Anger, Revenge, Hatred

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

Morality, has never been something set in stone. It is a very controversial topic. It is, therefore there is no SET definition. It is up to us all to find a common definintion in order to debate this and/to come to a conclusion. That was my intention. You just take my questions as personal attacks on you.

He did have an idea of the definintion, I wanted to see WHAT it was. -.-

I was not trying to convince anyone anything.

I clearly am using the Socratic Method because I am trying to come up to a conclusion by questioning the said statement and what it means. I strongly suggest you read a book most evidient and portrays the Socratic Method well like Platos' Republic.



I was not contraditing anything. I asked a question, you answered and I asked another question to get closer to a definition that would work and I would be satisfied with. Also, it is really amusing to me that you keep saying that I was insisting that you were wrong by making contradictions when I did not even say what my thought on the subject was.

And now I shall say something contrary to your statement, or as you call it "contradicting", in regards to "Socrates didn't just contradict the first thing that people said; that's not how philosophical debate works".
No. A debate is a debate. People put in ideas and thoughts and try to come up to a conlcusion about something it doesn't matter how you do it, you could make "contraditions" which are statements contrary to the other persons statement which are counterpoints which happen to be very common in philosophical discussions. There is not one way to debate.

If three men worked on finding solutions of Problem A and one of them made points about how the Soultion to Problem A would not work then their points are considered invaild in the subject of philosophy. Which is why Man 1 and Man 2 continue to shoot possible soultions and Man 3 is able to say WHY the solutions wouldn't work and they'd come closer to a better soultion.

Again, dear, I was not contraditcing anyone. I was asking a simple question. Besides, you have no right to tell me which ways and which ways not to debate. I will do so as I please, if you think my questions are "contraditions" (which they are clearly not) then just don't answer me. I will await a responce from an individual who is up for a real discussion and wont be sensitive about it.

Here's what his topic was: A.

Here's what we said: This is what I think about A.

Here's what you said: Well define A. I don't aggree with your definition of A, and I don't have my own, but I'll still argue about it.

If you don't wish to discuss this topic, I can start deleting the unrelated posts.

Is there anything you'd like to say that is relevant to the topic?

All the points I were making questioning morality and the like ARE RELATED to the topic.

Now, I said IF YOU were bothered and offended by my comments then YOU should not have replied to any of them. I only started to digress to defend myself and to make you further understand what I was trying to get at when you started attacking me/attacking my inquisition. Feel free to deleate you posts though.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

Niniva

Quote:

My point is, morality is a subjective thing and since it is there is no way to state weather or not they are in constant conflict with morality to the masses.

Before I get in the middle of your discussion here.....this statement above is at least on topic.....however.....


I fail to see how there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim. Now, I haven't read this entire witty banter of two intellectuals flexing their brain matter prowess, so I don't know if there has even been an arguement to support such a statement but I'll tell you something......

While it is quite eveident there are SOME PARTS of morality that are in deed subjective and relative, claiming that the WHOLE OF MORALITY....is subjective and relative is a fallacy as it is quite clearly not something you could ever possibly prove, and so you are making claims about a point of view....that you can't prove....as truth when in point of fact the stronger argument is for the opposite point of view.

And I digress.

I'm probably adding to the problem here but claims of such Truths as the one quoted above bother me as they are wrought with arrogance and ignorance. If it was so obvious a truth all reasonable men would see it that way....but there is at least one here who is reasonable that does not see how you can claim it is true based on the evidence provided and therefore it is not only not obvious, but also not provable so have your opinion all you want but to assert it as though it were true is no different then asserting the opposite. Thus making claims about the nature of morality are useless and bland and hardly worth stating as no matter where it comes from....we still have it....we have personal and social morality and I dare you not to follow the social morality and then try and claim in a court of law that the court has no right to impost their subjective morality on you......if the world functioned that way we as a society would utterly fail. So call it whatever you want but social morality looks more like a product (a necessary one no less) of evolution...which is a natural process and deterministic, following causality in which case....it is not at all "subjective" as your opinion on what is right and wrong does not change what is naturally more beneficial for the continuation of the species.

If you could prove what the "WHOLE OF MORALITY" is then you can just as well disprove what it is.

Arrogance and ignorance? I beg you pardon?
If you want to me explain why I said what I did and what my backing behind it is, you could simply ask. There was no need to make such an arrogant and ignorant statement against it- against me. You could have easily explained WHY you believe that morality as applied to The Whole is not subjective instead.

And I digress.

The reason why I see morality in society is subjective, is because we have evolved through time, there is such a wide variety of people with wide views on what is right and wrong (if we are to define morality as something so simple such as that). Morality is not as simple as you both make it out to be.

In order for you to see my point in a better light I will use the Court of Law, which was an example you gave to better explain.

In Texas The Court finds it moral to kill a man for commiting the crime of manslaughter and continues to use Capital Punishment as a method of judgement.

In New Jersey it has been declared and deemed unconstitutionl, immoral, to use punish a man with death for a crime thus they do not use such methods.

So TO THE MASSES, which is moral? To kill a man for a crime or not?
It depends, does it not? It is seen differently from eye to eye, it is subjective.

Also, courts have judges and judges determine the fate of the criminal, they too have thair own set of doctrines and things they believe to be right and/or wrong. Sure they are guided by The Law but they are able to set the punishment that they see fit, which may be the maximum punishment, the minimum punishment or none at all. It all depends on how the judge sees it, and this is usually based on his or her set of morals. Take this, in a room of judges from all over the world would not judge a man in court the same way, they would not all have the same set of morals. If you disagree with this, and stick to your point, I do not know what to say further.  

[27x]

What you are all forgetting is this.

The topic was, "What is something that can catagorize anger, revenge and hatred?"

Instead of trying to catagorize it, we've just argued about the meaning of morality, which should have been obvious.

He wasn't defining morality, he was simply using morality as something that can catagorize anger, revenge, and hatred.

His meaning to morality is not subjective, he meant what he meant, and there's no way to prove that he didn't mean that.

I could say, "Lets go to the woods." You could argue all day that I meant to go to a big pile of logs, but that doesn't change the fact that I was talking about a forest.

So even though the basic definition of morality is subjective to everyone, the way he was using it is only subjective to him.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

Engraved in my mind the question was "Do these three things clash with morality", hence why I asked what I did. If he did not ask this, my apologies. Feel free to throw me into a bottomless pit.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

If you could prove what the "WHOLE OF MORALITY" is then you can just as well disprove what it is.

Actually if I could prove what it is......then it follows that I COULDN'T disprove it. If I had proved it then it serves to reason that it cannot be disproven. I'm not sure how your logic is working with this statement, so perhaps it is a typo.

Quote:

The reason why I see morality in society is subjective, is because we have evolved through time, there is such a wide variety of people with wide views on what is right and wrong (if we are to define morality as something so simple such as that). Morality is not as simple as you both make it out to be.

Actually if you had made an attempt to understand what I said above, what you are claiming we are doing is exactly what I am claiming you are doing. Morality is in fact much more complicated and cannot be reduced to social norms, that there are different parts of it and different aspects of those parts and so....thus....to make a claim about morality as a WHOLE...which is what you did, would be a fallacy.

Quote:

In order for you to see my point in a better light I will use the Court of Law, which was an example you gave to better explain.

That example was not meant to be in support of my side but rather to refute yours...which if you'll re-read what you wrote right afterword actually does a pretty nice job of proving exactly what I said.

Which was this.

Quote:

While it is quite eveident there are SOME PARTS of morality that are in deed subjective and relative, claiming that the WHOLE OF MORALITY....is subjective and relative is a fallacy as it is quite clearly not something you could ever possibly prove

See how that works? Clearly there are instances where it is the case that morality is relative. I have no issues with saying that. What I have issues with is you saying that because some cases are relative then therefore ALL cases MUST be relative. That is a logical fallacy.

Take your case for example:

Quote:

In Texas The Court finds it moral to kill a man for commiting the crime of manslaughter and continues to use Capital Punishment as a method of judgement.

In New Jersey it has been declared and deemed unconstitutionl, immoral, to use punish a man with death for a crime thus they do not use such methods.

So TO THE MASSES, which is moral? To kill a man for a crime or not?
It depends, does it not? It is seen differently from eye to eye, it is subjective.

What you have described here is not a difference in moralities. It is a difference in definitions of moral behavior.

In both these cases the man that was arrested was arrested and will be given what is determined to be a "suitable punishment for his crime." Say his crime was muder in the 1st degree. Do either of those states declare this to be NOT a crime? Do they say he was certainly justified in murdering someone in cold blood? Hardly. Their dispute then lies in the fact that the courts in New Jersey have defined capital punishment as not punishment but rather another form of Murder. In Texas they merely believe it is killing, not murder.

In both courts muder is defined as wrong. But it is how they define murder that is subjective. Do you see the difference here? There is one aspect of morality that is not subjective (IE: that is is wrong to murder another human being), in another aspect it is subjective (IE: What we will define as murder) both sides will agree that murder is wrong when asked. But both sides will NOT agree that capital punishment IS a form of murder.

So the Basic moral drive is there. The difference lies in interpretation of the actions that took place....is that action actually murder? It isn't in whether or not murder is wrong, but whether or not the action can be considered murder at all.

On another side note....court cases are incredibly poor examples of actual morality as there are cases of things we certainly think are both issues of moral responsibility and wrong that are clearly not against the law, and/or the law doesn't provide an acurate basis for.