• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Objective Morality.

sangha said:
Color isn't something that actually is.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I am more certain that my experience exists than I am of anything else. That's another way of phrasing the cogito, I would say. All of this around me could be an illusion (a la the matrix) but for one to experience an illusion there still has to be experience, by definition. But the notion of experience existing challenges our intuitions of what "exist" means. Experience doesn't seem to occupy space or time, which is usually how we conceptualize "existence".

I think I need a joint. :lol:
 
the_recruit said:
Hmmm. I am more certain that my experience exists than I am of anything else. That's another way of phrasing the cogito, I would say. All of this around me could be an illusion (a la the matrix) but for one to experience an illusion there still has to be experience, by definition. But the notion of experience existing challenges our intuitions of what "exist" means. Experience doesn't seem to occupy space or time, which is usually how we conceptualize "existence".

I think I need a joint. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's not go down the "what is 'is'" path
 
sangha said:
Color isn't something that actually is. What actually is is light of certain wavelengths being reflected off of surfaces. Humans perceive that light as color.
Click to expand...

But those light waves can be objective measured. Just because someone cannot perceive that particular light wave properly doesn't mean that it's objectively changed. The fault is in their eyes or brains, not in the color.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The point is "color" isn't an objective reality. It literally depends upon the optic nerves and photic processors of an organisms eye(s).

Just
Like
Morals
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't. The color *IS* objective, it exists whether there is anyone there to "see" the light wavelength or not. It is measurable objectively. It doesn't depend on optic nerves at all.

You're just wrong about that part of it.
 
Cephus said:
But those light waves can be objective measured. Just because someone cannot perceive that particular light wave properly doesn't mean that it's objectively changed. The fault is in their eyes or brains, not in the color.
Click to expand...

So butterflies are faulty? The point is, even color is subjective. Light waves aren't. Color is.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So butterflies are faulty? The point is, even color is subjective. Light waves aren't. Color is.
Click to expand...

Colors are determined by the wavelength of light. Come on, basic high school physics!
 
Cephus said:
No. It doesn't. The color *IS* objective, it exists whether there is anyone there to "see" the light wavelength or not. It is measurable objectively. It doesn't depend on optic nerves at all.

You're just wrong about that part of it.
Click to expand...

No, light waves are objective. Color is not.
 
Cephus said:
Colors are determined by the wavelength of light. Come on, basic high school physics!
Click to expand...

So are butterflies wrong? Or are humans? You say it's objective, so only one species can be right.
 
Cephus said:
But those light waves can be objective measured. Just because someone cannot perceive that particular light wave properly doesn't mean that it's objectively changed. The fault is in their eyes or brains, not in the color.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lightwaves and (more specifically) their wavelength can be measured. But wavelength is not color.
 
Cephus said:
Colors are determined by the wavelength of light. Come on, basic high school physics!
Click to expand...

Actually, color is determined by a # of factors including the receptors in eyes, the nervous system and the brain.
 
Cephus said:
Colors are determined by the wavelength of light.
Click to expand...

No the wavelength of light X triggers the optic nerve which triggers interactions in the brain which cause you to perceive a particular sensation known as 'color'. If you have a different being with a different brain physiology, then light of wavelength X can trigger a different interaction in the brain which can cause the being to perceive a completely different sensation than you. One sensation is not more "correct" than the other.

Cognitive function is critical to perceiving and experiencing. Therefore, sensations like color are mind-dependent. Subjective.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Then what's "right": what the average human sees, or what the average butterfly sees? Or are they both?
Click to expand...
Really dude?
All you are doing is playing a game.

What we call colors is nothing more than measurable emissions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Whether or not all humans or all butterflies perceive them or not, matters not one bit to their existence or their objective measurability.

Your argument is infirm, in that, while color may be subjective, the base is objectively measurable.
Which is not the same with morals.
 
sangha said:
But if this "obective good" can only be relevant to humans, then it is not "objective".
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing out the difference between subjective and objective. These two words are opposites and some people are switching them. They need a dictionary.
 
Excon said:
Really dude?
All you are doing is playing a game.

What we call colors is nothing more than measurable emissions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Whether or not all humans or all butterflies perceive them or not, matters not one bit to their existence or their objective measurability.

Your argument is infirm, in that, while color may be subjective, the base is objectively measurable.
Which is not the same with morals.
Click to expand...

The "base" isn't the discussion. "Color" is. I agree, both are subjective.
 
Okay, I'll join in.

First of all, even when it comes to stealing something because you are starving it would still depend on the person making the judgement of the situation to determine if a thing was wrong or right or "okay" morally speaking. For instance, what if everyone was starving? Would it then be wrong or right to steal food from people? What if you know a food is poisoned or believe that the food will harm the other person? Many would say that it would be wrong to allow that person to eat the food, and stealing it would be morally acceptable. Not all though. In fact, in every situation I can come up with for stealing, you would find some people to say it was morally wrong, some that would say it was morally right or okay. Heck, this could even be true for the situation in the OP where the rich guy stole from the homeless guy just because. I'm sure some people out there see nothing morally wrong with that, saying something along the lines of "survival of the fittest" or "only the strong survive". It may not be a popular opinion/belief/moral position to have, but it would still be a moral position/belief.

I also noticed something said in this thread about "nature defining murder". I have to address this one. Nature never defines murder. It can't. Murder is a human concept. The very definition of murder includes the law. In order for a killing to be considered murder, it must be against the law. Laws are made by man, not nature (at least not for what we are talking about). Laws are based on the base morality of whoever makes those laws, whether it is a king, a small group of people, a religious sect, or an entire society in some way.

Morals are subjective. Whether an action is morally wrong is dependent on the person making this determination. There is no evidence that can be used to show objectively why a decision made was right or wrong, why an action was right or wrong, morally speaking. You can say that it is objectively against a law, but since laws are determined as I said above, then you are still relying on something subjective.
 
sangha said:
Yes, the lightwaves and (more specifically) their wavelength can be measured. But wavelength is not color.
Click to expand...

But it's a definition of color. Blue light is around 475 nanometers. Anything that falls into that range is blue. Whether anyone is there to see it, it's still blue. Even if someone is there and their optic receptors cannot properly see blue light, the light is still blue.
 
sangha said:
Actually, color is determined by a # of factors including the receptors in eyes, the nervous system and the brain.
Click to expand...

No, color is determined by wavelength. Individual reception of color is determined by a number of factors but the wavelength is always objective. If someone is blind, that doesn't mean that color ceases to exist in the universe. It just means that they can't see it.
 
the_recruit said:
No the wavelength of light X triggers the optic nerve which triggers interactions in the brain which cause you to perceive a particular sensation known as 'color'. If you have a different being with a different brain physiology, then light of wavelength X can trigger a different interaction in the brain which can cause the being to perceive a completely different sensation than you. One sensation is not more "correct" than the other.

Cognitive function is critical to perceiving and experiencing. Therefore, sensations like color are mind-dependent. Subjective.
Click to expand...

Color isn't a sensation, it's a definition. Try again.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So neither species is wrong? Very interesting. Doesn't sound very objective.
Click to expand...

Let us know when you look up what the word "objective" means, you don't seem to have a clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom