Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Wozza]

o_mlly:

Wozza:

So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.

No, we have not seen that “it comes down to personal judgement.”

Perhaps the reason that those who think morality is subjective do so because they govern their acts with their emotions rather than their intellect. If it “feels” good therefore it is good.

No one can argue against how another feels. One can argue against the way another thinks as we are rational beings. Paradoxically, to argue productively, debaters must first agree on principles. But if one offers no principles from which they argue then further exchange is pointless.

This all day.
Shape-shifting and vague/subjective language usage does not produce rational discussion.

You might have missed that I agreed with almost everything that o-mlly said. And I’m still waiting for you to tell me where the answers to all moral problems can be found if we can’t decide on them ourselves. Who else will do it for us?

 

[goout]

goout:

o_mlly:

Wozza:

So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.

No, we have not seen that “it comes down to personal judgement.”

Perhaps the reason that those who think morality is subjective do so because they govern their acts with their emotions rather than their intellect. If it “feels” good therefore it is good.

No one can argue against how another feels. One can argue against the way another thinks as we are rational beings. Paradoxically, to argue productively, debaters must first agree on principles. But if one offers no principles from which they argue then further exchange is pointless.

This all day.
Shape-shifting and vague/subjective language usage does not produce rational discussion.

You might have missed that I agreed with almost everything that o-mlly said. And I’m still waiting for you to tell me where the answers to all moral problems can be found if we can’t decide on them ourselves. Who else will do it for us?

The two of you/we/just about everybody else posting here… disagrees wildly, radically with your subjectivity.
How is it that you do not realize that?

The test of a well thought position is to know what others are saying, and be able to understand and articulate that position accurately, even thought you don’t agree with it. We aren’t even using the same words in the same ways.
And you don’t realize that? Really?

 

[John10]

There are guidelines provided by the Church for such situations. My understanding is that public surveillance is morally allowed if the expected additional surveillance will improve the overall security and law enforcement.

It is a powerful deterrent for criminal activity and also helps law enforcement with obtaining proof of a crime.

 

[Wozza]

There are guidelines provided by the Church for such situations. My understanding is that public surveillance is morally allowed if the expected additional surveillance will improve the overall security and law enforcement.

It is a powerful deterrent for criminal activity and also helps law enforcement with obtaining proof of a crime.

Can you point me to the church’s guidlines regarding surveillance?

 

[John10]

Surveillance falls under seeking the common good.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

goout:

o_mlly:

Wozza:

So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.

No, we have not seen that “it comes down to personal judgement.”

Perhaps the reason that those who think morality is subjective do so because they govern their acts with their emotions rather than their intellect. If it “feels” good therefore it is good.

No one can argue against how another feels. One can argue against the way another thinks as we are rational beings. Paradoxically, to argue productively, debaters must first agree on principles. But if one offers no principles from which they argue then further exchange is pointless.

This all day.
Shape-shifting and vague/subjective language usage does not produce rational discussion.

You might have missed that I agreed with almost everything that o-mlly said. And I’m still waiting for you to tell me where the answers to all moral problems can be found if we can’t decide on them ourselves. Who else will do it for us?

The two of you/we/just about everybody else posting here… disagrees wildly, radically with your subjectivity.
How is it that you do not realize that?

Did I give the impression that I was unaware of it? What makes you say that?

And you might note that I am not only putting my position forward but arguing against the positions put forward by others. And that’s because…you are probably aware of this…I disagree with them.

That’s what forums are for. Not necessarily to win people over to ones way of thinking, but to explain why one holds such a position in the first place.

If you find it too frustrating then find another thread that doesn’t raise your blood pressure too much. I won’t hold it against you.

 

[Wozza]

Surveillance falls under seeking the common good.

So the common good would include total lack of privacy for everyone? I just need to check that that is what you mean.

 

[John10]

As I have said before we have to analyze the benefits / inconvenience ratio, if the benefits outweigh the inconvenience I would say it is morally acceptable.

We sometimes need to do trade-offs we do not live in a perfect world.

 

[Wozza]

As I have said before we have to analyze the benefits / inconvenience ratio, if the benefits outweigh the inconvenience I would say it is morally acceptable.

We sometimes need to do trade-offs we do not live in a perfect world.

I notice, John, that you didn’t say that ‘it is morally acceptable’. You said that you personally would find it morally acceptable. You are offering your opinion on the matter, not stating that 24/7 surveillance is objectively moral.

That’s fair enough. Everyone will have an opinion. O-mlly for example wanted restrictions on the amount of surveillance. Some others I guarantee would object to it being 24 hours a day - even discounting toilet breaks (do you really want a camera in your bedroom?). Me personally? I would need a lot of persuassion that cameras in public places should be allowed in all cases.

And not all Christians would agree that ‘the greater good’ should include 24/7 surveillance. I’d suggest that some would claim that the greater good would be accomplished by allowing greater personal freedom and greater privacy.

So we have a cross section of views. Understandably.

So if we discount everyone’s personal feelings about the matter because they all differ to a certain degree - yours included, then how do we know if it’s right or not?

 

[John10]

On moral issues there are objective truths, rather than just opinions. I believe it is morally acceptable to have public surveillance if that helps to increase law enforcement and security, even if some people think it violates their privacy. It will also help law enforcement provide swift and efficient justice by providing them with evidence.

If you believe this is wrong as per the Church teachings, then please let me know what the Church teaches on this regard.

 

[Wozza]

On moral issues there are objective truths, rather than just opinions. I believe it is morally acceptable to have public surveillance if that helps to increase law enforcement and security, even if some people think it violates their privacy. It will also help law enforcement provide swift and efficient justice by providing them with evidence.

If you believe this is wrong as per the Church teachings, then please let me know what the Church teaches on this regard.

You say ‘there are objective truths, rather than just opinions’ and then immediately give me your personal opinion: ‘I believe…’.

I don’t think it’s wrong ‘as per church teachings’ because the church teaches nothing about the pros and cons of surveillance. The only (name removed by moderator)ut it appears to have - according to you, is the suggestion that you should consider the greater good.

And your personal opinion on the matter - and I’ll repeat that - your personal opinion on the matter, would mean a complete lack of privacy for you and your family.

So what happens if…sorry…what happens WHEN other Christians tell us that this is a complete travesty of basic human rights? To whom do I listen? Because someone has the answer apparently. It doesn’t matter what you or I think about it. Why should I listen to what you believe? What do we say to those who are categorically against it if it’s brought and you’re the only guy who thinks it’s a good idea?

 

[John10]

I’ll rephrase

It is morally acceptable to have public surveillance if that helps to increase law enforcement and security, even if some people think it violates their privacy.

The Church teaches that we must all work toward the common good of society. Having good law enforcement is something good to have, even more so today where so much evil is done and it is mostly being unchallenged. Good surveillance helps to have good law enforcement.

 

[Wozza]

I’ll rephrase

John10:

It is morally acceptable to have public surveillance if that helps to increase law enforcement and security, even if some people think it violates their privacy.

The Church teaches that we must all work toward the common good of society. Having good law enforcement is something good to have, even more so today where so much evil is done and it is mostly being unchallenged. Good surveillance helps to have good law enforcement.

Ah, just noticed you had adjusted the proposal from 24/7 surveillance to ‘public surveillance’. Which isn’t the same thing. But surely the good of the people come first. There’s not much point in surveillance if you can’t see what people are doing.

So we’ve had one ammendment to 24/7 in that there are no toilets in the john. Now you only want them in public areas. So if someone is building a bomb in his back yard, then it won’t be seen.

Look, the changes that one person wants to make versus that which another person finds acceptable versus those who think it’s entirely wrong…we are using that to indicate that there isn’t one single correct answer. Would you not agree on that so we could move on?

 

[John10]

I have always said public surveillance. We will not be able to 100% prevent every single evil act always by surveillance, however we should make it as hard as reasonably possible.

If a crime goes unpunished because we needed to respect people’s privacy in a public space, I would say the price is too high to pay, it is immoral.

Either way God is always watching us, everywhere, so we are already under constant surveillance.

 

[Wozza]

I have always said public surveillance. We will not be able to 100% prevent every single evil act always by surveillance, however we should make it as hard as reasonably possible.

If a crime goes unpunished because we needed to respect people’s privacy in a public space, I would say the price is too high to pay, it is immoral.

Either way God is always watching us, everywhere, so we are already under constant surveillance.

I think that you’ve missed the point, John. Thanks anyway.

 

[John10]

God Bless friend

 

[Wozza]

God Bless friend

You too…

 

[jeannetherese]

The object being that which is affected by the actions. If no-one is affected then it is an amoral act.

Could one argue that the actor is affected by his or her actions?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The object being that which is affected by the actions. If no-one is affected then it is an amoral act.

Could one argue that the actor is affected by his or her actions?

He or she could be. I just put a bottle of water in the fridge. The affect on me is so minimal it’s not worth considering. But if I drink all that water and someone else needed it…