Heidegger was the first post modern philosopher. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Heidegger was the first post modern philosopher.
in Philosophy

By piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
Post modernism cannot make a moral argument against racism, war, slavery, eugenics, or genocide. Perhaps the paramount reason for this is because postmodernism was created by an avid nazi party promoter.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    I mean, the reason that specific person held this view might have been what you mentioned - I wouldn't know. But I do not think that was what gave birth to post modernism. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    @AlexOland


    He questioned the validity of any script or text, which is definitely a huge aspect of post modernism. Post modernism argues that any and all literature is subject to the authors feelings, worldviews, and agendas. Beyond that, any potential interpretation of that text is subject to those same phenomena, therefore, any and all literature is subjective. He also argued that no arguments on what constitutes "being" is rooted in objectivism. So he introduced relative notions to philosophy. That's another huge aspect of post modernism. He also introduced deconstructionism into philosophy, which is another aspect of post modernism that Derrida  used extensively. He pointed out many ideas that have always been taken for granted as fact, and demonstrated how they were just social constructions. All of the French philosophers who are now considered to be the founders of post modernism were very well read in Heideggers philosophy, and they built theirs, not as a retort to his, but as if his was their framework. Many people believe he was the first postmodernist philosopher. Nietzsche was the influence, but Heidegger actually built it.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @piloteer "Perhaps the paramount reason for this is because postmodernism was created by an avid nazi party promoter." I was talking about this part when I said "that" in my second sentence. Sorry, I could have been clearer. I do not think post modernism is how it is right now because some nazi wanted to remove moral arguments against what they did. The man you mention may have started it (not claiming he did or did not, I just don't know) but I do not think the main reason behind it was to - as I said before - remove moral arguments against their inhumane actions. Maybe his actions affected his way of thinking but this does not mean that those actions are what gave birth to that idea. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited July 7
    @AlexOland

    In all fairness, postmodernism doesn't remove morality, it just sticks it into that "relative" zone, and any arguments of an objective morality is just relegated to a social construction, but postmodernism and Heidegger are in no way arguing that morality doesn't exist or should be removed. Just so we're clear, I'm not harping on postmodernism here, I love postmodernism. I'm also not saying that Heidegger constructed it purposefully for the nazis to legitimize thier dickheadedness, I'm not actually even sure if Heidegger was associated with the nazis when he wrote his first book in 1928. There's actually a serious lack of political insight when it comes to postmodernism, or even existentialism, and German philosophy as a whole.

     The true meaning of this discussion is me trying to point out the lack of moral objectivism in postmodernism which bleeds into western thought. I find it fascinating how the nazis embraced the philosophical foundations that the beatnik, and the Woodstock generation also embraced. I'm just trying to point out the dark roots of where postmodernism came from, and how it can easily be turned on humanity to be an argument for misanthropic ideas, but it can also be used to inspire long haired unshowered hippies to stick flowers into the barrels of the cops who are pointing the guns at them for protesting inhumane treatment. Whether we know it or not, we all speak the language of postmodernism. Conservatives love to harp on it, but they do so by using postmodern reasoning and linguistics. Reagan and Margerate Thatcher both embraced postmodernism and how it can be translated to be an argument for laissez faire, or anarcho capitalism. Yet, the philosophers who are credited with creating postmodernism were unapologetic communists. Heidegger was a socialist just the same as the nazis, and socialism is just down the road from communism.

    Like I said, I love postmodernism. I love it because of its dedication to art, and it legitimizes forms of art that would never have been considered art before hand. It tries to lend credence to the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. It does so by pointing out relativism in social thought, but I question at what cost, because it lets that relativism bleed into all aspects of humanity, and it seems to do so without thinking of the consequences for humanity. One thing I love about postmodernism is that it's totally in its nature to let people cherry pick which aspects of it that applies to them. So that means I can consider objective philosophers to be the best at political thought, but I can also think Kafka and Andy Warhol are among the greatest artists of all time regardless of their embrace of surrealism. It means that just because I love Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek, doesn't mean I don't get to play along with the posties games. 
    AlexOland
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @piloteer Oh, I just misunderstood you then. I agree with your last comment but I still have no position on who the first post modern philosopher is. I think it is pretty hard to draw a straight line and say "this is where post modernism was born".

     But if your main object was to explain that the relativism which post modernism brings causes people to have this certain relativistic (if that is a word) view about other things as well, then you have explained your position pretty clearly. 
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited July 8
    @AlexOland

    If relativistic is not a word, it "F"ing should be. But I think it actually is. You are correct when it comes to drawing a straight line to define philosophical categories, but correct to a certain point. Postmodernism is just the name we use to describe a certain philosophy, and all the postmodern philosophers rejected that title and denied they had anything to do with it, but all of the basic framework was in place for all those peoples books, and all of it can be traced back to Heidegger. It's really just because the word postmodernism didn't exist when Heidegger wrote his first books in the 20s and 30s, and throughout WWII. But regardless of a lack of the name postmodernism, all the ideas espoused by postmodernism were most certainly present in Heideggers work. It can be demonstrated how his work differed from philosophers before him, but how they were similar to philosophers after him. Nietzsche prophesied the philosophy of the "final man"(man being plural in this case), and he described a lack of a central point of thought. I believe Heidegger and the French postmodernists had a sycophantic thing going on with Nietzsche, even to the point of proving his prophecy was correct by creating the very philosophy he described. We now call that philosophy postmodernism.

    https://www.stephenhicks.org/2009/11/30/heidegger-and-postmodernism-ep/
    AlexOland
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @piloteer Welp, I am sold.
    piloteer
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer "In all fairness, postmodernism doesn't remove morality, it just sticks it into that "relative" zone, and any arguments of an objective morality is just relegated to a social construction"

    Is there really any functional difference between relative morality and amorality?
    AlexOland
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited July 12
    WinstonC said:
    @piloteer

    Is there really any functional difference between relative morality and amorality?
    Yes there is! Relative morality means that what is considered morally wrong by some, may not be considered morally wrong by others. It just means there's no fixed morality that blankets all of society, but still a moral code exists with them all, even if each has a different set of moral ideals. Moral peoples may not have a set moral code, but they all have one thing in common with others who have a moral code, and it is just that. They have a moral code.

     Amorality would be a total lack of a moral code, even among different people. Amorality is covered under nihilism. Nihilistic people deny that anything exists, let alone moral codes. So an amoral, or nihilistic person would not consider themselves or others to have any value in life. Some people get to nihilism by way of philosophy, there's even a "positive nihilism" trend going around. But the majority of nihilists get there because of hopelessness and internal suffering, and they probably don't even know what nihilism is or that they are nihilistic. They are devoid of morality, and consumed by suffering.

    The difference between amorality and immorality is amoral is a lack of a moral code, or nihilistic. Immorality is when people do things that they know others would consider morally wrong, or they do things that they themself consider morally wrong. Subjectivity comes in here too, because some may consider amorality worse than immorality, and some may think it's vice versa. 
    WinstonC
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer I accept the philosophical differences but I meant functionally; in practice. If one believes that their moral code is merely subjective, rather than their closest approximation of an absolute truth, then there is no reason one cannot change their moral code to be whatever they want it to be. In that case one's moral code is simply however the person wants to live, or a preference.
  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    @WinstonC

    For something to be an "absolute truth", it would mean it's true regardless of peoples feelings or emotions of it. Another way of calling something an "absolute truth" is calling it an objective truth (objective is the opposite of subjective in this case). Objective truths are truisms that exist outside of the spectrum of our senses. To have an absolute truth, we must accept that things are true whether we are physically able to confirm its true, or not. We must accept that truths exist, even if that truth can't be confirmed by our observations from our senses, because our observation of that truth has no effect on that phenomenons truth. It's true no matter what. 

    I'm sure many people may consider their individual moral code to be "absolute truth", but when they're asked to legitimize its absolutism, they are unable to rely on any objective reasoning to prove their moral code is actually "absolute truth". They usually need to rely on religious text, or traditional values, or social attitudes to try to legitimize their individual moral values are anything more than an opinion on what is morally correct. Not to say religious text, or traditional values, or social attitudes are bad places to build a moral foundation on, but if we're talking about objective truth, it kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those moral values. I also believe that functionally, a realization that your moral truth is subjective doesn't somehow render it a useless moral code. Nor does it make it an immoral point of view. It simply means that other people may not agree with its objective reasoning.

     Objective morals are just what people try to say they have so they feel like their moral values are unquestionable, and any deviation from that specific moral code is evil, or sinful, or devoid of morality. The truth is, there is no religious text, or traditional values, or social attitudes that can be used to demonstrate a moral truth on the part of anybody. Even the Bible says that we all have a personal relationship with God, so no person can claim to know what God wants of you, or for you. Only you and God can know that. The bible also says that God gave us free will, he even made us free to sin. God understands that we all fall short of his grace and that we will all sin. That's why he gave us the gift of Jesus Christ, so he could die for our sins, because God knows we're incapable of leading a sinless life. The bible also says that a sin, is a sin, is a sin, and no one sin is worse than any other sin, and if you're guilty of one sin, you're guilty of them ALL. It also says that we are ALL guilty of sin. We were born from sin, and we will die of sin. So when anybody tries to use the Bible as a foundation for their moral objective values, they will first need to traverse the icy slopes of those texts, that is said of God and our personal relationships with him. No person on earth can know whether God will or will not forgive you or anybody else for theirs or your sins. Only God can know that. Anybody who claims that their moral values were handed down by God, therefore they are unquestionably true, are really claiming that they know what things God will or will not forgive. They're claiming that God loves them more, and is closer to God, and they knkw whether God will or will not forgive you of your sins. The Bible specifically preaches against those attitudes.  With all those arguments in place, it's virtually impossible to argue that God laid out an objective moral value for us here on earth. The only moral value he expects of us is to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, but that will only get you into heaven, it's not really going to unlock any doors for you here on earth.

    Traditional, or social values are equally unreliable when it comes to demonstrating an objective moral truth. Traditional views vary from region to region, and they change with the passing of time. The same is true for social attitudes as well.

    Immorality is a total lack of morality. It is the equivalent to nihilism. It is not functionally the same as subjective morality. There is a common thread in subjective morality, in so far as there's an acceptance that other people, and even yourself actually exist. Not everybody accepts that all life forms are deserving of life, but at least they accept that it is a life that those life forms are  experiencing. Nihilism doesn't recognize life as a legitimate experience, or anything as legitimate. Nihilists hold no value others lives, or their own. Nihilism holds no value in objective truth, or subjective emotion. Nihilism doesn't differentiate between objective reasoning, or empirical reasoning. They don't even recognize that life is more than an illusion. Subjective morality and nihilism are not the same, in philosophy, or in practice.


  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer "I'm sure many people may consider their individual moral code to be "absolute truth", but when they're asked to legitimize its absolutism, they are unable to rely on any objective reasoning to prove their moral code is actually "absolute truth"."

    First of all, I'd say that we humans are unable to gain absolute truth on almost anything. In geography, there is no map in existence that represents the "absolute truth" of an area's features. Maps, however, serve as decent approximations of  the area's geography. Further, they are predicated on the fact that there is an absolute truth that they are attempting to define.

    "They usually need to rely on religious text, or traditional values, or social attitudes to try to legitimize their individual moral values are anything more than an opinion on what is morally correct."

    I did a rough rendering of my conception of why there are moral absolutes here (1), which bears great resemblance to Sam Harris' conception of morality.

    "I also believe that functionally, a realization that your moral truth is subjective doesn't somehow render it a useless moral code. Nor does it make it an immoral point of view. It simply means that other people may not agree with its objective reasoning."

    I completely agree. I meant functionally in that amoral people do what they want and people who believe that their code is subjective do what they want (because they can define the code however they wish if it's completely subjective).

    "Objective morals are just what people try to say they have so they feel like their moral values are unquestionable, and any deviation from that specific moral code is evil, or sinful, or devoid of morality."

    To go back to the map analogy, my conception is that we attempt to make the best map we can. It will never perfectly represent the geography of the area, however the fact we make maps at all is due to the fact that there is an underlying objective geography to be mapped.

    "...With all those arguments in place, it's virtually impossible to argue that God laid out an objective moral value for us here on earth."

    Fear not, I'm not religious.

    "Traditional views vary from region to region, and they change with the passing of time. The same is true for social attitudes as well."

    I completely agree. Note, though, that just because there are different conceptions of something, does not mean that all conceptions are equally valid.

    "It is not functionally the same as subjective morality."

    What I mean is that if one believes that morality is merely subjective, rather than one's best approximation of an absolute truth, there is no reason that one cannot define anything as moral/immoral. Other than the obvious social ramifications, why not decide that it's moral to kill children for fun?

    "...Nihilism..."

    I can appreciate that there is a distinction between nihilists and moral relativists. Many nihilists do have their own subjective moral code, though (it seems pretty difficult to exist without some kind of value structure). The point I was making is that if morality is subjective then there is no reason to evaluate anything as moral or immoral outside of ones preference.

    Sources:
    (1) https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/45847/



  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    @WinstonC

    The first paragraph of your last argument makes it seem like you're chasing your own tail. First you claim that you humans are "unable to gain absolute truth on almost anything", but then, two sentences later you demonstrate that their is absolute truth in the layout of the land that maps try to characterize. Your claims about absolute truth, and whether they can be perceived are kinda vague. It would be best if you could clarify your stance.

    1. Do (you believe)absolute truths can exist even if we are unable to witness them?

    2. If absolute truths can exist outside of the spectrum of our senses, can we (humans) truly confirm their truthfulness?

    You also have made the claim that people with subjective morality do whatever they want, yet you offer no evidence to back that claim. If they're doing whatever they want, are they really being moral at all, or is that just being amoral. If they have a subjective morality, it is still a moral code that they believe in strongly, and doing whatever they want would still be violating their own moral code. Also, I don't think you appreciate the difference between immoral and amoral, because you seem to use them interchangeably. Amoral is the lack of a moral code, or a total disbelief in its legitimacy, but immoral is an understanding of moral codes, or even adhering to a moral code, but violating it. Immorality isn't necessarily a disbelief in moral codes, but amoral is.

    Who's to say that what we may consider frightening now won't be considered moral in the future? Past civilizations have considered certain circumstances of murdering children to be morally correct, and although I can't attest for the entertainment value they might have gotten from it, still: the fact is what we find horrific now, was commonly done in the past, and more sketchy $hit is bound to happen in the future. I personally feel that current social trends keep all of our collective morals in check (somewhat). Nowhere on earth do athletes compete for the ultimate prize of being murdered, yet in ancient Mayan society, a game existed that was a combination of soccer, basketball, and hackysack. The ultimate prize for winning this game was to be sacrificed and your still beating heart was offered to the Gods for appeasement. Winning that game would get you the ultimate honor of being sacrificed for the common good of all others. It can be argued that athletes now play for the exact opposite reason of playing for the common good. The ultimate prize now is money, or ad endorsements, and bragging rights. To be a great athlete now, means that you are physically and even mentally superior to most of the rest of society, therefore you should be last on the list for sacrifice if the Gods should ever return for more appeasement. 

    Your claim that some moral values are not equally valid is a tad idiocentric. Perhaps you may not consider it equally valid, but others may feel that the absolute truth is your moral code is not equally valid.

    Yes, you are correct in your assertion that subjective morality means there's no fixed point as to what is or isn't morally true, but I don't think anybody can truly demonstrate that their actually is a true fixed point when it comes to morality. I believe morals are just an extension of worldviews (there's a word post-modernists never get tired of using).

  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer "1. Do (you believe)absolute truths can exist even if we are unable to witness them?"

    I''m saying here that the very quest for knowledge is predicated on the idea that there is objective knowledge to be acquired. In other words, the fact that you attempt to learn anything is implicitly based on the fact that there are objective truths, otherwise why would you try to gain knowledge?

    "2. If absolute truths can exist outside of the spectrum of our senses, can we (humans) truly confirm their truthfulness?"

    Fully? No. We do not have the apparatus required for an exhaustive account of what is. We can, however, use experimentation and observation to gain increasingly accurate approximations of the truth. If this is not possible, then it would be necessary to explain why the computer, which was created using these approximations, actually works.

    "You also have made the claim that people with subjective morality do whatever they want"

    I believe that most people with their subjective code are attempting to approximate the truth in the best way they can. If one's moral code truly is subjective, however, then there is no reason it cannot be shaped to one's will. In other words, their moral code could simply be whatever they wanted, because it isn't based on any underlying truth.

    "If they have a subjective morality, it is still a moral code that they believe in strongly, and doing whatever they want would still be violating their own moral code."

    I realize this, however once again if one's moral code is merely subjective then one can decide to change parts of it if it suits them. As I said before I think most people's moral codes are attempts to approximate an absolute truth, which is why they are not malleable. To demonstrate, I'd like to ask you why is it wrong to kill for fun? Why can I not decide that it is in fact moral because it's fun?

    "Immorality isn't necessarily a disbelief in moral codes, but amoral is."

    I don't recall making such a comparison but I agree.

    "Past civilizations have considered certain circumstances of murdering children to be morally correct, and although I can't attest for the entertainment value they might have gotten from it, still: the fact is what we find horrific now, was commonly done in the past"

    Who are we to tell them they were wrong?

    "I personally feel that current social trends keep all of our collective morals in check (somewhat)."

    Most certainly.

    "Your claim that some moral values are not equally valid is a tad idiocentric. Perhaps you may not consider it equally valid, but others may feel that the absolute truth is your moral code is not equally valid."

    I didn't create a moral code, I was defining morally good and morally bad results. It's far more complicated to make an absolute ethical code, and perhaps even impossible. My contention there was to state that there are absolute moral goods and evils in terms of result.

    "Yes, you are correct in your assertion that subjective morality means there's no fixed point as to what is or isn't morally true, but I don't think anybody can truly demonstrate that their actually is a true fixed point when it comes to morality."

    It's wrong to cause people to suffer needlessly because creating suffering is both significant and negative. Now, this doesn't mean that suffering is always bad; sometimes suffering through something brings great benefit, which is why I added the qualifier "needlessly".

  • piloteerpiloteer 478 Pts
    edited September 25
    WinstonC said:
    @piloteer "

    "You also have made the claim that people with subjective morality do whatever they want"

    I believe that most people with their subjective code are attempting to approximate the truth in the best way they can. If one's moral code truly is subjective, however, then there is no reason it cannot be shaped to one's will. In other words, their moral code could simply be whatever they wanted, because it isn't based on any underlying truth.

    "If they have a subjective morality, it is still a moral code that they believe in strongly, and doing whatever they want would still be violating their own moral code."

    I realize this, however once again if one's moral code is merely subjective then one can decide to change parts of it if it suits them. As I said before I think most people's moral codes are attempts to approximate an absolute truth, which is why they are not malleable. To demonstrate, I'd like to ask you why is it wrong to kill for fun? Why can I not decide that it is in fact moral because it's fun?

    Is there some way that you could demonstrate how people who have an "objective morality" actually do have objective morality? It could be argued that they only believe it is an objective moral code that they have, but it may be just as subjective as the rest of ours. An argument that a group of people with the same, or similar moral standards have some sort of an objective morality doesn't fly with me, and it shouldn't for you because you yourself stated that people with subjective moral codes can shape their moral code to their own will, but I fail to see how someone with an objective moral code is somehow unable to have that same ability to shape their own moral code to their own will also. If you believe that anybody at all has the ability to shape their moral code to their own will, then it would probably be safe to assume that you believe we all have that ability. And if we all have that ability, then we all have subjective moral codes. You will need to try a different method to demonstrate how or why objective moral codes do exist.

    Since you've argued that "We do not have the apparatus required for an exhaustive account of what is", it confuses me as to how you believe anybody is able to make a moral code that is "based on any underlying truth". And since even people with "objective" moral codes don't have the apparatus required for an exhaustive account of what is, that would fit the description of "attempting to approximate the truth in the best way they can" just like the subjectees do. Your descriptions of how objective moral codes differ still seem to fit every description of yours as to what a subjective moral code is. Perhaps you could iron the details out on the "truth" aspect of your argument, because that still may be a legitimate argument for you, but I'm just a little bit in the dark on your stance. Not necessarily your fault though, I sometimes am lacking in the comprehension department.   
  • @piloteer

    Thanks for helping me flesh out my perspective with intelligent inquiry.

    "Is there some way that you could demonstrate how people who have an "objective morality" actually do have objective morality?"

    It's not experimentally feasible to do so, just like it's not experimentally feasible to study every atom in existence. We can certainly distinguish between "better" and "worse" moral codes though. For example, the Nazis were clearly operating under an inferior moral code to the U.S. government, as evidenced by the results of their moral code playing out. As with all empirical experimentation, the results of what is implemented are what matter.

    "It could be argued that they only believe it is an objective moral code that they have, but it may be just as subjective as the rest of ours."

    Nobody is capable of accurately outlining what is objectively moral in the same way that nobody is capable of mapping a geographic location with 100% accuracy.

    "An argument that a group of people with the same, or similar moral standards have some sort of an objective morality doesn't fly with me, and it shouldn't for you because you yourself stated that people with subjective moral codes can shape their moral code to their own will, but I fail to see how someone with an objective moral code is somehow unable to have that same ability to shape their own moral code to their own will also."

    Everyone can shape their personal moral code to their own will, in the same way that every cartographer can shape the geographic maps they make to their own will. There are, however, maps which objectively describe the underlying geography more accurately and those which describe it less accurately. One could state that a moral code that says one should kill others for fun is equal to a moral code that says we shouldn't kill others for fun. We can, however, see what the effects of such moral codes are and determine that the former is inferior to the latter. To state that one such moral code is objectively better than the other is to say that morality is objective.

    "If you believe that anybody at all has the ability to shape their moral code to their own will, then it would probably be safe to assume that you believe we all have that ability. And if we all have that ability, then we all have subjective moral codes."

    Of course we all have this ability, just as we all have different opinions on everything. Some opinions are correct, others are wrong. Some maps, such as those made for laymen, are not as accurate as maps made for scientific research. Does this mean that geography is subjective?

    "Since you've argued that "We do not have the apparatus required for an exhaustive account of what is", it confuses me as to how you believe anybody is able to make a moral code that is "based on any underlying truth"."

    The moral code that leads to the best outcome for conscious entities is the best moral code. To go back to the map example, we don't have the apparatus required for an exhaustive account of the geography of any given area. Would you similarly question our ability to make a map that is based on any underlying truth?

    "And since even people with "objective" moral codes don't have the apparatus required for an exhaustive account of what is, that would fit the description of "attempting to approximate the truth in the best way they can" just like the subjectees do.Your descriptions of how objective moral codes differ still seem to fit every description of yours as to what a subjective moral code is."

    Nobody is capable of knowing for sure what is true (other than that they exist). Yet we still agree that there are objective truths and we attempt to find them with the scientific method.

    "Not necessarily your fault though, I sometimes am lacking in the comprehension department."

    Not at all, you come across as a smart fellow.
  • @WinstonC

    I certainly cannot say your reasoning here is incorrect, but I can say for sure that it hasn't yet convinced me that morality can be objective. You've made some convincing arguments about moral codes that are more appealing to you and I, and the bulk of humankind, but you haven't convinced me that those aren't just a collective-mass of like minded individual moral codes, or "common ground" among individual moral codes that otherwise oppose each other. Your descriptions seem to be more of an appeal to popular beliefs and opinions, and pragmatic, or sensible ethics, but not objective morality. 

    I absolutely cannot disagree with you on the "moral" standings of the nazis, but if you believe that they believed it was OK for them to do immoral things to get what they wanted, I don't believe you, because I believe that the nazis believed what they were doing was absolutely necessary to save humankind. Perhaps you and I find mass murder and genocide abhorrent, and frightening, but even among our respective political party peers, there are people who believe the world is overpopulated and some sort of program to reduce the population is needed. As much as you and I fear inhumane treatment and mass murder, there are many people among us who fear overpopulation and exhausted global recourses. Our individual moral codes can certainly be shaped by our fears, and although I believe misanthropic people are misinformed, I do believe that their fears are very real. If overpopulation is a fear among our population, then were gonna have people coming up with ideas that the rest of society will find immoral, but to the misanthropic sector of society, the morality of coexistence will seem scary. One of the biggest factors driving the ethics of the nazis was the idea that the world is overpopulated, and that belief is still popular to this day. Of course, not everyone who believes the world is overpopulated is a nazi, but they do have common ground with that moral code.

    Here's where my problem is with your argument, and I can use your map analogy to show you. We can make maps with a certain degree of confidence of it's accuracy, but are all the different needs for those specific maps wrong? A scientists need for a detailed map that borders on pedantic to study different deposits of soil and rock, or to study how ocean water effects ground water, may not be the type of map needed by someone who's trying to drive somewhere. The more detailed a map is, the less practical it becomes for travelers. A road map may give you the driving distance between point A and point B, but it might not be detailed enough to give you an accurate walking distance because it may not take into consideration hills and valleys that will have to be traversed on foot. None of the different needs for different types of maps are actually incorrect, and the more detailed a map is, does not mean it's the most practical map depending on what your using the map for. The same is true for moral reasoning, and since you agree that we can only get an estimation of truth, it's things like this that make that estimation relative rather than objective, but none are necessarily wrong. What you or I may consider "the best outcome" may not be for others, and they may have an intense reasoning as to why it is not the best outcome for them or society. 

    I'm humbled that you consider me smart, but here's where the subjectivity of your opinion shines bright. The truth is I have a learning disability which causes me to have trouble with comprehension, and I sometimes experience confusion on what words I should use to truly express what I mean. That actually happened with this post, and every post I ever made on this site. But thank you none the less. I enjoy our exchanges on this site, even when we totally disagree.        

                  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch