In which I say NO to Michael Vick as a Madden 12 cover candidate:
http://cdn2.themis-media.com/media/global/movies/player/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.5.swf
Go HERE to participate in the ESPN cover-vote.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
@RestamSalucard
Yea, it's horrible.
They put gun powder in there food to make them crazy and pump them full of steroids to give them the bulk needed to “survive” the fight.
The people that think Dog fights are “no big deal” have obviously never had the displeasure of witnessing one.
I, unfortunately have.
Used to live in a horrible area surrounding Las Vegas. A area where food delivery wouldn't deliver to our block after 5 for fear of being robbed.
Neighbors used to hold Dog fights in there front yard…
It was by far the most terrible, heart breaking, disgusting, difficult thing I have ever had to witness.
People just have no idea what they are defending here.
LikeLike
Comparing eating a burger to dogfighting. On that I'm just going to just put this metaphor that I find equally valid.
Comparing a solider in a war to a serial killer.
And yet I don't see anyone here saying “because the soldiers in the military get off with killing people, the columbine kids shouldn't have been punished.”
LikeLike
Oh yes, because anybody who disagrees with you must be either ignorant or psychopathic.
Let's go through the arguments starting with akkuma420.
It is true that humans must eat, however our knowledge of biology and nutrition has moved us to the point where we no longer have to eat *meat*. We can now arrange for ourselves a nutritionally complete diet without using animals, or even animal products. It is thus no longer correct to say that we “have to” raise animals in factory farm conditions for their meat, “to survive.” We don't. We do it because most people think it tastes better, and because it's culturally preferable to eat meat.
And if Cows and Dogs are not equivalent to people in the relevant way here (that is, morally speaking) it most easily means that yes, we can do whatever we want to them because they aren't objects of moral consideration. It is thus not “abuse” in a morally relevant way, no more than taking a sledge hammer to your car is “abuse.”
As to what RestamSalucard has said, there are two things. First, it's pretty irrelevant what dogs are “designed” to do, as far as this is concerned. A rock is not designed to hammer in a nail, but if I lack a hammer, and need a nail hammered anyway, it's not immoral to use the rock. Obviously then, “design” does not clearly enter into this by itself. Secondly, dog breeding exists, and it's arguable to say that there are no dogs which are “designed” to fight. For all intents and purposes, American Pit Bull Terriers ARE bred for fighting, and have been bred for such almost since they were originally created.
And you know, another thing that grills my bacon is people's tendency to act that some analogies are “not the same thing” due to completely unspecified (probably unspecified because they are non existent) reasons. It doesn't actually advance your argument when you just cry out that something or another is not equatable. It just further makes you look like some emotional boob who shouldn't be bandying out opinions in public.
LikeLike
@akuma: Your logic is flawed.
“But people HAVE to eat.” Yeah, but they don't have to eat meat so there's no justifying it. There are plenty of vegetarian alternatives out there for every flesh product you enjoy so it isn't like we would all starve if all of these places shut down.And having seen both a dogfight and what goes on in slaughter houses, I can say without hesitation that what goes on in slaughter houses is far, far worse. So I agree with Joshua that anyone who eats meat and complains about Vick is a hypocritical douche.
LikeLike
@Crunchy Empanada What part of “BEAT AND TORTURE TO THE POINT OF INSANITY” do you not understand?!
LikeLike
@RestamSalucard
What part of “not equivalent to people in a morally relevant way” do you not understand? IF animals are not worth moral consideration, THEN it does not matter what you to do them, whatever it is is not immoral because by definition, you can't do something immoral to a thing that does not allow for moral consideration!
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
@RestamSalucard: Have you ever seen a cow have her throat slit and spill out while she writhes in pain and as all of the employees simply wait for it to die instead of putting it out of its misery?
“Anyone who tries to equate (dog fighting) to eating meat or even intentional animal slaughter is horribly ignorant”
Perhaps you should educate yourself before saying retarded things like that.
LikeLike
@Tim
See, that is a matter of opinion.
I see Vegetarians as being incredibly unhealthy and malnourished.
I feel meat is a crucial part of a healthy diet.
Just my opinion though.
Whether you agree with being a Vegan, Vegetarian or a carnivore it still doesn't make animal cruelty and or abuse ok.
I wish that slaughterhouses would find a better way of doing things and I do find alot of there methods questionable, but that doesn't make forcing innocent animals to fight ok.
I just don't see the logic that because we kill certain animals for food, its ok for everything to die, anything goes.
Also I would like to thank everyone for keeping this civil (for the most part), it's much more informative this way.
Plus alot of things that have been said have made me question my own thoughts and opinions because of the intelligent manner they where presented.
LikeLike
“I see Vegetarians as being incredibly unhealthy and malnourished.
I feel meat is a crucial part of a healthy diet.”
*Shakes head at Akuma's outstanding ignorance*
LikeLike
*Looks at akkuma's post and sees an insightful argument with a compliment about people's intelligence*.
*Looks at Tim's post and sees some stupid comment insulting another persons intelligence from an opinion*.
LikeLike
@Tim
Well that explained absolutely nothing…
I guess we are passed explaining are comments and back to making derogatory statements in a immature attempt to make others feel stupid because they don't agree.
I guess I missed the memo that read “Tim's word is law, don't bother questioning anything because it doesn't matter… LAW!”
It's sad that some people have never seen a or heard of the word “Debate” and only know narcissism.
(sigh) It was nice while it lasted… Thanks to everyone besides Tim that provided me with some food for thought and a mentally stimulating conversation.
I don't agree with everything that was said, But I do respect and admire peoples ability to maintain composure in such a sensitive topic.
Everything I said was merely opinion and not based on any type of fact.
I won't be returning to this particular comment section, so don't bother Tim.
Call me what you will, just know your the one that ended a perfectly civil and thought provoking debate because of YOUR ignorant comment.
Narcissism is not a good quality to have.
Peace.
LikeLike
@munchie64
Thanks for that.
It's nice to know that some people can take an opinion as a opinion and not some kind of jab at there personal beliefs.
Tim, you should take notes from munchie…
May not agree, but understands it a opinion and nothing more.
LikeLike
@Akuma: Nice try, but don’t try to act like a statement like “Vegetarians are malnourished” or “meat is a crucial part of a healthy diet” doesn’t deserve to be looked down upon. They are completely wrong. A simple google search could absolutely destroy both of those. You know the old saying, “You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.” You did just try to make up your own facts. So yes, you ARE ignorant for saying it.
@munchie64: Seeing as you're the type of guy who writes stuff like “tl;dr”, you’ll have to excuse me when I disregard what you consider or be an intelligent or unintelligent comment.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
*Applauds wildly*
@Tim: Thank you. As a vegan bodybuilder myself, I’m sick and tired of reading idiotic comments like that. The ignorance that people have about vegetarianism and veganism is amazing.
@Bob: Good video. As far as I’m concerned, Vick can’t be punished hard enough. One minor gripe though. Madden is really the only EA Sports game that’s a true rip-off. The NHL series for example is a legitimate upgrade every year.
@Akuma: No offence, but that article has so many things wrong with it. Mostly stuff that has been refuted over and over again. The fact that it wasn’t posted by a doctor or someone with any real credibility doesn’t help. I’m going to assume that you didn’t actually read the article though because if you did you most likely wouldn’t have linked us to it.
LikeLike
@Tim
I Googled what you said to Google and this was the first actual article I could find on the first page, everything else was either a forum or a blog post.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2874800/how_being_a_vegetarian_unhealthy_and.html?cat=5
Once again, this was the first article I came across on the first page.
Didn't do any research, just did a “Simple Google search” as you put it.
Yes I have heard that expression before, that's why I said it was MY opinion. No fact.
Vegetarian Vs. Carnivore can be argued all day long, but since there are “Facts” that “Prove” both sides wrong, it really comes down to opinion.
I'm sure that you will quickly find another article “Proving” the article I posted wrong and I could quickly do the same.
We could do this all day.
It come's down to opinion, preference and your own personal beliefs in the matter.
Now I'm really gone.
I have no interest in continuing (what I thought was) a Debate with someone who can't seem to take someone elses opinion.
Peace. (for real this time)
LikeLike
That article was embarrassingly stupid. Did you really read that and go “yep, this will show him”? I don’t even need to look up another article to explain to you why that’s wrong. I mean, even looking past his inconstancies about how amino acids work, he even addresses that you can get the proper amount of amino acids in a vegetarian diet, but then ignores that fact and just talks about what happens when you don’t get enough amino acids.
Also, just because you say “in my opinion” doesn’t make something an opinionated statement. An opinion is “Vegetables don’t taste good”. You said, “Meat is essential to a healthy diet”. That is a “fact” and an incorrect one. Hence, you’re ignorant and spreading bullshit. Don’t try to flip that around to me just not “accepting your opinion”.
LikeLike
I am not a vegetarian. Yesterday I actually ate one of those cheeseburger hot dog things that 7/11 sells so clearly I’m not a particularly healthy eater either, but I think it’s common knowledge at this point that the myths about vegetarians being malnourished have all been disproven at this point.
Also Akuma, I do have a problem with people simply referring to false information they’re telling people as opinions. This has always been something that always got under my skin. It’s something you see all the time really. Glenn Beck was particularly guilty of this.
LikeLike
@Tim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o69xf2ZT9sY
LikeLike
God dammit. What are the odds?
LikeLike
Great video, Bob. I wholeheartedly agree with you here. However, there is ONE thing I disagree with you about…..
….. I don't think EA is counting on Vick being on the cover of the game. I think they're counting on this controversy helping to advertise the game.
And I think, without intending to do so (or even trying not to, given all the things you've said about the Madden games), this video helped them accomplish just that.
The only way to make EA stop making Madden games and instead possibly release DLC and firmware updates is to have the Madden title slump into irrelevance like plenty of other titles do. Without a viable competitor to the Madden games, popularity of American Football will prevent that from happening, and the only way for one to crop up at this point is if Sega decides they want to start making more sports games like back in the day. Mark your calendar for “when hell freezes over” and “when pigs fly”.
But seriously, Bob, in spite of all the things you said, beating this dead horse is counterproductive because it makes people more aware of a game that they might want to buy in spite of this controversy.
I'm not big into American Football, so I don't play Madden anyway (I never really found the gameplay of sports videogames to be fun anyway, at least, in comparison to having fun outdoors with my friends). But I can see lots of people who regrettably don't care about these things as much as you do who will be more likely to buy the game because you raise hell about it.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
LikeLike
@Tim Fair call, I just wrote tl;dr because CrunchyEmpanada's comment pissed me off so much….
I am in the camp of people who think it is a little hypocritical about hating this but still eating meat. I also think a vegetarian diet is fine and healthy. BUT if you think killing and hurting animals for fun is fine because they don't have the same moral standings as people, then you're a fucking idiot.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Man, I saw the title and I wondered how a video about Madden could have so many topics so quickly. Now I get it…
Tim, Alci and Joshua are all absolutely right (hold on, is this the Tim that trolls every other post? Surely not..). Forcing dogs to fight is awful, but what goes on in industrial farms is just as horrible and most people couldn't care less about the latter as they chow down on their super-saver chicken breast. If you think it's an unfair comparison, you're kidding yourself about what really goes on in the meat industry.
I understand the idea that animal suffering in meat production is acceptable because it's “for a purpose” but it's flawed because (a) you don't need to eat meat and (b) you can get animal products without resorting to these methods.
If you're honestly upset at what blood sports do to animals, I urge to you take a long hard look at what you're eating, because if the box doesn't say “free range”, that animal probably had just as miserable an existence as any fighting dog, except YOU paid for it to happen! (And even that free range label isn't that much of a guarantee these days, sadly…)
LikeLike
Wait, wait, wait, let me see if I'm following this correctly…
The general consensus among vegetarians is that eating meat that's been processed at a factory is wrong because of torture…but torturing dogs is perfectly okie dokie? 'Cuz that's what y'all are makin' it sound like.
LikeLike
@sirrosser: Oh, stop putting words in our mouth asshole.
Of course that's not what we're saying. Vick is a scumbag and we all agree on that. All we're saying is that it's hypocritical for anyone who eats meat to get mad at Vick for torturing animals when they pay for people to of the same thing.
Now would you kindly go fuck yourself?
LikeLike
My thoughts (please don't cut my head off):
At the end of the day, the saddest truth is, these players we call on to get punished, won't really be punished, with a few reasons behind it:
-If the player committed a federal offense (i.e. lied to a grand jury), then he or she will be hung out to dry. Otherwise, it's back to the field, since you really didn't do anything serious, in the eyes of the leagues they represent.
-If every player who took part in any crime that could have affected the integrity of the league they represent was found to be guilty and deserved punishment, the leagues themselves would collapse, if not for the fact that there would be no star players to generate revenue, then for the officials who knew this and have their interests to protect. It's a house of cards that must be kept from falling
-If the crime itself is of a personal preference, it's not at the league's discretion to fully penalize these players. Well, actually it is, but if they choose not to, it's because it's a personal matter that has nothing to do with the league. They have plenty of players that are upstanding people and they don't need to make role models, since well, sports stars are not to be seen as such.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. Please don't cut my head off. 🙂
LikeLike
@Tim I've decided to prepare two comments, and you can decide which, if either to reply to, depending on which amuses or enrages you.
Statement 1 – I apologize if I seemed to be insulting of your beliefs, or to be putting words in your mouth. I only meant by my statement that the outside observer, not having followed the whole thread, may get the wrong impression of those participating in the argument. In the spirit of debate, however, I believe that it would do the vegetarian set (not all, but some) credit to find common ground with those who they disagree with. For instance, though you may not change anyone's opinion about eating meat, you may be more likely find common ground by agreeing with the opposition about activities that NEITHER side condones, such as the aforementioned dogfighting. When you seek instead to use it as a springboard to belittle and berate others' lifestyles, it makes it less likely that you will be heard out by those people in the first place, diminishing the likelihood of ever coming to some sort of mutual understanding.
OR
Statement 2 – How can I be putting words in your mouth when you've already got your foot in there and your head's up your ass, besides!?
Take your pick. You may fire when ready, Gridley.
LikeLike
Why should we cater to people who haven't bothered to read the whole thread? It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that no-one said dog fighting is okay, unless you count people who said they don't care.
LikeLike
@Empanada
You keep bringing up the moral-inequivalence of humans and animals. The problem with this is that you presume that “below humans” equals “rock.” Just because animals are below humans on a moral framework, there's absolutely not reason to assume – which is what you're doing – that they have the moral equivalency of an inanimate object.
Sure, a dog is NOT a person, but it is somehow in between a car and a person. It is alive, it has a central nervous system. Does my car feel pain? No. Does my cat? Yes.
And to those of you going back and forth about the hypocrisy of eating meat. Yes, we all have to get over it. The meat industry IS absolutely horrible. It is inhumane, filthy, and – just like dogfighting – PROFIT DRIVEN, not survival-driven.
But, that doesn't mean that “eating meat” is equally hypocritical. Just the industry that creates most of it. Eating animals is more-or-less a natural part of the world. It's just that the corporate methods have ruined this.
So, again, I think many of the assumptions raised on this issue are equally silly. do I speed in my car sometimes? yes. does that mean I'm going to drink and drive? No. Am I a hypocrite? In some ways, yes, but in the big picture – NO. “Participating” in a giant – mostly invisible – “evil” enterprise like the meat industry is certainly bad, but it is not equivalent to masterminding dogfighting rings. There IS middle ground of responsibility and ethical denialability.
Btw, I eat meat, but those of you who think is is unhealthy to be a vegetarian don't know the way to be a vegetarian. We would all be healthier, I'm pretty sure, if we cut meat from our diets – especially red meat.
LikeLike
@counterpoint
There are only two possibilities. Animals either have the necessary qualities that make them moral beings, or they do not. If they have “some” then they “have” the necessary qualities, as far as I mean. The thing is, Bob stated they *don't*. He didn't say they had “some” he said they didn't have any, that they were not like humans, and it's a position I'd agree with.
But sure, it is possible animals are “in between” a rock and a human, but to make that argument, first you'd have to identify the necessary qualities a moral being must have to be a moral being, and then demonstrate animals have some of them (and if some, which ones), and then argue that having “some” means having “some” moral consideration, and THEN you have to explain what considerations a human must make to an animal with only “some” moral consideration. It gets even trickier, because not all animals are the same, so it becomes a question that if, for example, a Human and a Dog are different morally, what about a Human and a goldfish, or a dog and a horseshoe crab, or an elephant and a dish of E-coli. It's not a simple matter, and it's not a matter Bob, or anybody else here arguing for the “dogfighting is morally evil” position, actually takes with any sort of mental rigour.
Further, I feel it's arguable that a cat feels pain in a relevant way as far as this subject goes. If we define pain as just the pain receptors firing a certain way, or the reaction to this firing, yeah, a cat feels pain. But that's such a basic and surface analysis of what it actually *feels* like for a human to experience pain. As a human is a sapient, self-aware thing, that is, we have qualia, it becomes questionable that any animal feels pain “like we do,” and if they don't, then it becomes questionable that their pain actually matters here.
Put another way, if animals are not sapient in the proper way then their pain is irrelevant, as there is no being which is “experiencing” the pain. It's just an automata reacting to external stimuli.
FURTHER, even if we establish that the cat feels pain exactly like we do, it's still not immediately evident why this matters, for it could be that consequential pain and suffering have nothing to do with moral considerations, nor is it clear that “the ability to feel pain like us” is a requirement for moral beings to be moral beings.
What I'm trying to point out here is that your “my car doesn't feel pain, but my cat does” argument isn't rigorous enough for me to even consider it a proper argument, and most certainly it doesn't sway me from my opinion.
LikeLike
@crunchyempanada
you must be someone who doesn't accept evolution as a scientific and historical principle. If so, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.
YES there is a spectrum from non-sapience to sapience. of course there is. It certainly doesn't make any scientific sense that one day “Man” went from “almost man” to “actual man” and suddenly gained consciousness. Chimps and other close relatives of humans must, almost by definition, be closer to sapience than an amoeba – and of course, a car. So to discount that a cat truly “feels” pain doesn't make any sense. I would absolutely agree that it feels pain differently than a human – but certainly a heck of a lot MORE than a rock. So I certainly disagree with the “switch” you seem to think exists between humans and animals.
Again, if you don't accept evolution, you won't agree with any of that. If so, I'm barking up the wrong tree, and I would doubt my (or Bob's, probably) logical arguments will resonate with you, regardless of the topic, as your brain works much differently than mine.
Also, let me remind you that the morality of the animal itself is quite irrelevant – the truth is that human society – at least in america – has created a morality surrounding animals. They are, according to society, above a rock, and to be treated as such. This applies especially to pets, less to wild animals, and FAR less to food-animals, which explains a great deal of the “hypocrisy” that has been described in this thread.
LikeLike
@counterpoint
Evolution has pretty much nothing to do with anything I've said, and it boggles my mind that you've brought it up.
I've pretty much lost grasp of what you're trying to say, and what any of it has to do with anything. I can see this is partially because you've somehow managed to conflate several different arguments I've made, but even assuming that, I just don't really know why you've gone the direction you have. But allow me to try to argue with you anyway.
First off, it may very well be that one day “man” went from “almost man” to “actual man.” After all, there is that whole “great leap forward” thing. It's difficult to explain why anatomically modern humans were walking around for a hundred thousand years doing nothing, and then all of a sudden, BAMN, culture and civilization.
Second, science isn't very good at explaining conciousness. It's not very good at explaining the mind. It's not very good at ontology generally. It isn't any good at aesthetics, or epistemology, and it, most importantly here, isn't any good at morality. This is why these subjects are NOT part of modern science, and why you shouldn't be acting as if this discussion can so easily be cleared up with a few scientific remarks on evolution.
Third, even if we accept your position, and say that chimps are “closer to sapience than an amoeba” you still have to answer all those OTHER questions I outlined in my last comment. How much closer are they? In what ways are they closer? Why does it matter that they are? And, most importantly, what does this mean, morally. None of this you've explained.
I am at a loss how you brought what I said about pain into anything. It truly seems like a random non-sequitor to me to suddenly bring it up the way you just did.
And finally, if you're going to go the “moral relativism” route, I'm going to have to stop talking to you right now. This idea that society creates morals is the stupidest, most loathsome moral position that could possibly be held, and only the philosophically ignorant, or inept, hold said position. Anybody who claims that morality is just a product of culture or society and there's no objective moral guide is somebody who has no business talking about ethics.
LikeLike
Anyone else find it hilarious that the biggest argument on this site is not about comics or movies or games or even politics, but about whether or not dogfighting is bad?
And doubly hilarious that militant vegetarians and dogfight afficionados are apparently on the same side of the issue.
@ Crunchy
“This idea that society creates morals is the stupidest, most loathsome moral position that could possibly be held, and only the philosophically ignorant, or inept, hold said position. Anybody who claims that morality is just a product of culture or society and there's no objective moral guide is somebody who has no business talking about ethics.”
It's also true. Exactly where do you think morals come from? It's not like some magic elves sprinkle us with fairy dust while we dream and that gives us morals. Societies create their own morals. That's why our morals differ from those of even 30 years ago. That's why our morals are different form those of animals (and yes, some animals DO possess what we would call morals. Chimps and some kinds of dogs are very proactive in enforcing a group morality), Morals are an evolutionary adaptation common to social animals.
I'd like to ask something of the militant vegetarian/vegans here. I know that factory farming has a huge effect on the local ecosystem. I'm aware that growing crops is much easier.
What I'm asking is, say you guys get your way and eating meat is now illegal across the globe. What do you do with the animals? Bec ause I fail to see how they could be released without either condemning them to slow death by starvation and disease, or by having them decimate the local ecosystem.
Furthermore, will you be using pesticides to grow the vast feilds that will be needed to feed the world? Does not pesticide involve killing animals?
LikeLike
@crunchy
In response to your last paragraph: congrats! You've “won” the discussion by insulting me, my intelligence, and those who might hold similar views. At least, won it in the sense that I'm done participating in said conversation. So, again, congratulations, and enjoy your life, as best as might be possible.
LikeLike
@Dave: Stop being a stupid cunt. We're not on the same side as people who support dog fighting.
LikeLike
For those saying that his crime is unrelated to football therefore said actions should not influence the decision of who gets the cover.
First consider, that one of the many reasons espoused by football enthusiasts and parents trying to get their kids into the game is precisely this notion of “character building”. Otherwise it is just a bunch of big guys playing a violent sport. This applies to all sports of this nature by the way, I've been trying MMA for over 2 years now and I have to constantly defend it by making sure people understand that it is not just about doing as much damage as you can to the other person, it is about overcoming your own limitations. Now if that element didn't exist at all. Yes, than MMA, or any combat sport, or any sport that has any hint of violence would be barbaric and adds nothing to the culture as a whole. Especially in this day and age. But I am a fan of football, not just the game but for what it stands for. And you would have to be some kind of idiot or purposefully blind yourself to not realize that a game is not simply a game, it has other connotations. As does everything!
Look, maybe you're one of those people who would buy Charles Manson's album if it were good. But that doesn't cut it for me. I don't care how good his music is. There's a principle involved and you cannot separate a man's art or craft from his character. Not entirely.
This is bullshit justification would allow Michael Vick to slaughter an orphanage so long as he can throw a touchdown pass on fourth down in his own ten yard line. No that is not how it works. You do not offset your crimes by being better at your craft. Maybe Michael Vick can commit genocide on a whole nation so long as he has 10 perfect seasons and wins 10 straight Superbowls. But that's not how society should function and if he were to have committed said crimes with an equal increase in skill and feats, tell me, do you still think he deserves the cover?
If you said yes to this question, than you obviously admire the dedication of a man to his craft more than value of his character and that is what is most important to you as a person than we have different moral values and this argument is pointless.
I'll say this again, a talent you bring to your craft does not permit you to commit crimes. And we must demand better of our public figures. Like it or not, they have influence, that is the burden of being a public figure.
LikeLike
@Dave
No, it's not true. And I am continuously annoyed that the layman assumes it's true with such vigour. It's literally the philosophical equivalent of insisting the earth is flat. Wouldn't you be annoyed by the idea if you were constantly told by everyone who wasn't also a scientist that “most assuredly the Earth is flat, for if it was round, we'd slide off!” or some such nonsense. Hell, within Philosophy, being called a Moral Relativist is basically an insult, so universal is the idea that it's a stupid indefensible position.
I'm also astonished by the unity of arguments the layman constantly uses as defence. It's usually always said “there are many different ethical opinions, spanning numerous cultures, so clearly morality is relative!” But nobody ever says “there are many different opinions about physics, so clearly physics is relative!” It never occurs to you people that some people, groups, cultures, or what have you are simply *wrong* in their ideas on ethics. It is therefore irrelevant that different people have different ideas, that ideas change, or what have you. It just means we aren't omniscient and we all aren't right all the time.
Finally, once again science and evolution have nothing to do with this. Morals spring from at least some natural phenomena…okay, fine, nobody would disagree with this. Even Divine Command Theory doesn't disagree.
@Counterpoint
K.
Yeah, I get testy when people throw the “morals are relative” idea at me. I would hope that people arguing about ethics would have at least the cursory amount of knowledge required to know that wherever morals come from, they come from something that isn't just the whims of society.
LikeLike
@ Crunchy. You can assert that morals aren't relative as long as you want but that doesn't mean they aren't.
Every society on earth has made its own set of morals that differ from each other slightly to wildly depending on various factors.
Unless you can provide an objective source of morality, you don't get to claim there is one.
So I'll ask you, if you are SO sure morals have an objective source, what is it?
LikeLike
@Dave
Same to you. At least I have, oh, you know, the entire field of Philosphy behind me on this particular opinion.
And if every society on earth had its own ideas on Physics, that wouldn't at all mean that physics was relative.
And finally, where objective morals come from is completely removed from the question on if they are objective or relative in the first place. Unlike the latter, the former is a bit more divisive in Philosophy.
LikeLike
@ Crunchy. No, not same to me.
I already stated where morals come from. They are the end result of social contracts made by social beings to facilitate living together smoothly.
You are asserting a source for morality exists but refusing to say what it is. Which begs the question as to whether one exists since you can't produce it
If I were a betting man I'd say you do know where you think morals come from, you just don't want to admit it.
Also, no, you don't have the entirety of philosophy backing you up because since philosophy is the academic equivalent of what you and your freinds say while high. Philosophy has no bearing on actual reality, it is just people stating ideas about random stuff.
“And if every society on earth had its own ideas on Physics, that wouldn't at all mean that physics was relative.”
True. That's because physics are quantifiable. Physics is math. Something either is, or it isn't. it doesn't matter if a group of people declare that gravity doesn't exist, it still does. However if a group decides they are going to consider genital mutilation immoral, guess what? by their morals it is. Morality does not affect whether something exists or not. It dictates our attitudes to wards what exists.
Seriously, how does an allegedly educated person make such an illogical argument.
Stop trying to make excuses and support your claims. If morals are objective, provide the source. How else can you even know?
LikeLike
@Dave
So you are not only ignorant in the subject of philosophy, you have an actual disdain for it. Yet you insist on talking about it? Wow, that's really, really, monumentally, stupid. What do you think you're doing right now? Philosophy. Albeit, poorly. If you think it has no baring on reality, kindly shut the fuck up and do something else. I'm done speaking to you. I'm not going to continue speaking with a literal self-professed idiot.
LikeLike
@ Crunchy
I've seen better deflections. You really expect everyone not to see how you are just refusing to answer what should be a very simple question?
And now you are manufacturing outrage so it looks like you have a way to quit with some dignity. That's sad. All I've asked you to do was to support your own position. You should be falling over yourself to do that. I mean, if you actually could provide an objective source for morality, wouldn't that completely destroy my entire argument?
But sure, run away. I accept your foulmouthed concession.
LikeLike
Dave Wins: Fatality!
LikeLike
@ Dave:
An objective source of ethics? It's called empathy. You know, the capacity to understand that other beings have experiences, such as, I dunno, pain and suffering? Yeah, that.
LikeLike
@ michael
Empathy is by its nature subjective. You are imagining what it feel like to be someone else under a certain set of circumstances.
IN fact, history is full of incidents of people doing horrible things because they thought their victims “would thank me for it later”
LikeLike
One's empathy may be subjective, but the subjectivity it analyzes is not. The subjectivity of a sentient being is objectively its subjectivity.
If something has a subjectivity, then it is the object of ethical concern.
LikeLike
@ Michael
It doesn't matter. It's still not objective, because it is still all in your head. what you THINK someone else might want is not the same as having an objective view since it is still biased by your own experiences.
LikeLike
100th comment! tee hee 🙂
LikeLike