Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.
3. Objective honour exists.
4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.
honor is an adjective. an adjective like evil, good or other. meaning that it is attributed to things wich people may believe to have these characteristics.
here is something for you, it`s a webpage wich lists all "honorkillings" in germany. cases in wich a father, brother or other male member of the family murdered a daughter, wife or sister because she had slept with a other man, demanded a divorce, simply left her husband or did a other "dishonorable thing"
in short i find your argumentation invalid since honor can mean anything, from helping out voluntaraly in your local comunity to smashing your sisters head in with a baseballbat because she slept with a nonmuslim.
(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
Says who? I do not accept this premise.
MysticKnight Wrote:2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.
What is your definition of honor?
MysticKnight Wrote:3. Objective honour exists.
Does it?
MysticKnight Wrote:4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.
Why? Your logic fails to present this as a true conclusion.
Definition of OBJECTIVE
relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a
of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c
involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Definition of HONOR
good name or public esteem : reputation
a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay honor to our founder>
privilege <had the honor of joining the captain for dinner>
a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>
one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit <an honor to the profession>
the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon
an evidence or symbol of distinction: as
an exalted title or rank
badge, decoration
a ceremonial rite or observance <buried with full military honors>
an award in a contest or field of competition
archaic : a gesture of deference : bow
plural
an academic distinction conferred on a superior student
: a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course
chastity, purity <fought fiercely for her honor and her life — Barton Black>
a keen sense of ethical conduct : integrity <a man of honor>
one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there>
plural : social courtesies or civilities extended by a host <asked her to do the honors>
an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge
the scoring value of honors held in bridge —usually used in plural
the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(October 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Well I think it's a bit trickier then a I thought. The reason is because it's good to be honourable, and it's honourable to be good.
Let's see to better define it, it's that honour gives us insight to the exalted side of morality. For example, we talk about (objective) morality, and it's more about what is right or wrong. We talk about what is more honourable, and it's the same thing, except this time we are looking at from perspective of it's exalted aspect and sort of sacred dimension to it. But I would say certain moral acts have more of the "honour" dimension to it. So in this sense it can't be said goodnesss = honor and honour = goodness despite the fact that it's good to be honorable and honorable to be good. Also the more exalted the intention (spirit behind the action), the more honourable the act is.
"Good" is also a subjective term. By extension, honorable must be as well.
(October 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Sure it can not be by an argument. But does it have to be? This presupposing that we don't have knowledge of objective morality, honour, and greatness, and that it needs proof. But the nature of these things are that of a properly basic experience of the self. Just because it can't demonstrated it's true by an argument, doesn't mean it can't be known.
Perhaps. But that does mean that it isn't demonstrable to someone who doesn't agree that these things are properly basic. While I do agree that those things subjectively exists, I do not find them to be objective.
So you're going to have a hard time using this argument who doesn't already substantially agree with you to begin with. That is to say, it isn't persuasive.
October 7, 2012 at 1:23 pm (This post was last modified: October 7, 2012 at 1:33 pm by Mystic.)
(October 6, 2012 at 10:37 pm)IATIA Wrote:
(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
Says who? I do not accept this premise.
The negation of the sentence would be:
"It is possible for honour to objectively exist in some degree with not having a basis for all degrees of honour".
But that seems to be total nonsense, how does it make sense that some degrees of (objective) honour have a basis but not all possible degrees of (objective) honour?
@ Annik and Ctulhu Dreaming
I cannot prove objective morality/goodness/honor/greatness from an argument..
That's because it's subjective (like beauty). It's impossible to pin down as objective and I'm confused as to why you'd think it would be (besides that you were taught that growing up, but that is far from a solid bid).
October 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm (This post was last modified: October 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm by Mystic.)
(October 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm)Annik Wrote: That's because it's subjective (like beauty).
When it comes to taste, something can taste good to us but not for others, and we would be fine with that.
When it comes to morality/honor, we often get upset by others people view of morality/honor, when strongly disagree. We don't just say it's different taste.
When it comes to what we find beautiful, we may have different taste, but there is a unifying factor as well.
The point I'm making is that humans naturally believe in objective morality, while understanding taste can be subjective.
My belief about taste and beauty also is that sometimes we are blind to what others see of beauty or how something tastes good to us, because we are not adjusted to it. I would say there is a basis for our taste as well. And because none of us are perfectly adjusted with objective reality, we experience things through our own subjective view which has a link to objective reality, but isn't totally in line with that.
In this case, there is all sorts of beauty, in animals, in nature, it's a different thing if we appreciate it or not.
Different races obviously had their subjective view of beauty and evolution tended to favor that view of beauty, and so I don't think one race is better looking then another.
There is just different types of beauty, and we realize we have preferences. The preferences are not objective and are naturally going to subjective, the same is true of a lot of what we perceive of honour and morality, but there is a lot of perception in which we realize it's not really without basis.
Another thing to say is that perhaps it can be argued that beauty/taste can be without basis (perhaps it can be, perhaps it can't be), it's simple is an experience, but can the same thing be said about morality/honour? If it is without basis, then the whole experience is definitely flawed and a delusion, unlike that of taste, but honor/morality to be not a delusional experience must have some sort of link with the objective.
(October 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Honour is cultural to an even greater degree than morality.
(October 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: When it comes to taste, something can taste good to us but not for others, and we would be fine with that.
When it comes to morality/honor, we often get upset by others people view of morality/honor, when strongly disagree. We don't just say it's different taste.
However, both are still subjective.
Quote:When it comes to what we find beautiful, we may have different taste, but there is a unifying factor as well.
Which is what, now?
Quote:The point I'm making is that humans naturally believe in objective morality.
I'm sure the psychological community would love to see your findings, but this has no basis in reality. I don't have an objective morality because such a thing does not exist. Sure, I will argue my brand of right and wrong, but it will be different from person to person as it is subjective.
Quote:My belief about taste and beauty also is that sometimes we are blind to what others see of beauty or how something tastes good to us, because we are not adjusted to it. I would say there is a basis for our taste as well. And because none of us are perfectly adjusted with objective reality, we experience things through our own subjective view which has a link to objective reality, but isn't totally in line with that.
Humans are subjective creatures. Nature doesn't give a shit about us. The universe is indifferent to our joys and our suffering. The universe is, we just give it subjective meaning.
Quote:In this case, there is all sorts of beauty, in animals, in nature, it's a different thing if we appreciate it or not.
One might not appreciate it if they don't find it beautiful. I have a lot of experience with that with art being my career goal. That's why we have critique, that's why not everyone's sensibilities (as displayed in a portfolio) gets them hired.
Quote:Different races obviously had their subjective view of beauty and evolution tended to favor that view of beauty, and so I don't think one race is better looking then another.
There is just different types of beauty, and we realize we have preferences. The preferences are not objective and are naturally going to subjective, the same is true of a lot of what we perceive of honour and morality, but there is a lot of perception in which we realize it's not really without basis.
There are different kinds of beauty because it is subjective.
Quote:Another thing to say is that perhaps it can be argued that beauty/taste can be without basis (perhaps it can be, perhaps it can't be), it's simple is an experience, but can the same thing be said about morality/honour? If it is without basis, then the whole experience is definitely flawed and a delusion, unlike that of taste, but honor/morality to be not a delusional experience must be objective.
Of course it is subjective. Again, the universe doesn't care enough to establish a moral/honor code. We do that because we're humans and have a need to be special.
Maybe I would understand it better if you laid out this obviously objective honor code?
Why? Your logic fails to present this as a true conclusion.
![[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu224%2FUchiha_Kina%2FTags%2FSigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png)
