Have you ever seen people say Vladimir Putin is a good leader?

[Aoi Magi]

Being a "good leader" and a "good person" are two different things.

Oh and morality is subjective, not objective. What you or we consider immoral today might have been considered moral throughout history and even today in other cultures. But that is a different issue.

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Being a "good leader" and a "good person" are two different things.

Oh and morality is subjective, not objective. What you or we consider immoral today might have been considered moral throughout history and even today in other cultures. But that is a different issue.

You see, that makes no sense to me. Whatever is fair is ultimately what's good. It doesn't matter what lens you're viewing it through, because personal point of view is subjective. There is a fair morality and an unfair morality, which does exist albeit subjective in how it's viewed by human beings. This argument sounds more like a programming tool to dismiss atrocities of leaders like Putin.

---

For example, the reason you call it subjective morality is because that's the way you see it. Let me give you an analogy. If I believed that putting leeches on someone or grinding spices with a rino horn and then putting it on your food cured cancer, I'd be wrong. I'd be viewing what I believe to be the correct medical practice through a misguided lens. The same can apply to morality, there is a right and wrong way of viewing morality, but like science and any tool of understanding, our morality is only as good as our ability to measure. Objective truth exists, albeit outside of our knowledge, or what we can obviously witness to be immoral; aka the horrific persecution of homosexuals or assassinating political rivals.

[paulpablo]

I hear he assassinates his political opposition, he bans people from making memes about him, plus the "no gay propaganda" law. I watched a documentary about being gay in Russia, it's a fucking war zone. It's a completely homophobic country, people get outed by groups of homophobic gangs, they get beaten up, anyone who tries to speak out against it gets arrested. 

So how much more do I need to know to believe Putin is an absolute Tyrant? My younger brother is very informed, he reads a ton of news, he could argue about foreign politics and tell you about his favorite economist. He fucking says Putin is a good leader, I see people on facebook saying Putin has done great things for Russia. What the fuck? I guess that's not enough dirt on a guy to make him an awful person.

---

I've heard him called a thug and a gangster from a few people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_aSl3ktjg

Yeh two Black African Christians who I worked with liked Putin's ideals. 

In particular one of them who's argument was that Putin believed in traditional family values, was brave enough to stand up against America, and also because Russia is involved in less wars than America.

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

I hear he assassinates his political opposition, he bans people from making memes about him, plus the "no gay propaganda" law. I watched a documentary about being gay in Russia, it's a fucking war zone. It's a completely homophobic country, people get outed by groups of homophobic gangs, they get beaten up, anyone who tries to speak out against it gets arrested. 

So how much more do I need to know to believe Putin is an absolute Tyrant? My younger brother is very informed, he reads a ton of news, he could argue about foreign politics and tell you about his favorite economist. He fucking says Putin is a good leader, I see people on facebook saying Putin has done great things for Russia. What the fuck? I guess that's not enough dirt on a guy to make him an awful person.

---

I've heard him called a thug and a gangster from a few people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_aSl3ktjg

Yeh two Black African Christians who I worked with liked Putin's ideals. 

In particular one of them who's argument was that Putin believed in traditional family values, was brave enough to stand up against America, and also because Russia is involved in less wars than America.

What's your point?

[popeyespappy]

Whether or not your brother is correct could depend on what he means by good leader. When he says good does he mean effective? Few would argue that Qin Shi Huang or Genghis Khan weren't effective leaders, but I doubt many would argue they would meet today's standard for a moral person. The same type of case could be made for Putin. Morality aside one could argue that he has been an effective leader. Someone could counter that argument with decisions made by Putin have influenced the current shitty state of the Russian economy.

Today's standards of a moral person? You seem to be implying that morality is subjective to the cultural standard of morality. Morality is objective, based on how fair the standards are for treating others. This is one of the things that religious people will say, which is morality is cultural. It's not.

Way to miss my point about what does he mean by good, effective or moral, and drill down into a philosophical question that's been argued for centuries.

Having said that historically societal morality has and will hopefully continue to evolve over time. Theists are usually the ones arguing objective morality with the line separating moral from immoral dictated by some deity or another.

[paulpablo]

Yeh two Black African Christians who I worked with liked Putin's ideals. 

In particular one of them who's argument was that Putin believed in traditional family values, was brave enough to stand up against America, and also because Russia is involved in less wars than America.

What's your point?

Look a the title of the thread, it's a question, I was answering it.............

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Today's standards of a moral person? You seem to be implying that morality is subjective to the cultural standard of morality. Morality is objective, based on how fair the standards are for treating others. This is one of the things that religious people will say, which is morality is cultural. It's not.

Way to miss my point about what does he mean by good, effective or moral, and drill down into a philosophical question that's been argued for centuries.

Having said that historically societal morality has and will hopefully continue to evolve over time. Theists are usually the ones arguing objective morality with the line separating moral from immoral dictated by some deity or another.

Okay, well the deity argument is stupid. I already have my own opinion on this subject, I don't feel uncertain about it either. I'll quote myself from half an hour ago.

For example, the reason you call it subjective morality is because that's the way you see it. Let me give you an analogy. If I believed that putting leeches on someone or grinding spices with a rino horn and then putting it on your food cured cancer, I'd be wrong. I'd be viewing what I believe to be the correct medical practice through a misguided lens. The same can apply to morality, there is a right and wrong way of viewing morality, but like science and any tool of understanding, our morality is only as good as our ability to measure. Objective truth exists, albeit outside of our knowledge, or what we can obviously witness to be immoral; aka the horrific persecution of homosexuals or assassinating political rivals.

---

What's your point?

Look a the title of the thread, it's a question, I was answering it.............

Ah, true. You did.

[Aoi Magi]

As I said, subjective or objective morality is a different issue. In this instance, it is pointless.

Think of it like this, you and I are both students, I am very immoral, and you are JC incarnate. Who will get better grades in class and why?

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

As I said, subjective or objective morality is a different issue. In this instance, it is pointless.

Think of it like this, you and I are both students, I am very immoral, and you are JC incarnate. Who will get better grades in class and why?

Please go back and read my response.

[popeyespappy]

I already have my own opinion on this subject, I don't feel uncertain about it either. I'll quote myself from half an hour ago.

You know what they say about everyone having an opinion. Meanwhile here is fairly simple explanation of why what you are calling objective morality is really subjective.

Many attempts at establishing an objective morality try to argue from considerations of human well-being. OK, but who decided that human well-being is what is important? We did! This whole enterprise starts with a subjective leap. Yes, human well-being is what morality is all about but human well-being is all about human feelings and preferences, and is thus subjective.

https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/...-nonsense/