Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2018, 05:34 AM   #151 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,251
Default

As I see it killing is not miraculously moral because its self defense, it is however justified because self defense is a good reason.

Lets say in this scenario you have two choices: kill or dont kill.

You can be justified in not killing because you think killing is immoral.
You can also be justified in killing them because you value your life more than theirs.

Im confused how you come to the conclusion that killing and not killing are both moral in that scenario, since they are in direct conflict.

Edit: ill check out the video on my lunch break.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 06-01-2018 at 06:57 AM.
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 05:46 AM   #152 (permalink)
My Sorrow is Luminous
 
elphenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 9,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre View Post
I always felt morality came from empathy. That which harms is wrong and that which helps is right.
I think this seems true at face value but when you dig deeper you find it problematic

you could for instance, make first offense drunk driving punishable by death, and you would likely save a lot of innocent lives, however I don't think anyone would argue that'd be morally right
__________________
Just another marketing ploy

"That's the end of my life. The rest is posthumous."
elphenor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 07:08 AM   #153 (permalink)
The Grammer King
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 29,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre View Post

Edit: Because karma also does not exist, so if you don't feel any remorse and know how to escape societal punishment for following your passion of raping and torturing children you have absolutely nothing to fear and will live a completely fulfilled life with no consequences to your actions.
Karma just comes down to stats. If you're doing bad ****, you're probably going to surround yourself with other people who do bad **** which increases the likelihood of bad **** happening to you.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 01:25 PM   #154 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
Lets say in this scenario you have two choices: kill or dont kill.

You can be justified in not killing because you think killing is immoral.
You can also be justified in killing them because you value your life more than theirs.

Im confused how you come to the conclusion that killing and not killing are both moral in this scenario, since they are in direct conflict.
So can any of the moral subjectivists on here explain to me how you deal with this dilemma? Feel free to insert your own justifications for the actions if you think I gave bad ones, I'm more concerned with the bolded.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 06-01-2018 at 01:34 PM.
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 01:51 PM   #155 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 11,452
Default

If you define moral as any action that can be reasonably justified youíre clear.

If not you need a clear list of dos and doníts. Just in the general betterment of mankind positions wonít work.
__________________
2017 & 2018 Member of the Year Back2Back

experimental music on Spotify worth checking out

FREAK FIGHTER JOURNAL (Awarded 2018 Journal of the Year)

free jazz 2018 thread

Drone/Ambient Releases of 2018

OccultHawk Reviews Southern States

The government that governs best is the government whose members commit suicide.
OccultHawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 02:10 PM   #156 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,251
Default

I guess I just don't understand what the point of morality is at that point.. If you're going to dumb down morality to any action which is justifiable you run into all sorts of problems that are counterproductive to society. That makes 0 sense to me. Lots of BAD things can be reasonably justified, unless you plan on redefining reason to fit your argument as well.

This all sounds very circular..
"I'm justified in my position because it's moral to me, which makes it justified"
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 07:35 PM   #157 (permalink)
My Sorrow is Luminous
 
elphenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 9,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
So can any of the moral subjectivists on here explain to me how you deal with this dilemma? Feel free to insert your own justifications for the actions if you think I gave bad ones, I'm more concerned with the bolded.
to answer the bolded, it reads like a proof of morality being subjective more than anything else, both sides can be in the right because there's no objective way to say one of the positions is wrong
__________________
Just another marketing ploy

"That's the end of my life. The rest is posthumous."
elphenor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 07:44 PM   #158 (permalink)
My Sorrow is Luminous
 
elphenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 9,061
Default

one of my favorite thought experiements on morality is one in which you are asked to imagine yourself at the controls of a railway with two forking paths

the train is heading to the left where 12 people are tied to the tracks

however on the right path there is but one man chained, but for the moment, safe from harm

is it the more moral decision to turn the train onto the single man?
__________________
Just another marketing ploy

"That's the end of my life. The rest is posthumous."
elphenor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 08:20 PM   #159 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 11,452
Default

Self driving cars have to be programmed to make those kinds of ďtrolley problemsĒ as theyíre known

DWV - I think youíre the one being circular with your logic.

You also keep asking for very broad stances but so far you havenít dealt with the minutiae

Frankly, itís starting to feel like you donít even know exactly what it is youíre asking

Quote:
This all sounds very circular..
"I'm justified in my position because it's moral to me, which makes it justified"
The reason it isnít circular is that the onus is on the person who takes action (or chooses not to take action) to make an acceptable case on why the action is justifiable

Iíve been avoiding saying this because the ďsemanticsĒ argument gets tiresome but all youíre really asking is if justifiable and moral are synonyms. And yes, the meanings overlap.

Like elph pointed toward the trolley problem I too think itís time for you to think about specifics. Tell us how your position is applicable.
__________________
2017 & 2018 Member of the Year Back2Back

experimental music on Spotify worth checking out

FREAK FIGHTER JOURNAL (Awarded 2018 Journal of the Year)

free jazz 2018 thread

Drone/Ambient Releases of 2018

OccultHawk Reviews Southern States

The government that governs best is the government whose members commit suicide.
OccultHawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2018, 08:27 PM   #160 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,251
Default

No, but it's justified because one action is objectively less harmful to well-being than the other.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you justify something with morality if you believe there is no foundation to morality itself.

@OH - I'm not asking, I'm arguing they are not synonymous. How am I being circular exactly?

And yes, the onus is on the acting agent. And if we agree that death is in conflict with well-being than any action that intentionally causes death is, by definition, immoral. Again, that doesn't mean it's not justified, because there may be good reason, as with the train example.

Did you even bother to watch the short portion of the video I provided?
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 06-01-2018 at 08:35 PM.
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.