Split - Morality Discussion

Discussion in 'Community' started by vmc, Oct 9, 2003.

  1. vmc macrumors newbie

    Oct 9, 2003
    Usually I just read, but I couldn't help but reply to this.

    You cannot be more wrong about this. It's very dangerous to practice (let alone preach) subjective morality. People don't get rich by luck, it's by design. Masses of people won't agree with me on this, but I'd bet that these same people a) are not rich and b) spend more time complaining about the rich than working hard to make a dollar themselves. I'm not denying that there aren't people who are rich in spite of themselves (or because of their parents). It's been my experience that those who don't earn the money, usually spend it quickly anyway. However, I don't see what any of that has to do with the morality of robbing someone. If you see two dogs, one ugly and one handsome, do you feel it's be better to take the handsome dog's bone? Surely you don't feel that the dog became handsome by working hard?

    Morality is objective , there is a right and a wrong. Subjective morals are for those who don't want to be burdened with the considerable weight of thinking through situations to reach a logical - correct - conclusion. These people are easy to spot these days, they're the same people who spend much of their time on Kazaa downloading the things that they could never buy themselves. It's okay, though, because they've justified it in they're own silly way.

    This isn't meant to be a personal attack, I just think that this type of thinking is what causes many of the problems that are prevelant in civilized society these days. If you can tell me why I'm wrong about this, it'd make my life a lot easier... well, at least I'd have a bigger music collection.
  2. vmc thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 9, 2003
    No offense, but that's the furthest thing from a proof I've ever seen... and I've see a LOT of proofs :) Your arguing that people are subjective to prove that morals are not objective.... there's not even a connection there.

    Anywho, I don't consider myself extremist at all, I simply think that there are concretes - that morals can be deduced via logic. Yes, I agree that people do have different opinions - however, that does not disprove objective morality. To make a long argument short and spare the rest of the people on the board my morality temper-tantrums, consider the statement "ignorance is bliss", then consider why you don't believe objective morality exists. I think you'll find a connection.
  3. nalfein macrumors member

    Aug 24, 2003
    Ok. i'm wrong, morality can or cannot be subjective. the probleme is more to realy find "real" morality. You said moral can be deducted from logic ... but is logic realy subjective? shure you have some basic logic rules after that you can extrapolate some new rules from(modus ponen, modus tollen,etc.) but how do you know the basic rules you derive all your rules from are right? Yes maybe there is some god rules totaly true but if some kinds of rules exist there is no logical way you can proove it.if you can, you'd better start your own religion, because you can LOGICALY proove god existence.

    You always start with totaly objective sentence as true sentence. without that base, every speculate rules cannot be proove it's the mathematical principle behind logic programming.

    my mother always told me not to steal, i took this sentence as true sentence and i can deduct much new true sentence from it. i never knew why but i always thought this sentence was true. If you know why, the same probleme return. Why why? this is exactly the same think when children start there "why" periode. You alway arrive at some point you will say that's true because it's true. When you arrive at this point, you found wich rules you start to derivate all the other, but this rule is completly impossible to be Logicaly prooven. It's totaly impossible because you need other true rules to proove it, etc.

    sorry f the way i show you my point is not realy perfect, i think this is my first real english debate but when i talked about capitalism/comunist thing I just wanted to say that basic rules(true rules wich you base your logic on) are society/education dependant and can vary from one man to another.

    completly out of subject.(should be the last one)
  4. vmc thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 9, 2003
    One could prove or disprove the existance of god, if they had enough information. You don't need to have me tell you that, however, you've already figured it out for yourself. It's pretty simple, the closer you are to perfect information, the closer you are the finding out THE objective truth.

    You don't need to apologize for your English, it's fine. :)
  5. nalfein macrumors member

    Aug 24, 2003
    Maybe there is another way you can proove god existance but never "LOGICALY". the logicaly word is very very very very important . Have you ever study mathematic? i do and i can tell you every logical statement are derivate from some truth that cannot be prooven logicaly.

    1+1 =2 it's logical but it's only logical because you put some truth(rules) at the start. if the first man who invent mathematic have said 1+1 = 5 you'd find totaly illogic to say 1+1=2.

    another example : a=5 and b=2 it's logic to tell a+b = 7 because it's derivate from 2 truths : 1=5 and b=2. but how can you proove a=5 or b=2?? pretty difficult.another one if you start with a+b=7 and b=2 you can derivate a=5 but how can you proove a+b=7?

    So the moral is : os X is dead, long live os X
    (i make very big effort to write something on topic:D and i promise this is my last logical post hehehe )
  6. chickengrease16 macrumors member

    Apr 21, 2003
    Tallahassee, FL
    all i know is, im one of those that spent most of my money on my powerbook, and couldnt afford a new one if it was stolen. i use a $2500 laptop while i struggle (i'm in college...) to pay the bills. do i think that its more wrong to steal from me than someone rich? heck yeah. not because of the crime or act of stealing. i think that stealing is stealing. murdering a criminal, an innocent person, or a child is all the same, so stealing from a rich guy or a poor guy is all the same. however, i would have to say that the person who stole from a poor chap would be more cold hearted, however that relates to morality. just my $0.02.
  7. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    Even if morality is objective, that doesn't prove that it's equally immoral to steal from the rich and the poor.

    You're seeing "stealing" as the category to which an objective view must be applied, but that's arbitrary.

    We can easily make bigger or smaller categories. I can say "doing harm to others" as a larger category that encompases stealing. Is all "harm to others" equally immoral?

    Or we could say that there is no such category as "stealing" but only more exact categories, such as "stealing from the rich/ poor."

    You only think there is an objective (im)morality that applies equally to all theft because you have arbitrarily created "theft" as one category.
  8. G4scott macrumors 68020


    Jan 9, 2002
    Austin, TX
    Just a note on logic, if you say a=5 and b=2, and a+b = 7, it is a valid argument. It is logical. You are claiming that a=5 and b=2, so therefore they must be true. There is no doubt about their truth values. You have just proved them by saying a=5 and b = 2.

    What will blow your mind, is this.

    1 + 1 = 3 or 2 + 2 = 5
    1+ 1 is not equal to 3
    Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5

    Believe it or not, that is a valid, logical statement. It follows all of the laws of logic.

    Logic is such fun.
  9. nalfein macrumors member

    Aug 24, 2003
    Exactly... ;)
    i never try to proove stealing is good. You know, i already bought my copy of panther. I'm just making little fun creating some self questionning.

    by the way, i'm student it was very diffucult for my to find the money to buy my powerbook(stop drinking wine for nearly 6 month) so 69$ is now completly over my budget but 20$ upgrade is all i'm able to pay now.(lucky my serial # work)
  10. jxyama macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    if morality is objective, then there's no "more" or "less" or "equally," etc., any "relative" comparisons. it is either "is" or "isn't." either stealing from the rich IS or ISN't moral and the same for stealing from the poor.

    i understand that part about creating categories. however, the definition of stealing doesn't depend on the status of the target. (i.e. richness/poorness of the person you are stealing from) if you take someting that belongs to someone else without that person's consent, it's stealing, regardless of whether the other person is poor or rich, male or female, etc. so i am not so sure if you can call it completely arbituary.
  11. jxyama macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    sure, but "mind blowing" only because you've clouded logic with our pre-conception about what those numbers, addition and equal signs represent.

    if you accept that either A or B is true, if A is false then of course, B is true... that's all. the mind blowing part depends on one accepting your first proposition, "1 + 1 = 3 or 2 + 2 = 5," which is hard to do unless you can ignore what those numbers/symbols represent.
  12. etoiles macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2002
    Where the air is crisp
    On the subject of morals: what is good for you is bound to be bad for somebody or something else. That is a very basic principle of life. You have to eat something, you take up space, you use up resources in general. The question is were you draw the line, you need to find a certain balace for people to be able to live in a society, that is why we have laws.

    The argument that morals are objective because you can always reach a logical 'correct' conclusion is pointless IMHO. Any human being can only judge by what he knows and understands, and that will always be very limited in the grand scheme of things. I am not saying that morals are worthless, quite the contrary. But every person has to find their own set of values to guide them through life...
  13. WinterMute Moderator emeritus


    Jan 19, 2003
    London, England
    Has anyone else noticed this thread has been read 23000 times, is that right?

    Thats got to be some kind of record on a thread with so few repies.
  14. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus


    Oct 5, 2001
    San Diego, CA
    This discussion was split from the Panther announcement thread, which has well over 24,000 views. vBulletin keeps the view stats for split threads.
  15. rainman::|:| macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    all i'll add is this: people constantly condemn gay people for being "immoral". isn't using words to hurt people "immoral"? ah, not when it's the "truth", they say. Who determines the "truth"? no, it isn't god, it's each and every individual (otherwise, the only religious debate there would be is followers vs. everyone else). so my thought is, why not make morality more of a personal issue... not "stand there and accept my morality", rather "reach inside your heart and find what's true, then try live your life to those morals". it's the only way morality will ever increase the well-being of society as a whole.

  16. WinterMute Moderator emeritus


    Jan 19, 2003
    London, England
    OK, cool, thanks rower, I thought it was unusual, MR isn't usually know for it's overly moralistic stand...;)
  17. eric_n_dfw macrumors 68000


    Jan 2, 2002
    DFW, TX, USA
    But isn't that the only real debate one religion has with another? Religion A believes they are right and B, C and D are wrong while B, C and D all believe the same thing about them selves.
  18. jxyama macrumors 68040


    Apr 3, 2003
    some people condemn gay people for being "immoral." it's not the same as stealing because gay people do not have to listen to those people condemning them. also, if those gay people don't subscribe the set of "morality" preached by particular religious types (which they don't), they aren't being "hurt" by those words because they don't subscribe to them.

    i am not religious. so when some fanatic preaches me i'm going to hell because i'm a sinner, it doesn't bother me because i don't believe in any of the things he says.

    however, if someone steals something from me, then i'm bothered and hurt. i have no choice about it because something i used to own is now gone, whether i believe it or not.

    now, trying to tell those religious people that they are wrong and being unable to convince them is bothersome. but i'm not sure if it's immoral in an "absolute" sense like stealing. (imo)

    don't get me wrong, i think those condemning gay rights for some (what i consider) dumb religious reasons are pretty awful. but i'm not sure if it's "immoral" the same way stealing or killing would be.
  19. jefhatfield Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    and since we have that many registered members, i thought a hacker got into the network to steal their email addresses and that was a footprint they didn't erase:p :p

    an email address to a spammer is prolly worth a few cents, but then have millions of those and then you are in business...i love those "click" here if you want to unsubscribe, then you click and it opens a page that says, "enter email here to unsubscribe"...the more i have done this, the more i have gotten spam...it's like for every spammer i unsubscribe, to, five related offers come to me within 2 to 3 working business days:p :p :p

    one of my computer professor friends teaches a class in computer deception and spammers for a military school

    spam is just as disruptive to government networks as terrorist hackers are...i wonder how "dangerous" this site is for government employees who are severe macheads..this site is like mac porn for those right before a macworld event

  20. Lyle macrumors 68000


    Jun 11, 2003
    Madison, Alabama
    Reading the comments in this thread brought to mind parts of Mere Christianity, a book by C. S. Lewis. I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but in the first few chapters he's discussing this question of whether there is some absolute moral authority (or "truth") or whether it is, as you suggest, up to each and every individual. Lewis makes the case that when arguing about something, people frequently appeal to an absolute standard of what is "right" and what is "wrong". It is understood that this standard is not set by either of the people involved in the argument, but rather by some higher authority (and I'm not talking about the laws of any particular country here).

    Anyways, it's a very interesting read regardless of your religious beliefs.

Share This Page