• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Self - all that matters

scourge99 said:
But if all experience is subjective and personal then how is it that two people, let alone a society of people, all come to an understanding on what those rules/laws are?

There must be some objectivity otherwise there is no explanation for how agreement occurs.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with this concept. Laws are either dictatorial and forced upon society or consensual and voted into effect. Perhaps there are others. Neither of those requires objectivity.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with this concept. Laws are either dictatorial and forced upon society or consensual and voted into effect. Perhaps there are others. Neither of those requires objectivity.
Click to expand...
Never mind. I don't care enough to debate this further.
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
People concerned with self and self-preservation don't think about such things. Those are the pondering of a mind concerned with justice and philosophy.

As much as I would lament having my property stolen, as I wouldn't steal others, there certainly are a plethora (of el guapos) of others with no concern for absolute morality that can make these justifications; and they would be right.

I agree, it's a psychotic philosophy, but that is essentially what is being taught in the subtleties of our western culture.
Click to expand...

I would suspect that if I caught someone stealing my property or committing a heinous crime against my children, I would promptly shoot them. So much for survival of the fittest.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
scourge99 said:
How do societies function and agree upon norms if everything is subjective and personal?
Click to expand...
Through compromise and negotiation between and among individuals.
Click to expand...

How can compromise and negotiation occur if everything is subjective and personal? That is, how can compromise and negotiation occur if everything is a product of the mind rather than existent independent of the mind.

If EVERYTHING is subjective and personal then NOTHING is objective (nothing exists independently of one's perception or an individual's conceptions). In the absence of anything objective, compromise and agreement CANNOT occur because there is no way to reconcile your perceptions/conceptions with that of others.
 
Read the thread on moral relativism.

1. Premise is flawed.
Survival of the fittest - hasn't proven anything
"strong" is way too ambiguous to run with, and it's usually considered tautology anyway. The fit survive, but are really those who survived
adaptability is not necessarily a fitness trait, it comes at a cost. There are cases where adaptability over specialization loses out, sorry.
3. morality is not about sacrifice, it's about, according to you, fitness. Common human morals are actually derived from behavior that leads to fitness in a community, i.e. the opposite of sacrifice.

Seriously. Go to work today and be a complete ass to everyone, and cheat everyone at every opportunity. Let me know if that enhances your fitness.
(Actually, if they take it as a joke that could make you a celebrity at work, you know what I mean :)

On the flip side, go into the criminal underworld and trust everyone first, don't use retribution, and never harm anyone (please don't do that).
 
Last edited:
Solipsism is intellectual abortion, and moot besides: All I have to do to immediately negate it is redefine my "self" to extend outward indefinitely and encompass all things. And at that point I might as well just admit that other things exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom