Who are you voting for? *uncivil discussion*

I don't actually want to involve myself in the discussion because it seems basically as enjoyable as punching myself in the dick might be, but just FYI and for whatever it's worth from someone who does have a background in ethical philosophy and knows this stuff very well, relativism is basically impossible to support. It's the sort of viewpoint that people come into first year philosophy with and are quickly disabused of. There are more sophisticated relativist moral theories out there, but they don't bear much resemblance to what you guys are discussing.

Most people are some form of consequentialist, which presumes some universal good or aim served by morality. Consequentialist theories have plenty of theoretical problems of their own, but the benefit to them is that they generally "work" as a framework for running a society.

Now back to not involving myself in this shit show.

onenerdykidIn it's simplest definition, objective morality places the grounding of rightness/wrongness outside of the subject. This means that something is right/wrong or good/bad whether we want it to be or not. The grounding of such can be universal absolutism (as with many monotheistic religions) or based on factual truth, which is true but temporal.

Aristotle would claim that there are definitive good and bad actions, states of character (virtue), and that they all are derived from practical reason. But ethics for Aristotle is a lot like health- it is not an exact science and can change as the world/facts change. What is healthy for me is generally what is healthy for you, but it might be different given certain conditions/circumstances. Courage is virtue for all humans (not just royalty but slaves too) but what constitutes courage for each of us might be slightly different. But ultimately there is a definitive good and bad for each person and right reason will help us figure it out. After a while of doing good deeds, we develop a good character, and this is very crucial to his ethical treaty.

Kant has a mix of universal absolutism and subjective grounding. The moral law is defined by each one of us through practical reason (it is therefore within us) but it applies to all rational beings. I autonomously figure out the moral law as subject, but I also see that it would necessarily hold for all rational beings. It's foundation is subjective but its application is universal. This is where a lot of our modern concepts of human rights, dignity, people as ends in themselves comes from.

Mill, the founder of Utilitarianism, places the grounding of morality on pain/suffering and its avoidance. Something is wrong if it causes suffering and good if it promotes human well being or at least diminishes pain.

All of these are versions of objective morality since there is a touch-point outside of the subject for an action's moral value. All of them would also argue that there would be a right or wrong answer to a given moral dilemma, they just might disagree on what that answer may be.

Good explanation of their stances, but it just illuminates more to me about why I disagree with them.

I guess my qualms with with moral objectivity and universal absolutism (which is what abortion is based on more than anything else) is that I disagree with the belief that all actions are either right or wrong regardless of circumstance. I tend to think that there is a spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable actions that ranges depending on the situation.

I don't disagree with those thinkers' assessments that there certainly are different applications of the standards depending on individual circumstances but I do question the rigidity of moral objectivity that says they should all come to the same outcome in the end.

For instance, what would Mill say about a poor man stealing food for his starving family? Assuming Mill falls on the side of objectivity based off universal absolutism (even though he was agnostic) how would he justify this? It is not causing a store "pain" to lose some food, but it is considered immoral for the man to steal.

Or how would Kant view something that involves emotion? For instance, the same man as before stole food for his family and his friend witnessed it is questioned by the police. It would be considered, by practical reasoning, that his friend should turn him in because what he did is immoral.

Apply the same situations to Aristotle and you would come up with the same problem (in my eyes).

The whole binary outcome aspect of objective morality just doesn't seem applicable in this day and age to me.

J.D.I don't actually want to involve myself in the discussion because it seems basically as enjoyable as punching myself in the dick might be, but just FYI and for whatever it's worth from someone who does have a background in ethical philosophy and knows this stuff very well, relativism is basically impossible to support. It's the sort of viewpoint that people come into first year philosophy with and are quickly disabused of. There are more sophisticated relativist moral theories out there, but they don't bear much resemblance to what you guys are discussing.

Most people are some form of consequentialist, which presumes some universal good or aim served by morality. Consequentialist theories have plenty of theoretical problems of their own, but the benefit to them is that they generally "work" as a framework for running a society.

Now back to not involving myself in this shit show.

Without dragging you too far into this, who would you recommend reading? I never took a philosophy class in college but this stuff certainly is interesting.

Trump rally at my school (University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire) today and people have been lined up since 7:00. Doors open at 4 and Trump shows up at 7.



Don't these people have lives.

Josh__PeckThat doesn't answer my question. Thats like asking "What causes cancer" and you answering me with "cancer"

You are incorrect. It's more like you asking "What causes [list of cancer symptoms]?" and then me answering you with "cancer".

.MASSHOLE.Without dragging you too far into this, who would you recommend reading? I never took a philosophy class in college but this stuff certainly is interesting.

It's almost impossible to really go down the rabbit hole without actually taking a bunch of courses in it. Without the foundations you're just going to end up misleading yourself without realizing it. For example, I'd generally recommend listening to the Very Bad Wizards podcast, because it's pretty accessible, but it's actually an advanced class in disguise... you need to be able to see the strengths and weaknesses of what those guys talk about. If you take what they say at face value and don't have the tools to push back against it, you're just going to get swept away by the current and end up going off a cliff. A lot of people get a sort of amateur interest in philosophy in their late 20's or so, read a book, and end up accepting some sort of consequentialist ethic at face value as if it's some great epiphany, without understanding the many nails in the coffin of traditional utilitarian models.

Moreover, there's no path to really understanding moral philosophy without having some basic groundwork in evolutionary psychology. There, the guy to read is Jon Haidt, and particularly "The Righteous Mind", which in my view is a book that literally everyone should read. Will change your whole perspective on these arguments.

J.D.It's almost impossible to really go down the rabbit hole without actually taking a bunch of courses in it. Without the foundations you're just going to end up misleading yourself without realizing it. For example, I'd generally recommend listening to the Very Bad Wizards podcast, because it's pretty accessible, but it's actually an advanced class in disguise... you need to be able to see the strengths and weaknesses of what those guys talk about. If you take what they say at face value and don't have the tools to push back against it, you're just going to get swept away by the current and end up going off a cliff. A lot of people get a sort of amateur interest in philosophy in their late 20's or so, read a book, and end up accepting some sort of consequentialist ethic at face value as if it's some great epiphany, without understanding the many nails in the coffin of traditional utilitarian models.

Moreover, there's no path to really understanding moral philosophy without having some basic groundwork in evolutionary psychology. There, the guy to read is Jon Haidt, and particularly "The Righteous Mind", which in my view is a book that literally everyone should read. Will change your whole perspective on these arguments.

I'll check it out then as I need some new reading material for my commute. Obviously need some base work before the more complicated stuff.

What would you recommend as a follow up for this kind of base work reading?

.MASSHOLE.Good explanation of their stances, but it just illuminates more to me about why I disagree with them.

I guess my qualms with with moral objectivity and universal absolutism (which is what abortion is based on more than anything else) is that I disagree with the belief that all actions are either right or wrong regardless of circumstance. I tend to think that there is a spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable actions that ranges depending on the situation.

The whole binary outcome aspect of objective morality just doesn't seem applicable in this day and age to me.

Don't confuse "objective" with "absolute"- something can be objective without being absolute. For example, facts are objective but not absolute. "My name is Matt" is a factually true statement, but not an absolutely true statement because I could change my name tomorrow to Dave. Aristotle and Mill would fall into this camp concerning their ethics.

As J.D. said, this is more course material than simple reading. If you were to read Aristotle, Kant, or Mill, you should simultaneously be reading the corresponding "Cambridge Companion To ...". These people wrote for a very educated audience within these fields, with lots of logical proofs within their prose. While logically clear, it is not something to pick up and breeze though (not that I think you would skip through it, just saying). It's dense work with long argumentation that a simple thread reply on NS does little to no justice to :)

Here are some examples of things that are generally regarded as absolutely immoral by almost everyone concerned with doing the right thing- rape is wrong and killing an innocent person is wrong. I would argue there is no circumstance where either is morally right, despite a circumstance being made that doing either activity brings about good consequences. If the act of rape is wrong, it would be wrong in and of itself. This would then mean that its moral rightness/wrongness is not relative to a certain culture or time, it's moral worth would be absolute.

Concerning your question about stealing in order to feed yourself, a utilitarian would have a difficult time always arguing that stealing is wrong because the act of stealing might cause less pain than the act of starving. This is consequentialism- the consequences of your act determine its moral worth. It is objective, but it changes depending on the consequences. The downside to this moral philosophy (in my opinion) is that it lets horrible, horrible acts be committed as long as the outcome is worth it- the ends justify the means. This again is an example of objectively moral (but not absolute).

onenerdykidDon't confuse "objective" with "absolute"- something can be objective without being absolute. For example, facts are objective but not absolute. "My name is Matt" is a factually true statement, but not an absolutely true statement because I could change my name tomorrow to Dave. Aristotle and Mill would fall into this camp concerning their ethics.

As J.D. said, this is more course material than simple reading. If you were to read Aristotle, Kant, or Mill, you should simultaneously be reading the corresponding "Cambridge Companion To ...". These people wrote for a very educated audience within these fields, with lots of logical proofs within their prose. While logically clear, it is not something to pick up and breeze though (not that I think you would skip through it, just saying). It's dense work with long argumentation that a simple thread reply on NS does little to no justice to :)

Here are some examples of things that are generally regarded as absolutely immoral by almost everyone concerned with doing the right thing- rape is wrong and killing an innocent person is wrong. I would argue there is no circumstance where either is morally right, despite a circumstance being made that doing either activity brings about good consequences. If the act of rape is wrong, it would be wrong in and of itself. This would then mean that its moral rightness/wrongness is not relative to a certain culture or time, it's moral worth would be absolute.

Concerning your question about stealing in order to feed yourself, a utilitarian would have a difficult time always arguing that stealing is wrong because the act of stealing might cause less pain than the act of starving. This is consequentialism- the consequences of your act determine its moral worth. It is objective, but it changes depending on the consequences. The downside to this moral philosophy (in my opinion) is that it lets horrible, horrible acts be committed as long as the outcome is worth it- the ends justify the means. This again is an example of objectively moral (but not absolute).

I am certainly in over my head here and shooting from the hip with what you guys are describing so pardon my ignorance on the subject with some of my statements. I was trying to wrap my head around the terms and limits to which these terms could be extended.

It certainly interesting, that is for sure. Makes me regret believing those philosophy classes were dry and boring.

Hillary, my dudes.

dootHillary, my dudes.

Is your icon Antonin Scalia or Vince Foster?

milk_manIs your icon Antonin Scalia or Vince Foster?

watch urself bucko u might trigger me

Anyone who founds wikileaks too complex, here's a website that compiles and organizes the leaks in a very simple way.

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

Have fun knowing that you're going to vote for a highly corrupted, easily swayed, malleable politician.

Stay complicit and vote for Hilary. It's better no one votes third party so that way in the next election we won't see a third party debate in the primaries. Better off just keeping the two corrupted parties. Change is scary, at least it is for me. Hilary will make a great politician because she lies, flip-flops on numerous social issues, arms radical Sunni extremists, gets funds from countries that support and arm ISIS; this women obviously gets around. I hope she's able to start a war with Russia.

fuckmekevinStay complicit and vote for Hilary. It's better no one votes third party so that way in the next election we won't see a third party debate in the primaries. Better off just keeping the two corrupted parties. Change is scary, at least it is for me. Hilary will make a great politician because she lies, flip-flops on numerous social issues, arms radical Sunni extremists, gets funds from countries that support and arm ISIS; this women obviously gets around. I hope she's able to start a war with Russia.

A third party on the debate stage has nothing to do with votes. It's all based on polling numbers. You need to poll above 15%

S.J.WA third party on the debate stage has nothing to do with votes. It's all based on polling numbers. You need to poll above 15%

The polls are manipulated anyway. Still, 76% of citizens want a third party in the debate. I shouldn't even call it a debate, it's a whitewash headed by The Commission on Presidential Debates. A duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. Even if a third party was to get in, the CPD would try it's hardest to inhibit this. Basically, a presidential debate is a spewing of non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear. There are NO OPEN debates, it's a lie.

Look up The Commission on Presidential Debates and their history. Still, keeping doing your thing mang but the debates are nothing more than theatrics and lies. It's a glorified bi-partisan press conference, that's it.

Josh__Peck1. "You think a fetus has the same rights as a person."

You have yet to refute this point


2. "human body and GOD, is the number one biggest aborter of life."

In regards to this statement: Miscarriage is not considered abortion you dense motherfucker.

3. "you also ignored my post about when abortions occur. 91% of them occur in the first trimester. Do those tiny bunch of cells, which are still forming into a fully formed fetus look like life to you?"

Yes it is life. Again, anyone with an 8th grade understanding of biology would know that.

4. "You must also then recognize the part of my post about how the human body is the number one aborter of life."

Refer to number 2

5. "You don't like abortions. It's simple, don't get one. But stop trying to make the choice for other woman,and what's best for their body. An abortion is no ones choice but the woman's. Not yours, not the governments, no ones! Is that really so hard to get?"

I'm not arguing that it's my choice, or the governments choice. I'm arguing that it's no ones choice, not even the woman's. Abortion infringes on an unborn human's right to live. Is that really so hard to get?


And now for my ad hominem attack:

You really have a gross superiority complex Eric. You're an egotistical Aussie douche, and you think you're 100% right every fucking time. I got news for you kiddo. You're not. You're convictions and beliefs aren't the flawless, viable, solutions you think they are. Grow the fuck up

dude you are a mega fucking retard.

a fetus is alive. in the same way that trees, mushrooms, and vegetables are alive.

if you are anti abortion you better well be a vegan too you dumb cunt.

S.J.WA third party on the debate stage has nothing to do with votes. It's all based on polling numbers. You need to poll above 15%

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/844787/Who--39-s-Afraid-of-an-Open-Debate--The-Truth-About-the-Commission-on-Presidential-Debates

The codes, Biden knows who knows the codes.
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/844788/Joe-Biden-Points-to-Man-at-Hillary-Rally-Holding-Nuclear-Codes-

How any one is impressed with these candidates is beyond me, it's basically a sound-bite press conference. The Republican and Democratic nominees meet behind closed-doors to draft secret contracts that dictate key terms of the presidential debates. This includes knowing questions beforehand. So, pre-screened questions, handpicked moderators, like Anderson CIA Cooper, corporate sponsorship, etc. I mean come on, this shit has to stop and us dumb passive fucks seem to be glad with it.
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/844791/Open-Debates

So, in conclusion none of these candidates are legitimate.

Went to a trump rally tonight in Eau Claire. He was a decent speaker but it seemed like a lot of people thought he was too intense.

.MASSHOLE.I am certainly in over my head here and shooting from the hip with what you guys are describing so pardon my ignorance on the subject with some of my statements. I was trying to wrap my head around the terms and limits to which these terms could be extended.

It certainly interesting, that is for sure. Makes me regret believing those philosophy classes were dry and boring.

These arguments can become very technical, but I also think they are incredibly interesting and obviously applicable in our daily lives. Questions of rape and torture may not be so applicable (hopefully), but questions about honesty, generosity, courage, etc. can very much be.

If you would like to dive deeper into the subject matter, definitely check out these books from Cambridge University Press. They break down the fundamentals of each thinker/subject and help you get a solid basis before jumping into the primary sources:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-kant/159271031F75CA907EF0C297B7FEBD55

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-virtue-ethics/D53CC45020E7D790701CD4136FB005ED

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-utilitarianism/88CC228B43274E7E3DC5EAFFD83B6717

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-companion-to-aristotles-inicomachean-ethicsi/38B133CFD5FEF5FD45C119FFBDF41BF2

fuckmekevinAnyone who founds wikileaks too complex, here's a website that compiles and organizes the leaks in a very simple way.

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

Have fun knowing that you're going to vote for a highly corrupted, easily swayed, malleable politician.

This is why I can't support her. Trump's no good either but which one do we choose? We all know that Gary Johnson won't win and Jill Stein won't either. Our country is going down the hole and everyone in the world knows it.

fuckmekevinHow any one is impressed with these candidates is beyond me, ]

I think the only people who are impressed are racist hillbillys and hardcore left wet tampons

AgitatedHiatusThis is why I can't support her. Trump's no good either but which one do we choose? We all know that Gary Johnson won't win and Jill Stein won't either. Our country is going down the hole and everyone in the world knows it.

Well if everyone who doesn't like Clinton and Trump votes for someone else, then neither of them will get 270 electoral votes (if that system works the way it should). Which means the House of Representatives will have to pick a winner.