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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:08 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Tinkerbell Effect.
#11
RE: The Tinkerbell Effect.
No matter how many people "believe" in Tinkerbell it remains a fictional character.
Reply
#12
RE: The Tinkerbell Effect.



The set of relativistic ethical frameworks for which the Tinkerbell effect is applicable is only a subset of all such frameworks; thus while the Tinkerbell effect may be consistent with whatever relativistic framework or frameworks are valid, it isn't necessarily so.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
RE: The Tinkerbell Effect.
(July 26, 2013 at 7:31 am)Consilius Wrote: So history's monuments to moral relativism (Pope Urban, Stalin) serve to teach us that nothing is wrong if you believe it isn't?
Correct. Nothing is necessarily wrong, and nothing is necessarily right.
Reply
#14
RE: The Tinkerbell Effect.
(July 26, 2013 at 6:29 am)Consilius Wrote: "Is subjective morality factual or just your outlook on the universe?"

Replace the word 'subjective' with the word 'objective'. Answer? The question isn't so provacative anymore, is it?

You asked me to choose a pill. Red or blue, as in the matrix. What about the orange, yellow, green, indigo, or violet pills? I can't see them, but what of the ultra-violet pills? Are there infra-red pills?

Subjective vs. Objective morality is a false dichotomy. Those that throw this choice around are ignorant of morality and the interaction between passion and reason.
Reply
#15
RE: The Tinkerbell Effect.
(July 26, 2013 at 9:49 am)Slave Wrote:
Quote:You can be as relativist as you like, but you're still bound to a physical universe that has truths one can state about it, and therefore has actions that are objectionable.

I'm interested to hear what these objective morals are in this context. Could you elaborate further?

Sure. It's just a matter of extrapolating out from what we know to be true about the universe; we're living beings who- generally speaking- like being alive, and we only know of the one life we have for one hundred percent certainty. Therefore, life is preferable to death (generally) in that only the living can improve their circumstances. So indiscriminate murder is wrong because it robs the victims of this ability, leaving aside the issue of suffering.

In fact, causing suffering can be seen as an objectively immoral practice in general, because we don't like suffering, and those actions that cause suffering without reason (rape, assault, stuff like that) can be seen as immoral actions by that standard.

Conversely, charitable actions that provide benefit to others are objectively good in that they provide only benefit; if I go volunteer for a charity there's a cost to me personally in the form of time spent, but a benefit to the broader community, and that's good. Generally, we do prize good in a general or community sense over personal good, which is why charity is good despite the personal cost, but rape and theft (very good for the individual, unhealthy for the larger group) are immoral.

Anyway, there are numerous caveats, and actually explaining the whole thing would take forever, but the basics are life over death, pleasure over pain... very simple objective moral truths, but enough for a foundation.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)