Are morals and ethics subjective?

[Vodun]

Well that's alarming since Cops are supposed to protect and serve. Was he trying to defend police brutality?

the cop from what I heard is down to earth but what made him make the comment was this tech geek was on the panel shytting on men who pay for p*ssy saying it was morally wrong or something pretty much judging men and women who do that kind of stuff. The cop was saying that's his belief and not everybody feels that way about paying for sex. then he dropped that line about morality being subjective which had my ass looking at my computer screen like

so what I believe may not truly be correct. I think it boils down to intent really, because behind my values and morals i try my best not to hurt others feelings and give people the proper respect etc etc

 

[Vodun]

link ?

the cop gets on around 31:24 its somewhere after that

 

[ThrobbingHood]

We can go down the “Nazi soldiers were just following orders” path. They’re still being hunted down today for doing “their job”.

Who sets/decides what morals and ethics we should abide by?

Why is murder justified when the government sanction it on foreign soil but it’s subjective when a civilian does it?

It isn’t all black and white.

 

[Vodun]

We can go down the “Nazi soldiers were just following orders” path. They’re still being hunted down today for doing “their job”.

Who sets/decides what morals and ethics we should abide by?

Why is murder justified when the government sanction it on foreign soil but it’s subjective when a civilian does it?

It isn’t all black and white.

deep shyt thats for sure

 

[Remote]

If you think the threat of death invalidates everything, then sure.

I think that's a pathetic belief system but alright.

 

[null]

.

the cop gets on around 31:24 its somewhere after that

A question; Is car design subjective?

If Yes, why do cars look similar.

If No, why don't cars all look the same.

 

[Mugenight]

Was listening to a podcast and somebody was saying that morality goes out the window when your in survival mode and basically that ones values and morals are subjective. For example we hate that people kill others for whatever reason but if are life was on the line and killing was are only option for survival. All morals would go out the window and most of us would take it. Do you believe this to be true? like the saying goes

"one man's god is another man's devil"

No.

and the irony is it seems like the people who usually say such things are always without fail garbage individuals.

 

[Yapdatfool]

Morals, ethics, right/wrong... all 'subjective' cause its man made

Makes a whole lotta sense coming for a cop to say that, does a great job validating all their actions. Same shyt a gang banger would say, both aren't that far off from each other.

I guess the point is to not judge unless your in their shoes to speak but then whats the point of 'justice' when every action/inaction can be 'justified'.

 

[Family Man]

Moral and ethics are not subjective. However, your personal moral and ethics are situational.

 

[Yapdatfool]

No. We all know right from wrong. Bottom line. People who choose to do wrong are just either greedy or have no discipline

What is 'right' and 'wrong' tho? And is each answer the same from person to person?

 

[null]

Moral and ethics are not subjective. However, your personal moral and ethics are situational.

"situational" negs are ok then ?

 

[Sukairain]

Yes, of course it is. It's why it's a complete waste of time to talk morals with people. There's no such thing as morals. There's only right and wrong, meaning, there's only what works and what doesn't work. If what you do works for you and if what you recommend to others will work for them, then that's all anyone needs to worry about. Don't talk to me about doing the "morally right" thing. There's no such thing. There's only functionally right and functionally wrong.

So take something like doing right by society. Ending discrimination is a good thing, not because of some morality shyt, but instead because it is the rational thing to do. You do yourself no favours excluding a whole subset of the population from opportunities. The society which extracts maximum value from 100% of its citizens will always be superior to the one that extracts maximum value from 10% and oppresses everybody else. That's like the difference between a V8 engine running all cylinders versus a V8 engine with 7 cylinders disabled. This is why it's important and its imperative to eliminate social discrimination in all its forms, because when we have that in our society we are shutting down our own cylinders in our own engine. It's fukking stupid to do that.

Another societal goal, looking after the environment. Again, don't come at me with morality bullshyt. That's meaningless. The real reason we owe it to ourselves to look after all life forms and all ecosystems on the planet is because its fukking dangerous to play with that shyt. As far as we know this planet is the only place in the entire universe safe for human habitation. It's our one ship in a hostile ocean that we are all afloat on. So again, its fukking stupid to put holes into the hull of the ship, so that it starts leaking and then eventually sinks. Where the fukk are we going to go without it? If we had other planets fit to support human life, then maybe we can justify trashing this one like we do. But we haven't got an escape route. It's keep Earth safe and healthy, or death. So why do we willingly choose death?

It's not morally right or wrong, it's either the intelligent thing to do or the stupid thing to do. It's a question of what's efficient, what works best, what will yield the most productive outcome. It's never a question of being "morally right."

 

[null]

Ending discrimination is a good thing, not because of some morality shyt, but instead because it is the rational thing to do. You do yourself no favours excluding a whole subset of the population from opportunities. The society which extracts maximum value from 100% of its citizens will always be superior to the one that extracts maximum value from 10% and oppresses everybody else. That's like the difference between a V8 engine running all cylinders versus a V8 engine with 7 cylinders disabled. This is why it's important and its imperative to eliminate social discrimination in all its forms, because when we have that in our society we are shutting down our own cylinders in our own engine. It's fukking stupid to do that.

Society has to be layered and that layering doesn'r pick the best anyway.

So they use some readily idenfiable characterstic(s) to let society layer itself, while they (TPTB) claim to fight against it.

This aids in social cohesion. And as society always needs a bogeyman (aka common enemy) it helps with that too.

So what you lose by not picking the best you gain by gaining elsewhere.

And at the end of the day you only need a few chiefs and many indians, not the other way around. People cannot be allowed to achieve their "100% potential" because there are not enough "100% potential fulfilling" places (existing or created) for everyone to do that.

Engine analogy doesn't apply.

So yeah it is a moral question. Even you argue 2nd degree morality as in "good for society" rather than ONLY what is "good for you"/individuals.

 

[Sukairain]

Society has to be layered and that layering doesn'r pick the best anyway.

So they use some readily idenfiable characterstic(s) to let society layer itself, while they (TPTB) claim to fight against it.

This aids in social cohesion. And as society always needs a bogeyman (aka common enemy) it helps with that too.

So what you lose by not picking the best you gain by gaining elsewhere.

And at the end of the day you only need a few chiefs and many indians, not the other way around. People cannot be allowed to achieve their "100% potential" because there are not enough "100% potential fulfilling" places (existing or created) for everyone to do that.

Engine analogy doesn't apply.

So yeah it is a moral question. Even you argue 2nd degree morality as in "good for society" rather than ONLY what is "good for you"/individuals.

Of course there have to be leaders and followers. But those followers need to be excellent themselves. You can't have excellent followers unless everybody gets fair and equal access to the basic fundamentals of human rights: education, food, shelter, safety. Especially in childhood which is the most critical part of the life cycle.

If you give a child full access to all the basics they need to grow up to be an excellent citizen, and then they grow up to be a drag on society, then it's completely their fault. And they should be punished for it.

But if you live in an oppressive society like the UK today for example, where there are elite private schools and elite universities that a Pakistani child from Bradford or a Jamaican child from south London has no chance of attending because they're not "from the right background" financially, racially, and culturally, then that's a huge problem. Because that's a whole entire demographic of leaders you are ruling out. It's an entire demographic of excellent followers you are ruling out. How many of the UK's "leaders" go to Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, Eton? How many of them follow through from that and graduate in PPE or Classics at Oxbridge? Almost all of them are from that background.

How many BAME children get access to any of those things? How many working class white British children do? Hardly any.

Again not a single word of what I have said is morality, its pure mathematics. You can't argue with me. Its factually true that: a) going to an elite private school and then elite university is a golden meal ticket to success and power in the UK; b) that hardly anyone from outside the established power elite gets to access those things as a matter of course. The official statistics will bear me out here.

Now you seem to think this is somehow a good thing for society, meaning, such a society will be successful. I sincerely doubt that. Even your ruling class who went to those elite institutions are rubbish. Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, David pigfukker Cameron, they're all international laughing stocks. I insist that this is a V8 engine with seven cylinders disabled, because the only cylinder you've got in the UK is the private school - Oxbridge pipeline.

 

[null]

Of course there have to be leaders and followers. But those followers need to be excellent themselves. You can't have excellent followers unless everybody gets fair and equal access to the basic fundamentals of human rights: education, food, shelter, safety. Especially in childhood which is the most critical part of the life cycle.

If you give a child full access to all the basics they need to grow up to be an excellent citizen, and then they grow up to be a drag on society, then it's completely their fault. And they should be punished for it.

But if you live in an oppressive society like the UK today for example, where there are elite private schools and elite universities that a Pakistani child from Bradford or a Jamaican child from south London has no chance of attending because they're not "from the right background" financially, racially, and culturally, then that's a huge problem. Because that's a whole entire demographic of leaders you are ruling out. It's an entire demographic of excellent followers you are ruling out. How many of the UK's "leaders" go to Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, Eton? How many of them follow through from that and graduate in PPE or Classics at Oxbridge? Almost all of them are from that background.

How many BAME children get access to any of those things? How many working class white British children do? Hardly any.

Again not a single word of what I have said is morality, its pure mathematics. You can't argue with me. Its factually true that: a) going to an elite private school and then elite university is a golden meal ticket to success and power in the UK; b) that hardly anyone from outside the established power elite gets to access those things as a matter of course. The official statistics will bear me out here.

Now you seem to think this is somehow a good thing for society, meaning, such a society will be successful. I sincerely doubt that. Even your ruling class who went to those elite institutions are rubbish. Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, David pigfukker Cameron, they're all international laughing stocks. I insist that this is a V8 engine with seven cylinders disabled, because the only cylinder you've got in the UK is the private school - Oxbridge pipeline.

babble.

and yeah I can't argue with it.