I'm stating that 'right' and 'wrong' don't exist. Forget concepts of good and bad. There is only existence. Morality is a set of beliefs each person holds, that drives them to take certain actions. They're not 'right' or 'wrong', because those are also human concepts. They simply do. That's all that matters. It's impossible for a morality to be correct or incorrect, because there is no right answer. That is what I mean by them being subjective and not objective. They cannot be judged objectively. Correct. I have not dis-proven the existence of an absolute morality, because disproving the existence of anything is extremely difficult, short of strict tautological statements. (e.g. A triangle with four squares.) This is why the burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to have it acknowledged, if it is to play any role in the argument. At present, it is of no consequence, because no evidence for such a concept has been provided. The reason I provided evidence for the existence of a subjective morality is so that its existence is fully acknowledged, unlike that of objective morality. Neither side is objectively right, and neither will be objectively right at any point in time. Even if in the future, everyone were to universally acknowledge abortion as being morally 'wrong', it will not be objectively wrong, because it is only considered wrong from a limited perspective. It isn't objectively correct either though. Morality is not an objective concept. I don't understand what you mean by this argument being subjective. Please elaborate. Exactly. Your theory has no evidence what-so-ever. As such, I see no reason to believe in it, nor for it to pose as a valid alternative to my theory of only subjective morality existing.
I C wut you did thar :lolface:
Tsumetai seemed to do a fine job last time, so I have no objections to him being Shinigami again. I think I'll join in this round as a Detective.
B-b-but... Rickroll is older than my grandfather!
I am prepared to commit a felony. Are they still out of stock?
Misty: Pros and cons of ritually sacrificing your neighbours. Go. DP: Impressions? Fayt: OhgodIdon'tknowwhatwillandwon'toffendyou What offends you? Mike: Favourite KH game? Misty: Favourite song ATM? DP: Do you kill flies? Fayt: Whoof want to know? Mike: If you could date one KH-Vidian, who would you choose? Misty: Got bike? /Trollface DP: What is your life story in three sentences? Fayt: What should I do? Mike: Where do you find the news? Misty: What advantage does Premium benefit #9 give? DP: What is your name? Fayt: What is your quest? Mike: What is your favourite colour?
No, there is no doubt about subjective morality. I have proven that subjective morality exists. I am attempting to make it into the only morality. You keep throwing out an absolute morality, but have done nothing to prove the existence of it. Morality can quite happily be measured as subjective, in the same way as 'nice food' can be measured as subjective. There is no doubt about this. But you insist that they're all just guesses at what the 'correct' morality is, when as far as we know, there is no such thing as a correct morality. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence of a correct morality, otherwise my theory is correct. I've been arguing the entire time that the absolute morality box is empty. There is no absolute morality. We define ourselves what 'right' and 'wrong' are. As such, each person has a different view of right and wrong is. So the idea of 'morality' depends on the subject being asked. Thus is it subjective, because it depends on the subject. Objective is when there is one universal morality, and it doesn't matter what group or situation you apply it to, because it will still be the same. I say that the box is empty. Caput. Nothing. There is no one set of moral codes. Morality is a human construct, not an inbuilt part of the world. The only place we observe conventional morality is in human society, and even then, it is often violated. Moral beliefs differ depending upon the person, and there is nothing that judges those moral beliefs as 'right' or 'wrong'. The universe does not care what you do. There is no one judging your actions. Only you. When you initially state that something exists, you have to back it up with evidence. You do not have to back up with evidence when you initially state something does not exist. If there is no evidence for something, then it is assumed not to exist. It does not have an equal chance at existence and non-existence. The burden of proof is on the one who states that something exists. If you wish to have an absolute morality acknowledged, then present any evidence you have. Circumstantial, naturalistic, coincidental, anything! It is possible that a grand morality exists, yes. But unless there is evidence suggesting that it exists, then it is not considered to exist.
Hypothetically, would you object to more than five questions being asked per post? Best friend on KHV? Why haven't we talked before? How did you get that name? Do you kill flies?
How is everyone this fine evening?
God is a poor example, because it is something extremely difficult to prove, which is why I preferred to stay away from that analogy. If you insist though, we will deal with it. Unless proof is provided of a deity's existence, then its existence is considered immaterial at best, and non-existent at worst. Furthermore, the burden of proof to prove the deity's existence rests with those arguing for the existence of the god. This is a basic rule of debates. Otherwise claims would become fact without any evidence behind them, and it would be up to the defendant to attempt to disprove the statements, which is nearly impossible in most cases. In the same way, I demand proof of a set of absolute morals. Otherwise the default state of contents of the absolute morality box is considered to be nothing. Proving that it is possible for a set of absolute morals to exist doesn't cut it. If you want such an imposing idea to be accepted, then it requires evidence. At the moment, there is nothing that makes it more likely for absolute morals to exist than not exist. Following the ideas of the burden of proof, unless you can demonstrate the existence of a set of absolute morals, then they will not be accepted to exist.
Sabby: Are you aware that the generally accepted plurals of manga and anime are manga and anime? Star: SOCIAL LIFE. Do you have it? RvR: What is the best way to make an improvised weapon out of household items, given five minutes for collection and assembly? Chev: How long do you spend on hobbies in comparison to time spent on KHV? Sabby: What religious beliefs do you hold? Star: Have you ever been so far even as decided to use go want to look more like? RvR: Can we bring back GlossaryManager? I miss him. ;__; Chev: Do you eat toothpaste? Sabby: Favourite KHV ship? Star: What day is it? >8D RvR: Who is your favourite staff member? Chev: Height/weight? B| Sabby: Are you guys going to answer all these questions? Star: Why haven't you read any Mohiro Kitoh manga? They're amazing. RvR: Are you a shameless pirate? Chev: Uu~ Uu~ You agree, don't you? BEATORICHE EXISTS, Uu~!? [More to come when I can be bothered]
[X] "I.....kinda.....enjoyed last night"
Bad idea. This means you have to actually break the UMD casing open, which creates another problem. The hassle it creates and the potential problems are too great to outweigh the benefit of easy access to clean a disc.
How far are you? Things get pretty intense. If you hang around here, it'll be very spoilery.
You believe that concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' exist above the level of humans. I believe that such concepts exist only in human perception. The universe does not care about murder. In fact, it encourages it due to the kill-or-be-killed aspect of nature. There is no higher plain of morality. The entire concept of morality is purely defined by people. Let's analyse your examples: A group of people holding coals can all state "My coal is the hottest", but only one will be objectively correct. They can measure this using a thermometer, which objectively judges. We agree on this. A group of people eating different food can all state "My food is the most delicious", and all of them can be correct, because deliciousness is subjective. It's dependant upon what the person eating the food thinks as a subjective opinion, so it is possible for multiple, contradicting views to be subjectively correct. There is no objective way to measure the tastiness of a food. We agree on this too. Those are two categories for facts. Objective and subjective. I believe morality fits into the second category, while you do not. You have presented the following analogies: A group of people can all state "My god is the real one". It is possible that all of them are incorrect, because the truth may be something none of them predicted. However only one can be objectively correct, in the best of circumstances. (Assuming we're ignoring the possibility of pantheism) This can be confirmed by finding God and proving his existence. To counter with my own analogy, a group of people sitting around a box all state what they believe is in a box that is in front of them. They can all be incorrect, but only one can be objectively correct. This is objective, like the one about gods. In fact, it is the same scenario, with gods substituted for the contents of a box. It is objective, because there is a way to confirm whether they are correct or not. All they have to do is look in the box, and then they'll objectively know what is in the box. Then we get to the real situation. A group of people can all state "My set of morals is the most morally correct one". Next, to confirm whether such a statement is objective or subjective, we look at how we can prove it. Is there a thermometer we can check, as there is for the coals? Is there a box we can open, in the case of the contents of the box? There is no way to measure morality, just like there is no way to measure which food tastes the best, or which genre of music is superior. Therefore I conclude that morality is subjective. If you wish to disagree, then it is your duty to provide a method of objectively measuring morality, or prove the existence of a single correct moral set.
What, may I ask, is a Luftwaffle, and where might I sample one?
We see Lea (pronounced Lee) in Birth By Sleep, in Radient Garden. It's nothing particularly special. He's just an ordinary kid, like Hayner. The only interesting thing to note was that he was hanging out with Isa, Saix' Somebody.
Yes. For morality, I have put forward the viewpoint that an objective morality does not exist. Prove to me the existence of a morality that is not subjective. I state that an objective morality does not exist. Burden of proof is on you to prove that it does. I provide people's individual viewpoints as evidence for the existence of subjective morality. Unless you can provide another piece of evidence, then I conclude that there is only subjective morality.
Provide evidence for the existence of the 'universally correct way to act'. Also, please provide a summary of the 'universally correct way to act'. Preferably in a way that makes sense to an atheist. By evidence, I mean something along the lines of 'what people feel is the morally correct way to act', which is what I was basing it upon. However if you have a different source, which you are using to define this universal correct way of acting, please tell me.
I'm enlarging my contact list, so is there anyone I should add? I'm pika-power@moothall.net
