that my actions are not based on external moral judgment. When I said "I would put a rapist to death," I say so not because of some external moral standard, but because I simply don't want to live in a society where rapists are present. I should also point out here that I do not want to live in a society with thieves either. However, I wouldn't support capital punishment in their case. Crime and punishment are another issue that we can start in a different thread if you like.

When it comes to atrocities like rape, it's easy to let one's emotions take hold. And I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Emotions definitely have their place. However, when discussing the philosophical nature of morality, I attempt to use logic and critical thinking rather than pure emotion.

I would be interested to know if you see this view as anarchy. If so, I'll explain further.

You truly are an idiot.

 

[Freedomcry]

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Completely: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full

Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual

Good, so I'll set the record straight for what you said earlier:

Look, you keep coming back this this when you know it's your standard that's irrational here. You've even sunk to the level of comparing rape to a soft drink. At some points you appeal to yourself, other times to a society. Sometimes you are against judging, other times you aren't. Sometimes for punishement, other times not. All while holding on to the belief "morals are completely subjective". This is the standard you have chosen. Either be proud of it and accept it for what it is or abandon it for a better one that can at least keep you consistent.

I don't judge. (I've said this many times, but for some reason, you think I do judge). Sometimes I am in favor of punishment, sometimes I am not. My stance depends on the crime commited. I'm neither proud nor shamed by my beliefs. They are simply beliefs.

Seven pages haven't done it. How many more would?

With seven pages of responses like this, how am I? When I ask for you to back up your statements, you seem to be full of witty remarks, but lack comments with any sort of substance.