Saddest picture of the century-vulture waiting for a child to die
107 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777123]if all humans have morality, and two humans beings can have morality systems that are polar opposites of each other, then your concept of "human beings having morality" is meaningless since it defines nothing at all.[/QUOTE]
Here's a base statement:
[B]Morality is subjective[/B]
Now, from our conversation I drew two facts:
-You do not know what morality is
-You do not know what subjective means
-You are an idiot
Of course two different cultures can have opposite morals, because it's not cemented as a universal guideline on what's wrong and right.
And my statement [I]does[/I] define morality as something that is not consistent from person to person, something which you don't seem to get. Which I have already covered with:[QUOTE]-You do not know what subjective means[/QUOTE]
Some morality has a natural basis in altruistic behavior, so that's kind of objective morality.
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777176]Here's a base statement:
[B]Morality is subjective[/B]
Now, from our conversation I drew two facts:
-You do not know what morality is
-You do not know what subjective means
-You are an idiot
Of course two different cultures can have opposite morals, because it's not cemented as a universal guideline on what's wrong and right.[/QUOTE]
we may be going by two different definitions.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality[/url]
I am going by the 2nd one. I define morality as what defines right or wrong. But just believing something, or acting out something, does not make it true. It just is. An action, with no value.
if you go by the first, "morality" simply being an collective set of ideals held by a population...then yes you are right, however, I would argue that since synonyms such as "common mannerisms" or "social norms" can easily replace the first definition, then your case is weaker than mine.
I've seen this, i don't find it sad or anything. Maybe just little bit... depressing.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777241]we may be going by two different definitions.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality[/URL]
I am going by the 2nd one. I define morality as what defines right or wrong. But just believing something, or acting out something, does not make it true. It just is. An action, with no value.[/QUOTE]
If you stated that you feel sad because of the child's situation, then how can you argue that you have no morality?
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777241]
if you go by the first, "morality" simply being an collective set of ideals held by a population...then yes you are right, however, I would argue that since synonyms such as "common mannerisms" or "social norms" can easily replace the first definition, then your case is weaker than mine.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how the presence of a synonim (they're more hyponym's, really) would automatically make the first definition invalid.
I dont know about you guys, but that picture World’s Worst Football injuries, got more of my attention than the picture OP posted.
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777332]If you stated that you feel sad because of the child's situation, then how can you argue that you have no morality?[/quote]
Because I have a hardwired emotional response towards personified entities.
but emotions don't make things, "right" (or "wrong" for that matter).
[quote]
I don't see how the presence of a synonim (they're more hyponym's, really) would automatically make the first definition invalid.[/QUOTE]
not invalid. just...less precise.
Not the saddest picture of the century really.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777366]Because I have a hardwired emotional response towards personified entities.
but emotions don't make things, "right" (or "wrong" for that matter).
[/QUOTE]
They do, it's just like sticking your hand into a fire: you get a hardwired reaction that lets you know that's it's bad. Morals are partly objective, the ones that were developed from instinct anyway. Saying that you have no morals is just a fallacy.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777366]
not invalid. just...less precise.[/QUOTE]
When you're talking about morals you have to be pretty broad, especially because there are so many definitions.
[QUOTE=sniperlover;24777381]Not the saddest picture of the century really.[/QUOTE]
It is if you actually understand the pain and scaredness that little girl is feeling
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777449]They do, it's just like sticking your hand into a fire: you get a hardwired reaction that lets you know that's it's bad. Morals are partly objective, the ones that were developed from instinct anyway. Saying that you have no morals is just a fallacy.[/quote]
I have some medicine in my cabinet that tastes horrible. however, scientific consensus says it is good for me.
[quote]
When you're talking about morals you have to be pretty broad, especially because there are so many definitions.[/QUOTE]
hm.
then we are supposed to narrow our definitions down so we know we are talking about the same thing. silly wewt.
[QUOTE=Nystical;24774706]sadder thing is he didn't help the child, and wanted to take the picture instead.[/QUOTE]
As cruel as it seems, this photo may send a message and encourage people to help people in need. In my eyes this is a good thing.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777489]I have some medicine in my cabinet that tastes horrible. however, scientific consensus says it is good for me.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is because we aren't completely guided by our instincts anymore, that doesn't mean that morals didn't develop from them :doh:
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777489]
hm. then we are supposed to narrow our definitions down so we know we are talking about the same thing. silly wewt.[/QUOTE]
How about next time you don't make an incredibly broad statement that make you look like an angsty teenager trying to be edgy. Although, saying ''Oh I have no objective morals but yeah this makes me feel sad'' is dumb to begin with.
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777539]Yes, that is because we aren't completely guided by our instincts anymore, that doesn't mean that morals didn't develop from them :doh:
How about next time you don't make an incredibly broad statement that make you look like an angsty teenager trying to be edgy. Although, saying ''Oh I have no objective morals but yeah this makes me feel sad'' is dumb to begin with.[/QUOTE]
again, you are using "morals" in the sense of "social norms/mannerisms" which we all have. And the latter synonyms (or hypnonyms, if you insist), do not have any inherent rightness or wrongness in them.
I am using morality in the sense of right or wrong, which there can only be a single unchanging truth. Saying that "something is right for you and wrong for me" and vice versa does not make any sense, because if viewed with an objective standard are just actions without value.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777650]again, you are using "morals" in the sense of "social norms/mannerisms" which we all have. And the latter synonyms (or hypnonyms, if you insist), do not have any inherent rightness or wrongness in them.
I am using morality in the sense of right or wrong, which there can only be a single unchanging truth. Saying that "something is right for you and wrong for me" and vice versa does not make any sense, because if viewed with an objective standard are just actions without value.[/QUOTE]
Using morality as an objective fact is dumb, so naturally I can see why you would say that you don't have that. Which means you basically made a redundant statement. Also saying "something is right for you and wrong for me" does make sense in a subjective way, it's painfully obvious that objectively it doesn't mean anything which is why morals are primarily defined as subjective.
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777697]Using morality as an objective fact is dumb, so naturally I can see why you would say that you don't have that. Which means you basically made a redundant statement. Also saying "something is right for you and wrong for me" does make sense in a subjective way, it's painfully obvious that objectively it doesn't mean anything which is why morals are primarily defined as subjective.[/QUOTE]
saying "morality is subjective so all people are moral beings" is redundant. :colbert:
Oh wow children are dying in africa. Big shock right there.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777723]saying "morality is subjective so all people are moral beings" is redundant. :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Which means that saying that you're not moral without stating which definition you meant is stupid and frustratingly obscure :c00lbert:
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777754]Which means that saying that you're not moral without stating which definition you meant is stupid and frustratingly obscure :c00lbert:[/QUOTE]
same for you.
and hey I wasn't the one who brought in the term "hypnonym". thankfully, that's one more word I learned today....
Not really same for me, as I wasn't the one who made the original statement.
I simply argued based on the most widely believed and correct definition.
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24776817]you're a monster.
I may be devoid of morality, but I at least can feel.
even if it makes me feel empty.[/QUOTE]
what is this melodramatic shit
Wow Phoenix, Wewt just give it a rest you've been fighting over morality the whole thread
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777830]Not really same for me, as I wasn't the one who made the original statement.
I simply argued based on the most widely believed and correct definition.[/QUOTE]
wikipedia says otherwise! :frog:
[QUOTE=SkullKid //;24777872]Wow Phoenix, Wewt just give it a rest you've been fighting over morality the whole thread[/QUOTE]
Pretty much ran it into the ground actually
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777881]wikipedia says otherwise! :frog:[/QUOTE]
Wikipedo says many things. And morality being seen as subjective to the person, culture, etc is the most correct
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777884]
Wikipedo says many things. And morality being seen as subjective to the person, culture, etc is the most correct[/QUOTE]
citation needed :colbert:
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777881]wikipedia says otherwise! :frog:[/QUOTE]
Wow you actually believe something on Wikipedia
[QUOTE=Phoenix Ashes;24777923]citation needed :colbert:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SkullKid //;24777929]Wow you actually believe something on Wikipedia[/QUOTE]
also, just ask any person that looks at a culture objectively.
For example, the Chinese eat dogs, some people think that's wrong but they don't. That pretty much shows that morals are indeed subjective, as dogs are fair game when it comes to food.
here's a tip guys, when I use smilies, I am not being serious. anyone who does not see the blatant irony of claiming wikipedia as an authority source and asking for citations the next needs a whack on the head 3:<
[QUOTE=wewt!;24777950]also, just ask any person that looks at a culture objectively.
For example, the Chinese eat dogs, some people think that's wrong but they don't. That pretty much shows that morals are indeed subjective, as dogs are fair game when it comes to food.[/QUOTE]
or it just shows that there is no morality at play.
I thought we resolved thsi already?
Don't get me wrong that is sad, but I don't feel pity for some reason. :frown:
[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;24778098]Don't get me wrong that is sad, but I don't feel pity for some reason. :frown:[/QUOTE]
Your not alone
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.