Ethics

[aeghrur]

Mc4, you've successfully managed to convince me you know nothing about anything.

He knows nothing about knowing nothing, so you shouldn't really listen to him.
But when a dictionary tells you the meanings of objective and subjective:
Objective-
1.perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective
2. involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

Subjective-
3. characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind — compare objective
4. relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

And this debate has shown you not a single bit of data or anything objective, then we can conclude you know nothing about objectivity, subjectivity, or the meaning of these two words, except now.

 

[SuperBowser]

I think i explained everything enough already, you can think what you want.



are you sure about that? Because i don't think you are

But.... I just refuted you. You can't just ignore me and repeat the same point

I currently have 6 hours of ethics lectures a week. Apart from hating them, I can assure you you are wrong.

 

[mc4]

He really is right, we create our own ethics, therefore they are subjective.

uhuh, and beyond that there are what are considered universal ethics, good vs evil so to speak and are considered objective because they are naturally wrong or seem that way (keep in mind this would be based on the idea of a God and i think i mentioned this whole thread being based from ethics in its earlier state as a social science such as when the time period of the greeks, i didn't mention anything about modern ethics)

Mc4, you've successfully managed to convince me you know nothing about anything.

yeah coming from a guy who posts in red and biggest arguments are insults, i could really couldn't care less what you think, and as far as the arguments back in the fallacies in christianity thread, i posted far more scientific fact probably in one post, then you did throughout that whole thread.

He knows nothing about knowing nothing, so you shouldn't really listen to him.
But when a dictionary tells you the meanings of objective and subjective:
Objective-
1.perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective
2. involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>


Subjective-
3. characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind — compare objective
4. relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

And this debate has shown you not a single bit of data or anything objective, then we can conclude you know nothing about objectivity, subjectivity, or the meaning of these two words, except now.

read the thread is all i have to say. I took a class on the history of ethics, and i know what i'm talking about. '' History".

But.... I just refuted you. You can't just ignore me and repeat the same point

I currently have 6 hours of ethics lectures a week. Apart from hating them, I can assure you you are wrong.

my bad, i'll give you a response when i get a chance.

 

[RDK]

and as far as the arguments back in the fallacies in christianity thread, i posted far more scientific fact probably in one post, then you did throughout that whole thread.

This is so utterly laughable that I don't even know what to say.

I've already showed you time and time again why none of what you posted can't seriously be considered science, but since you don't want to actually take part in an intelligent discussion then I see no need to explain further. That's why I insult you.

 

[Deleted member]

Mc4, there are some people that consider certain ethics to be universal, but those people are not to be taken seriously. I suggest you read between the lines of RDK's posts - he's insulting you, yes. But frankly, he's fairly justified. Take his criticism. You need it.

 

[Hive]

Most ethics are completely subjective, based on how someone believes the world works, there own desires, or societies desires...

I would argue that there is at least 1 thing in ethics that is arguably objective however... existence (at least for yourself). Although that is very far from being an ethic by itself. Why is this objective? Ethics is based around which actions are "right" to achieve meaning. Simply put, I think we can all see that existing is "necessary" to be meaningful, since it is impossible to achieve meaning without existing first(loosely based on cogito ergo sum). So in order to be meaningful (in any legitimate belief system) you yourself have to exist, which means that its part of the ethic. (since an ethic is only what needs to be done to achieve meaning).

Since ethics have no strict basis in science or anywhere else really, they are forced to be subjective. When this happens many forms of thought can and are legitimate logically.... and also there is no single better ethic... Even knowing something scientifically isn't a form of ethic, since scientifically speaking there is no reason to believe in science. ^^ science doesn't tell us how to live or why we live.... though personally I like the pursuit ^^ but that's really the most you can do.

I think the best we can do is to protect people's right to exist, and to choose in a society then...
this means acting against violence and other things that limits people's freedoms.
This also means religious tolerance, which some of you seem to ignore. We punish actions that are bad and the intentions to do bad things.... and we let beliefs that exist outside of this exist. which means any major belief system, really...
"anti-religious" and "anti-atheistic" pursuits are pretty childish really...

Different religions (and lack of) are still beautiful to me, even when I don't believe in them, they are interesting and introduce a sort of diversity and culture that isn't seen elsewhere.... I would hate to be against any of them You don't have to be buddhist for example to be inspired by the structure and purpose of angkor wat ^^ For a moment I imagine you can step outiside of your own beliefs for a second... I'd hate for any society to loose that...