|
FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks! (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It doesn't matter right now if the war on drugs is misguided or wrong. It exists and, as far as we're all concerned, it must either be repelled through legal action or obeyed. |
i think this is a really weak hand-wave attempting to pre-empt the obvious: it doesn't matter if drug wars and cartels are misguided or wrong. they exist now, and darkie should learn to live with it. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
There is no objective wrong, and there is no objective right. You can't say there's one and not the other (which most soft-subjectivists do)... I'm not sure if you were saying this, but worth clarifying anyway |
We're in agreement, it's cool.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Nihilism is the impossibility of any morality at all. Subjectivity suggests that morality exists, but is relative to individuals, and more commonly, groups. This is what he was saying, and I've been saying.
there is morality, its just that everyone has a different idea of what it is. Claiming there is ONE morality, which defines right and wrong and is devoid of person and context is dumb. |
But, I don't disagree with you. However, the moment he says "it's near impossible to say anyone is doing anything morally wrong" then we're getting very close to a sort of nihilism as the impossibility of any morality. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i think this is a really weak hand-wave attempting to pre-empt the obvious: it doesn't matter if drug wars and cartels are misguided or wrong. they exist now, and darkie should learn to live with it. |
I agree with you, but this extra demand doesn't make things any easier! If it were up to me, I'd legalise it all and use the revenue generated from taxes to diminish social inequality and give medical support to drug addicts. However, things are not so simple, are they? |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
We're in agreement, it's cool.
But, I don't disagree with you. However, the moment he says "it's near impossible to say anyone is doing anything morally wrong" then we're getting very close to a sort of nihilism as the impossibility of any morality. |
that's true in a way, and i don't know what HE meant: I personally hold an extremely individual moral view, and would say that that's true because no person should be diagnosing morality for anyone else-- I have a firm grasp of my morality, but it is impossible to say anyone else's actions are moral or not: I can only judge my own, since mine are the only morals i Know the motivation and reasons for...
most people would disagree with my Xtreme! version of individual morality though, so take it as you will :p |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Like I told Hal, I can only do so much, and that doesn't stop me from trying. As for the Chinese sweatshops... |
eww sneakers :nervous:
There isn't a thing you can do to stop a multinational activity with annual budgets in the billions of dollars, one single person or even a couple of thousand makes absolutely no difference. Just like posting here makes zero difference to the crackhead residents of the US or Mexico, they don't read TA and for those that do, they sure as hell dont care what you or I think about them. |
|
|
| -FSP- |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
LOL so eating unhealthily is imorral?!?! there are so many questionable assumptions your making.
they nearly all come from you assuming there is a 'right' way to act. We all have beliefs (subjective) about what is right and wrong, but you're claiming yours are right for EVERYBODY. This is common in extremism, and is extremely idiotic and annoying.
in particular you are assuming (somehow) that people have a FINITE lifespan. People need to eat yes, but its their right to eat whatever the they want. People don't NEED to eat healthy or go to the gym. That's 100% your OPINION, and based on no fact other than your own warped, selfish view. If there was a 'normal' lifespan for people: If we knew exactly how long we were going to live, and knew everything about our futures, you might be correct in assuming people 'should' act in a way which is certain to give them the best chance at reaching their potential. As it stands no such thing exists. We could be killed by and elephant which escaped the zoo tomorrow for all any of us know. You can decide the gym and healthy eating is right for you, but its stupid to say its 'right' for everyone, when everyone lives differently and has different needs.
People have the moral responsibility to make their own choices. That's what free will is, and without free will there IS no morality (since without it you can't act any way other than how you're acting right now).
Again, you ought not to shoot people in some situations. You failed to answer my point about considering the gun holder in your own scenario.
Is all killing unjustified? Is war never justified? What if the person is shooting the Other in self defence? Don't go making claims about morality when you havn't even thought about it.
a plant needs water. Sure. Doesn't mean its anybody, except the plant's responsibility to provide for it. |
Ok here's another example: Babies need to learn to walk, talk, eat, they are helpless--this is an objective fact and is universal to all babies. In other words, they OUGHT to be taken care of because they are helpless. So how is this my opinion?
There's a difference between moral absolutism which you seem to be accusing me of, and moral realism. Not going to type a wall of text, but my example can be shown through the late Philippa Foot who says pretty much what isaid in this threadm but way better , and this website explaining why morality isn't opinion.
And here's what the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says if you aren't convinced:| quote: | Moral realists are arguably justified in displaying the
inadequacies of subjectivist moral theories; but less successful
so far in developing a convincing positive account
of the ‘reality’ of values. |
|
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| I've been watching a lot of Weeds lately. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
that quote from the oxford dictionary says that moral realism attempts, but fails to challenge relativism... why in hell did you post it? :stongue:
You're problem is that you're associating morality with duty. Go read Kant, i don't personally subscribe to that belief.
Just because babies CAN learn to read talk etc, doesn't make it someone else's duty to make them reach that potential. its ironic that you're claiming to come from a moral realist bckground, since its an entirely unrealistic view of the world.
since i need to have money, and you have money: Give yours to me.
Its a NEED (i don't have to defend it, since morality isn't an opinion right?), and you have the ability to aid me: That makes it your duty right?
will PM you my bank details. thanks. |
|
|
| Imagin |
| I wonder if this thread was in any way sparked by Top Gear's comments about Mexico..... |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by -FSP-
Morality is not subjective. |
That sentence couldn't be more wrong. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Imagin
I wonder if this thread was in any way sparked by Top Gear's comments about Mexico..... |
I'm afraid that's not possible: When I posted this thread I didn't know the TG trio had said anything about Mexico. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tangil
I disagree. If everyone stopped eating meat there would be far less cattle bing slaughtered. |
Right, if EVERYONE stopped eating meat there would be far less cattle being slaughtered. Their population would also grow to the point where they would HAVE to slaughter them, even if we weren't eating them.
Regardless, that's never going to happen, just like people are never going to stop buying drugs that come from Mexico, Colombia, or Afghanistan, so this is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
