Black Bane June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 You're setting up a hypothetical statement before the question; truthfulness isn't really always good and lying isn't really always bad. The statement "Truth is good and lies are bad" would have had to been objective for this to work. Morally it is though. For Science!
Phi June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 Morally it is though. Morals aren't objective. I remember when I use to act my favorite director, who I worked a lot with, told me that you should never think your character is evil, even if you are playing the "villain" (unless your character themselves actually admits to it in the script). This is because, even if they are killing, they believe that it is the right thing to do, so it is subjectively good.
Guest June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 Morals aren't objective. I remember when I use to act my favorite director, who I worked a lot with, told me that you should never think your character is evil, even if you are playing the "villain" (unless your character themselves actually admits to it in the script). This is because, even if they are killing, they believe that it is the right thing to do, so it is subjectively good. They might not be objective, but one can still rank moral systems by some particular standard, for example, how well they optimize suffering away. That may be a way to have an objective way of ranking the "effectiveness"/"goodness" of a moral system, but then, someone will claim that that choice of standard is subjective, in which case, you could just poll those upon which the standard is enacted upon what they think of it.
Phi June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 They might not be objective, but one can still rank morals by some standard. For example, how well they reduce suffering(?). That may be a way to have an objective way of ranking the "effectiveness" of morality. But then someone will claim that that choice of standard is subjective, in which case you could just take a vote upon which standard is best. That would be assuming that suffering is fully bad, which is also subjective (sadists). Also, suffering can lead to determination. As for polling, if 51% of the people vote one way and 49% vote the other way, almost half of the population is disappointed. This is an extreme case, but the point is that somebody will always lose. Polling can't be used to find a subjective sense of morals.
tulpatalk June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 I don't understand the puzzle. Well I guess it's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't know the answer. I don't think that way. [Note: Opinions]
Guest June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 That would be assuming that suffering is fully bad, which is also subjective (sadists). Also, suffering can lead to determination. As for polling, if 51% of the people vote one way and 49% vote the other way, almost half of the population is disappointed. This is an extreme case, but the point is that somebody will always lose. Polling can't be used to find a subjective sense of morals. Sadists may derive pleasure from suffering, thus it wouldn't be genuine suffering. Genuine suffering is one which is devoid of any kind of positive experiences. As for polls, I would say that the wide majority will gladly agree on things like "I don't want to be killed without my consent" or "I don't want to be forced to do things against my will".
Guest June 6, 2012 June 6, 2012 Masochists may derive pleasure from suffering, thus it wouldn't be genuine suffering. Genuine suffering is one which is devoid of any kind of positive experiences. As for polls, I would say that the wide majority will gladly agree on things like "I don't want to be killed without my consent" or "I don't want to be forced to do things against my will". I didn't misread that as masochists, not sadists... Fixed. This thread is almost completely derailed.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.