Disturbing trend in high schools

mtimber wrote in post #14725289
You stated it was egotistical to believe in and express absolute moral standards, didn't you?

In that, I think I detected some disapproval on your part...

You indicated that egotism was wrong...

...Which is very interesting when you consider that you claim to be fully capable of being able to self determine your own moral standards.

Being self-deterministic morally is to be egotistical.


So with that thought, is egotism wrong?

Since you seem to be confusing correct/incorrect with morally right/morally wrong, I'll make it simple for you:

Pretend that morality is like ice cream. You are saying that there is an absolute best flavor, and I am saying that the best flavor depends on the person.

By saying there is one flavor that is the best, and that you know what tastes best, you are saying that you know what the best flavor is. Since I am saying that it depends on the person, there cannot be a "best flavor". This is why I mentioned that your position is egotistical; it implies that you know what is right/best and other people do not. If it is subjective, I am free to believe that my favorite flavor is the best, and I understand that you may have a different favorite flavor.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725393
From my point of view, I'm right. From my neighbor's point of view, he's right.

From a third party's point of view, we might both be wrong!

So if you are right and your neighbour is right, then goodness and badness do not exist.

There is no standards of morality, just opinion.

And therefore your car being stolen is neither good or bad, it just is.

So whenever anyone does anything to your personal detriment, you think that is perfectly acceptable and you wish them the best of luck?

mtimber wrote in post #14725450
So if you are right and your neighbour is right, then goodness and badness do not exist.

There is no standards of morality, just opinion.

And therefore your car being stolen is neither good or bad, it just is.

So whenever anyone does anything to your personal detriment, you think that is perfectly acceptable and you wish them the best of luck?

You always take it one step too far. If someone does something to your personal detriment, then it is bad TO YOU. Why would you wish them the best of luck?

kcbrown wrote in post #14725393
But this scenario is one we can use to explore some of these questions in greater detail.

Suppose the reason my neighbor believes it right to steal my car is that his is broken down and his wife has suffered a medical emergency that requires him to take her to the hospital right now or she'll surely die. He can't wait for the ambulance to show up, I'm out of town, and nobody else is close enough for him to carry his wife to.

Is it still wrong for him to steal my car?

If it was my neighbour and my car in that situation, he would have my blessing, so no, he would not be stealing it from me.

He would be using it in an emergency and I would understand that he was relying on my goodwill to understand his predicament...

But then as I have a basis for judging good and bad, I can determine that.


But you on the other hand, do not have any basis for determining what is good or bad, because you believe he has a subjective right to do with your property as he pleases, cannot condemn his actions as stealing.


There is no such thing as "stealing" in a world driven by subjective morality, there is not right or wrong, remember?

Just a point of view on the matter...

Stealing can only exist, in a world where absolute morality exists...

kcbrown wrote in post #14725415
What do you mean, here, by the term "absolute"? Be precise. It's important.

Absolute = absolute.

mtimber wrote in post #14725422
Look at it this way.

Empirical scientific experimention can only be practiced if the laws that are used to measure the experiment are absolute.

This is incorrect.

Experimentation means taking an action and observing its effects. But observation itself is a subjective thing, because it is performed by an individual and from his point of view. Empirical science is performed by comparing many different observations and looking for consistency.

We presume that there exists an external (to us) physical universe in which we live (this is a reasonable presumption because it fits with what we see and is the most straightforward interpretation of same). The purpose of science is to discover the characteristics of that universe.

We don't presume that the laws of physics are consistent through space and time, we have observed that to be the case. It's possible that the universe is fooling us all the same, but that is not the simplest explanation for what we see.

No, science itself would be possible, but the conclusions we'd arrive at as a result would be very different.

But morality can't be observed, nor can it be deduced from observation. It is a prescriptive standard, not a descriptive one.

What we call the "laws of physics" are descriptions about how the universe operates.

alt4852 wrote in post #14725423
Since you seem to be confusing correct/incorrect with morally right/morally wrong, I'll make it simple for you:

Pretend that morality is like ice cream. You are saying that there is an absolute best flavor, and I am saying that the best flavor depends on the person.

By saying there is one flavor that is the best, and that you know what tastes best, you are saying that you know what the best flavor is. Since I am saying that it depends on the person, there cannot be a "best flavor". This is why I mentioned that your position is egotistical; it implies that you know what is right/best and other people do not. If it is subjective, I am free to believe that my favorite flavor is the best, and I understand that you may have a different favorite flavor.

Your analogy is wrong.

Try this:

The fact you can taste the ice cream proves the ice cream exists.

But without being able to test it with the standards of taste, you would not be able to identify it as ice cream.


Your ability to define it, implicitly demands an intrinsic standard of definition...

mtimber wrote in post #14725491
Absolute = absolute.

LOL!

Self referencing arguments will get you nowhere.


Seriously, though, what do you mean by that? Do you mean, merely, that it is unchanging? Do you mean that it refers to something external? Both? Something else?

alt4852 wrote in post #14725462
You always take it one step too far. If someone does something to your personal detriment, then it is bad TO YOU. Why would you wish them the best of luck?

If you lived your life for the greater good of others, how would the above be bad for you?

kcbrown wrote in post #14725504
This is incorrect.

Experimentation means taking an action and observing its effects. But observation itself is a subjective thing, because it is performed by an individual and from his point of view. Empirical science is performed by comparing many different observations and looking for consistency.

We presume that there exists an external (to us) physical universe in which we live (this is a reasonable presumption because it fits with what we see and is the most straightforward interpretation of same). The purpose of science is to discover the characteristics of that universe.

We don't presume that the laws of physics are consistent through space and time, we have observed that to be the case. It's possible that the universe is fooling us all the same, but that is not the simplest explanation for what we see.

No, science itself would be possible, but the conclusions we'd arrive at as a result would be very different.

But morality can't be observed, nor can it be deduced from observation. It is a prescriptive standard, not a descriptive one.

What we call the "laws of physics" are descriptions about how the universe operates.

One of the assumptions of empirical deduction is that there are laws of uniformity in nature.

That is tested on a daily basis and confirmed.

A verifiable logical circular argument.

So yes, we do presume the laws of physics are consistent throughout the universe for example, because if we did not, no scientific experiment could be considered reliable.


Every observation of mankind has indicated that the laws of physics is consistent (leaving aside wrong assumptions about those laws etc), arguing that they might be different somewhere else, therefore they cannot be consistent is illogical.


If we cannot rely on the uniformity of the universe, we cannot perform deductive science...

This is what happens when you don't recognise absolutes.


It becomes one deep rabbit hole, where eventually you come to the place where you ask:

"Do I even exist?".


Then you bang your head and the musings tend to disappear...

kcbrown wrote in post #14725517
LOL!

Self referencing arguments will get you nowhere.


Seriously, though, what do you mean by that? Do you mean, merely, that it is unchanging? Do you mean that it refers to something external? Both? Something else?

Absolute, external, unchanging.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725504
But morality can't be observed, nor can it be deduced from observation. It is a prescriptive standard, not a descriptive one.

Morality can be observed in action and the Absolute Moral standard can be induced.

Like I said:

Without absolute moral standards, without a means to define morality, morality could not even be discussed.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725101
Allied paratroopers sometimes got dropped behind enemy lines far from where they were supposed to be dropped. In order to survive, they sometimes had to steal food. They had to steal it because they had to keep their presence a secret as much as they could. Their resulting survival and return to the lines helped the allies fight and win the war.

But its still stealing and I don't see anyone stealing my images to save someones life but even so it would still be stealing no matter how its packaged.

This has thread gotten beyond ridiculous.

mtimber wrote in post #14725610
Morality can be observed in action and the Absolute Moral standard can be induced.

No, this is incorrect.

Morality is about whether something is right or wrong. That is all it is about. It is a prescriptive standard. It is not about the way something works (which is something that can be observed).

You cannot observe anything to deduce a moral standard, because a moral standard is not a description, it is a judgment, a declaration.


If morality were deducible from observation, then you could create an experiment to reveal it. Moreover, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because it would mean morality existed in the realm of science, which is all about that which is deducible from observation.

The second part (the means to define morality) does not depend on the first part (an absolute moral standard). And that is where the logical disconnect is for your argument.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14725634
But its still stealing and I don't see anyone stealing my images to save someones life but even so it would still be stealing no matter how its packaged.

Thank you.

Now, then: was it wrong for the paratroopers in that situation to steal food in order to survive and to go on to help win the war?