CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If he had qualified it with ' from an objective standpoint' or 'in objective terms' I might tend to agree. Objectively speaking, I don't believe that anyone deserves anything, as for anything to be 'deserved' requires that value assessments be made.
However, without the 'objective standpoint' qualifier, we live in a world that is dominated by a sentient species, who through various means have come up with a relatively solid system of comparative value. Perhaps I don't think a bottle of soda is worth $1.50. Perhaps another person thinks a bottle of soda is worth $3. But through whatever means (in our case, the aggregate effect of supply and demand within a moderately-regulated market economy that is most similar to capitalism), we've come up with the agreed upon price tag of $1.99, as seen at Royal Farms an hour ago.
Maybe there is no such thing as objective valuation, but there is certainly a difference between individual subjective valuation and an overall aggregate of numerous individual subjective valuations.
In that sense, people can certainly deserve or be entitled to anything, or any number of things, within that framework of aggregated subjective valuations.
I was speaking objectively. I did not consider the subjective important, because subjective perception of what one deserves does not translate into actually deserving it. It just means one thinks they deserve something.
I did not consider the subjective important, because subjective perception of what one deserves does not translate into actually deserving it. It just means one thinks they deserve something.
Actually, I think when we're dealing with aggregate subjective valuation, it means that everyone (or at least the majority) think they deserve something. That's as close to objective as we're going to get, and given the current absence of nonhuman sentients providing subjective valuation based on an entirely different evolutionary path, it has become a de facto standard, even if it's not truly objective.
I could care less if every single human being that ever lived, lives, and will live held the deluded belief that they deserved something. That has zero bearing on whether that delusion is objectively true. The collective delusion may affect how the majority of people engage with objective reality, but that does not make the delusion itself in any way objective.
In the U.S. the majority of people think they have a right to liberty. Arguably, that commonly held subjective belief has translated into an objective realization of that liberty (at least to a greater extent than in places where that belief is absent). However, that does not mean these people actually have an objective right to liberty. Their liberty is contingent not upon an objective truth, but upon the power of the subjective belief over other forces.
I understand your position, and I agree that it is not objectively true. I merely assert that said observation is largely irrelevant. In the absence of bodies capable of making value assessment other than ourselves, doesn't that make it the de facto reality? Even if it's simply an elaborate social construct, I can certainly expect to receive payment for work, product and service for payment, basic services from the government in exchange for taxes, etc.
Does it really matter whether it's an objective truth? It's not as if I, or most others, are under any sort of delusion that such entitlements would persist in the event of a severe disaster, or even just by going too long without a lot of things going 'right' concurrently, though individual assessments of that likelihood certainly vary.
I assert that while there is no such thing as objective entitlements or valuation, this is merely a technical truth and has little bearing on reality. In practice, the absence of non-human systems of valuation means that the only system of valuation we deal with is the generally agreed upon human one. It need not be objective to be truth, and given that you seem to have had a reasonable education, I presume you are well aware that our valuation systems and the resultant entitlements are a cornerstone of our society, due to direct exposure to such.
Maybe nobody deserves anything objectively, but we live in a subjective world.
Whether or not the observation in question is relevant has absolutely no bearing on whether it is correct. I disagree, though, that it is irrelevant either.
For starters, you seem to claim (perhaps inadvertently) that there is a generally agreed upon, singular set of standards for what is deserved; this is incorrect. Certainly, on some things there is majority consensus. For other matters, however, that is not the case. There is considerable division over whether the death penalty is deserved, if the right to an abortion is deserved, if health care is deserved, if education is deserved, etc.
Understanding that all of these divergent stances are subjective narratives helps us to manipulate those narratives to whatever ends we like. This is useful knowledge both to someone attempting to implement objectively informed policies/practices, and to someone attempting to advance an admittedly subjective agenda. Knowledge need not be applied to subvert the system; it can also be used to play the system. Thus, the distinction is quite relevant.
Whether or not the observation in question is relevant has absolutely no bearing on whether it is correct. I disagree, though, that it is irrelevant either.
Probably a fair point- but the relevance you speak of (later on) isn't exclusively depend on ones opinion regarding whether objective valuation exists; a person can have no opinion regarding objective valuation, and indeed not even know what the terms objective or subjective mean, and still be able to manipulate the system as you suggest simply by observing the market. As such, while I'll concede that it's not absolutely irrelevant, I still maintain my general stance that an aggregate of different valuation systems can and does serve as a de facto standard, and that the fact that it's not actually objective is largely immaterial in practice.
For starters, you seem to claim (perhaps inadvertently) that there is a generally agreed upon, singular set of standards for what is deserved; this is incorrect. Certainly, on some things there is majority consensus. For other matters, however, that is not the case. There is considerable division over whether the death penalty is deserved, if the right to an abortion is deserved, if health care is deserved, if education is deserved, etc.
No, not at all. I specifically used the term aggregate, rather than consensus. An aggregate is more of an 'average' if you will, when disparate data points are concerned. Cases such as the death penalty and abortion don't have significant opposition or support in aggregate, so I consider those effectively neutral. I actually made this specific point in a recent abortion debate (thread is on the right side), stating that neither pro-choice nor pro-life has the moral high ground overall.
Understanding that all of these divergent stances are subjective narratives helps us to manipulate those narratives to whatever ends we like. This is useful knowledge both to someone attempting to implement objectively informed policies/practices, and to someone attempting to advance an admittedly subjective agenda. Knowledge need not be applied to subvert the system; it can also be used to play the system. Thus, the distinction is quite relevant.
See above; the 'value' of recognizing the objective/subjective nature of this system is lessened by the fact that such manipulation can be done without understanding that distinction at all, simply by market observation. It may be more relevant than I suggested, but I still maintain that the overall aggregate is essentially our reality due to lack of competing value systems.
Probably a fair point-[...] and that the fact that it's not actually objective is largely immaterial in practice. & See above [...] but I still maintain that the overall aggregate is essentially our reality due to lack of competing value systems.
To reiterate, I never claimed my observation was particularly relevant.
That said, I disagree with your assessment of the limited value of knowledge. I would contend that the vast majority of people are incapable of manipulating narratives, precisely on account of their lack of their knowledge of those narratives. Further, while someone could respond to the effects of narratives and think that constitutes using those narratives I think that any true manipulation of narratives requires a basic understanding that they exist and that they are not ultimately grounded in objective reality. If you believe in the narrative as truth then you are beholden to it, and your thoughts and actions will be constrained by it.
No, not at all. I specifically used the term aggregate, rather than consensus. An aggregate is more of an 'average' if you will, when disparate data points are concerned. Cases such as the death penalty and abortion don't have significant opposition or support in aggregate, so I consider those effectively neutral. I actually made this specific point in a recent abortion debate (thread is on the right side), stating that neither pro-choice nor pro-life has the moral high ground overall.
Your use of the term "aggregate" in no way negates your simultaneous usage of consensus language (e.g. "the absence of non-human systems of valuation means that the only system of valuation we deal with is the generally agreed upon human one"). Further, that you understand "aggregate" in the sense of "average" is itself a reduction of plurality into singularity; one cannot actually "average"/"aggregate" narratives out because they do not effectively consolidate in the way you are treating them. Additionally, I think it is at places of marked narrative divergence that the awareness of narratives becomes particularly potent.
To reiterate, I never claimed my observation was particularly relevant.
Fair enough, though I believed that to be implied by your statement, that could be me reading something into it that isn't there. I'll concede that part.
That said, I disagree with your assessment of the limited value of knowledge. I would contend that the vast majority of people are incapable of manipulating narratives, precisely on account of their lack of their knowledge of those narratives. Further, while someone could respond to the effects of narratives and think that constitutes using those narratives I think that any true manipulation of narratives requires a basic understanding that they exist and that they are not ultimately grounded in objective reality. If you believe in the narrative as truth then you are beholden to it, and your thoughts and actions will be constrained by it.
I think you're overstating the value of the knowledge and emphasizing distinctions between people that are far more blurred than that. An individual may well accept our system of economics, for example, as being the objective truth, or as close to it as we're likely to get. Accepting it as truth does not mean accepting it as static. Manipulating the system, even from within the system itself via the stock market, is done by many people on a daily basis, and I don't believe that this requires a stance or even a passing thought to the objective or subjective nature of the proceedings. As such, I have to disagree with you here- believing in a narrative as truth only comes with constraints if one believes that truth to be static.
Your use of the term "aggregate" in no way negates your simultaneous usage of consensus language (e.g. "the absence of non-human systems of valuation means that the only system of valuation we deal with is the generally agreed upon human one").
Generally agreed upon does not mean a consensus- rather, it generally means a compromise. The
Further, that you understand "aggregate" in the sense of "average" is itself a reduction of plurality into singularity; one cannot actually "average"/"aggregate" narratives out because they do not effectively consolidate in the way you are treating them.
You're taking it a step beyond what I'm suggesting. I do not assert that we operate within an aggregate of every individual narrative regarding any individual position. Look at the 'pro-choice' position alone, for example; there are many different paths of reasoning that can lead to the same overall position, which represents a broad spectrum of views that are only unified under the statement 'under at least some conditions, abortion is acceptable.' Some may support late term abortion, some may believe it should be limited to the first trimester, some may be opposed to it in general except under specific circumstances regarding the conception, etc. We already tend to boil things down and oversimplify them to specific positions that do not concern themselves with the associated narrative; what I suggest is an aggregate of those simplified positions, not narratives, for precisely the reasoning you use here.
Additionally, I think it is at places of marked narrative divergence that the awareness of narratives becomes particularly potent.
I will agree with this- even if your view of the system isn't specifically necessary to manipulate it, it's certainly one avenue one can reach to do so, and cases like these can be a big part of how people become aware of the phenomenon.
Fair enough, though I believed that to be implied by your statement, that could be me reading something into it that isn't there. I'll concede that part.
The implication was unintended if at all present. Generally I would presume against significance myself; but that would be my nihilism showing I suppose.
I think you're overstating the value of the knowledge and emphasizing distinctions between people that are far more blurred than that. [...] As such, I have to disagree with you here- believing in a narrative as truth only comes with constraints if one believes that truth to be static.
I think, perhaps, we are discussing different types of manipulation. The manner of manipulation you appear to be speaking to is one that works within an established narrative (e.g. playing the stock market), whereas I refer to manipulation external to the established narrative (e.g. introducing concepts like "trickle-down" that fundamentally change the narrative, finding power outside the economic, etc.). If you believe in the current economic narrative you may play within it, but your belief in that system would prevent you from imagining extent alternatives.
Generally agreed upon does not mean a consensus- rather, it generally means a compromise. The
I think part of your argument is missing. I will withhold rebuttal until you let me know either way.
You're taking it a step beyond what I'm suggesting.[...] what I suggest is an aggregate of those simplified positions, not narratives, for precisely the reasoning you use here.
I think this is devolving rapidly into a semantic dispute, and I must confess I have rather lost the significance of it. Agree to disagree? Unless you think it merits further back and forth, in which case I will make reply to your comments.
I will agree with this- even if your view of the system isn't specifically necessary to manipulate it, it's certainly one avenue one can reach to do so, and cases like these can be a big part of how people become aware of the phenomenon.
That is amicable grounds to me. It is not necessarily the way, but rather one way. Though I think my point above regarding internal/external manipulation is a potentially important nuance.
So to you the word 'deserve' in this context just doesn't exist. Fair enough. Not sure you're in a position to answer this debate though. You are merely refusing to engage with the question.
Almost everything you think of has a subjective element. To treat the subjective as if it has no important I almost find offensive. If everyone in the world believes that someone deserves something then this becomes a very real thing and is well worth debating and studying why this opinion has become dominant. The effects of it a objectively observable as are some of the causes of the value.
It just means one thinks they deserve something.
The reason why societies for 10s of thousands of years have thought that murderers, for example, deserve punishment should not be tossed aside with a shrug and a "well its just their opinion". The objective factors are the objective nature of the act: the facts of the acts that are generally categorised as murder. Subjective elements, which there are many more of, could include the values that society places on them, how these values have developed, what institutions have effected this values, whether they change over time and why.
My above statement was in reference to a comment taken out of its original context, and referenced a particular discussion in which the subjective distinction was not important; I was not speaking to subjectivity at large in any way (let alone its significance).
It is entirely possible to recognize the perception of "deserve" as being subjective (i.e. not actually real in and of itself) while still acknowledging the objective repercussions that perception may have. Effectively, my argument is that the notion of "deserve" exists only as an idea; it is not that ideas have no power.
I agree here on the emphasis towards aggregate and individual values. Most people who believe in objective values are decidedly unaware of real world examples of the contrary; which, for your example, was the market.
Yet I want to point out that the values of society (and I suppose the market) aren't only the product of agreed valuations, but also of impositions and forces. This is best exemplified with religion. Historically, as one culture has conquered another, it brought along it's religion, perhaps even being caused by said religion in the first place; and the conquering culture instates it's religion, although often some of these religions would mix in some combination (for example Greco-Roman mythology). The same can be said about cultures, morals, laws, and any number of other societal concepts.
No, they do not deserve to be given the merchandise. There is no objective basis for their entitlement to it. There is, however, an objective individual and collective interest in enforcing the codified rules of exchange. The receipt of goods should occur not because the person "deserves" it, but because the alternative would destabilize interpersonal relationships and the overall social structure.
Someone who has paid the agreed upon price for something should rightly expect, based on given social contracts, to be given the merchandise they paid for. However they do not deserve anything.
You deserve what you can kill and or fight to get and keep. That goes even for your life. While you may be born feeling deserving of your life, what's to stop another from feeling the same? Nothing. What's to stop him who feels he deserves it, from taking it, anyone who feels he does not deserve it, which in this case could be you, feeling you deserve it more. Ultimately only the winner/survivor can claim anything.
This is similar to how war does not say who's right or wrong, it just says who left, but equally who ever is left can say they are right because no one survived to say they are wrong.
The claim is an objective reality in that it exists as an actual statement in reality, but that does not make the content of the claim (i.e. that you actually deserve something) objective itself.
To be able to deserve is objective, it is in that regard that I agree with you. It is also that which I am using to support my argument. If entitlement is objective, it relies on the testimonies of others to make it valid. However if you have an unbeatable power (be it a nuke, a greater physique, or larger numbers) and are able to silence those around, then no one can even say they deserve more than you.
To be able to deserve is objective, it is in that regard that I agree with you. It is also that which I am using to support my argument.
You misunderstand my point if you think I agree that we are objectively able to deserve. I do not. I think that we are able to get what we get, and that we attach a language of deservedness to that actuality. This does not, in my opinion, mean that what we got was actually deserved in any objective sense; it is an independent, subjective idea attached to the objective actuality.
If entitlement is objective, it relies on the testimonies of others to make it valid.
If entitlement were objective, it would not rely upon the subjective belief of others to make it valid. That entitlement does depend upon that belief speaks rather to its subjectivity.
However if you have an unbeatable power (be it a nuke, a greater physique, or larger numbers) and are able to silence those around, then no one can even say they deserve more than you.
Of course they can say they deserve more than you. They probably will not get it, but they can certainly claim they deserve it (and, consequentially, that it is "unfair" when they do not get it).
You deserve what you can kill and or fight to get and keep. This is very Social Darwinist and effectively asserts that might is the greatest virtue. Social Darwinism is a horrible system, and might is not the measure of personal worth. You do deserve to reap reap the fruits of your labor, but not because you're better at what you do, but because it takes some effort to labor.
Who says you deserve to reap the fruits of your labor? Who's going to ensure you get what you claim you deserve? What does deserve even mean for that matter? There is no objective answer, so obviously you are arguing subjectively as am I. Now if yo're subjectively trying to tell me that you deserve something because you worked harder for it, then you must not have read the argument you're disputing, that states if I kill you no one will oppose my subjective entitlement.
The whole point of my argument is not so much that might makes right, because right is a subjective point that no one can ever really decide entirely on, the whole point of my argument is that might makes you physically able to claim.
What America did to the Nagisaki and Hiroshima was not right but it was so overbearingly powerful that no one could say anything about it. Morality is truly for the weak.
This is an idea of what "ought" to be, which is a human construct. It's one of the many concepts that arise when a reasoning mind has the capacity to think into the future, which inherently doesn't currently exist. "Deserve" represents a potential. It doesn't objectively exist outside of humanity, but humanity objectively exists, along with all its traits, including a sense of justice (which is the category in which "deserve" falls). We come up with these concepts in order to live peacefully among each other. Peaceful co-existence is evidence of the reality of concepts such as "deserving", just as an actual building is evidence of the idea for that building before it was built.
If morality is for the weak, then why are nations that maintain a moral foundation strong, while geographic areas that can't agree on a moral foundation flounder in war and turmoil?
Morality is for the physically weak individuals. If one man could kill anything with a glance, that one man would have had no need to ensure the survival of the rest of his species, maybe he;d take a mate or two, but he personally be stronger than everyone else, would rampage the land on his physical prowess alone, with no concept of mercy or compassion for anything.
The weaker individuals came up with this idea of morality, because they needed it to not end up as those before them who had no morality. Animals are an example of this. The strongest animals survive, while the weaker ones die, and they have no concept of morality. It's kill or be killed in their kingdom, and because of that each new animal to be born is as best equipped for this world as it possibly can be, and you know what happens to it if it isn't.
There's no such thing as a man who kills with a glance. If there was, smart people would kill him. People are smart. People are also social. For this reason we come up with social concepts that we then enforce. Again, concepts are as physically real as the outcomes they produce. The concept of morality has, in reality, shown itself to be a stronger force than the irrational, amoral brute of might makes right.
Lots of animals are born ill-equipped, ever see a puppy?
If one man could kill anything with a glance, that one man would have had no need to ensure the survival of the rest of his species, maybe he;d take a mate or two, but he personally be stronger than everyone else, would rampage the land on his physical prowess alone, with no concept of mercy or compassion for anything.
Maybe you are so vile a person that this is what you would do with power, but I, and I'd like to think most people, would prefer to be a superhero to a supervillain. Even people who do kill others will more often do so not only because they can, but because it is by their logic right.
Moral principles are not produced from nothing. It is not a defense mechanism of the weak but a simple trait of humanity that we assign a moral value to some behaviors. Other animals, such as monkeys, have also been shown to understand concepts related to morality such as fairness.
Also, if morality doesn't exist, why are your arguments labeled as disagreeing with the debate question?
It does not matter what you like to think because that is fantasy. Reality shows what happens when a person finds out they have a power that is unrivaled by any other. It's not evil as you claimed, it's natural.
Morality does exist, but it's purely subjective. What's 'right' to one could be a total sin to another.
People with lots of power and influence try to do good too. Even those who are widely condemned still justify their actions in their own moral framework. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of people with power who have done great good.
What one person claims is right may seem wrong to another, but with enough communication and seeing the situation from each other's perspective, people will come to an agreement. So I disagree that morality is subjective to a significant degree.
You're not reading me, not lots of power. unrivaled power. People with unrivaled power on average use it to dominate.
Morality is still subjective, because if it takes some coercing to get another to agree, it's still their decision to agree. Just because it's shared universally does not mean it's objective. Objective is independent of human emotions. The sky is blue, is objective. It does not matter if you disagree with me, it won't change the fact that it's blue. The sky is great is subjective, since that is my opinion. I may change everyone's opinion to be the same as mine, but we're still holding opinions, not facts.
Being able to physically claim any thing means you are the undisputed best around, and no one can challenge that. It's a better system, grounded in absolutes, than the opinion one you're trying to use where you keep calling on 'morality' and 'fairness'.
A better system by what metric? Why is being grounded in absolutes the only framework you hold entitlement to? What's so good about absolutes?
A better metric for a moral system is if it's not morally repugnant to a majority of people. (Note that morally repugnance is a distinct metric from self interest)
I'm not arguing that morality wise it's the best way, you are. I'm arguing that absolute, and without ability to be questioned wise, it's the best way.
I legitimately feel that if no one is alive to even think about taking something from you, then you can say with 100% surety that it is yours, as opposed to a shared idea (that at any time could just not be shared) that you deserve it.
Let me try this. What's stopping the government from taking what's rightfully yours decided upon by the moral concept that you are entitled to something? According to you, the answer would be the simple fact that we would feel morally responsible from taking it from you, but to that I say, what if those who should feel morally responsible... don't?
Now same question (underlined) answered by me, is your ability to fight and or kill for it. Let's say it's your life. if the government comes, and they want your life, and they don't have the moral compass saying "this guy deserves his life" then one thing that ensures your entitlement to your life, is the ability to kill for it. I don't understand how you don't see this.
I respect and share your belief on this issue. I do not agree with moral nilism. My question to those who do not believe in absolutes: Are you absolutely sure?
You clearly do not understand moral nihilism. The perspective rejects subjective "absolutes" on the basis that they exist only as abstract constructions of the human mind. The perspective does not reject the existence of objective absolutes, though it does condition our ability to know them. Consequentially, the moral nihilist speaks not in absolutes but to the greater probability. In this case, it is most probable that morality is a subjective construction with no objective basis.
No, you really do not. Take it from someone who actually is a nihilist.
Nihilists do reject the idea of objective moral absolutes, in no small part because they do not actually exist (rationale below). This is entirely non-responsive to my refutation of your original post. You seem to be confusing the rejection of morality with the rejection of all absolutes, which is not necessarily the case under a nihilistic framework. You do this because you do not actually understand nihilism. My point stands.
Regarding moral nihilism.
There are two kinds of moral systems: absolute and relative.
Neither absolute nor relative morality exist objectively. If they did, then morality would exist independent of human belief in it. There is zero evidence that this is the case.
Absolute morality specifically does not even exist as a subjective reality. If it did, then there would be no disparity in moral belief. This is empirically not the case.
Umm. What's new? You've claimed to be pretty much everything under the sun... That being said, I highly doubt that you know what nihilism precisely is after the libertarian profile kerfuffle.
The fact that you still have not actually addressed any of my points regarding your misrepresentation of nihilism indicates that while you at one time identified with the ideology you did not (and still do not) actually understand what it means.
I am disinclined to respond to another one of your assertions that you understand nihilism, when the opposite is clearly evidenced by your inability to respond to my arguments to the contrary with anything but another assertion that you understand it.
No, you did not. Your initial point was not that nihilism rejects morality, but rather a conflation of nihilism with the rejection of all absolutes ("My question to those who do not believe in absolutes: Are you absolutely sure?"). That is a misrepresentation of nihilism. I presented a counter-analysis explaining why. You never addressed it. Your initial misunderstanding stands unacknowledged, as do my refutations of it.
I disputed your subsequent comments because in every one you still claimed to know what nihilism was, all the while ignoring my rebuttal to your original comment that demonstrated the contrary.
I do not believe in objective morality, for reasons already explicitly stated above in another comment (and, for the record, also unaddressed).
Nihilists will tend to hold morality as being culturally relative, insofar as morality tends to be dependent upon the culture in which one is brought up. However, not all moral relativists are nihilists. Further, nihilism will go a step further than relativism alone does; the very value of morality and other cultural byproducts (if not culture itself) is deconstructed under nihilism.
Nihilism is not a rejection of the existence of absolutes. Nihilism rejects that morality is an absolute.
Nihilism is not organized primarily around its stance on absolutes. Rather, the nihilistic stance on absolutes (moral and otherwise) is a consequence of nihilism's primary premise of deconstruction.
Neither absolute nor relative morality exist objectively. If they did, then morality would exist independent of human belief in it. There is zero evidence that this is the case.
This is not only a statement about morality, but concepts in general. Language doesn't exist independently of human belief in it. Each word is just a shared subjective meaning attributed to what is actually nothing more than air vibrations. But I'm sorry, what did you say?
Yes, my rationale applies to things other than morality alone. Language, however, is not one of those things. Language is not a belief system. It does not exist because we believe in it. No one goes around saying "I believe in English". It is symbolic and what it conveys is subjective, but its actual existence is as objectively real as a dog barking or the sound of thunder.
All men are created equal, and no one deserves special luxury as a consequence of the circumstances of their birth. As a consiquence, everyone at birth has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. Everyone deserves equal oppertunity at prosperity and the persuit of their own aspirations.
No one deserves anything. No one is entitled to anything.
A person is entitled only to those things in which one has worked for. If 2 people work at the same job at the same pay and one invest those earnings and the other gambles and drinks theirs away, the one that invested their pay is entitled to seek the rewards of doing so.
In objective terms (basically without subjective qualifiers) no one is entitled to anything. No one deserves anything. The nature of merely deserving is placing a value upon things and that itself is subjective. Of course, in subjective applicability, the populace can generally place a value upon common held morals.
For example:
If a man commits a crime he deserves to be punished in regards to the type of crime committed.
In my view I must ask on what basis do they value what a man deserves based off of his actions. This then leads to the debate if there are moral absolutes or not and that argument can be saved for a debate in the future.
In subjective applicability, what is "deserved" is still just an idea not an actuality. Nothing is deserved, people only think it is.
If a man commits a crime people think he "deserves" to be punished, but that subjective perception does not constitute actual reality. This is true even when the subjective perception is translated into the objective act of punishment. That people act upon their moral beliefs does not make them real, any more than people being influenced by religion makes god real.
In subjective applicability, what is "deserved" is still just an idea not an actuality.
I agree, but these notions become the embodiment that determines how society places its value on things. It seems to me that this is merely an evolutionary concept the helps humans regulate and function in society. I would say this is practically coinciding with the argument on morals.
If a man commits a crime people think he "deserves" to be punished, but that subjective perception does not constitute actual reality.
Doesn't constitute actual reality? If the subjective perception is similar among the populace and they take action has the thought of deserving punishment not become a part of reality? I do understand that ideas cannot literally become apart of physical reality, but ideas do drive reality and can change it to fit its purpose if the beholder of the idea has the power to make the changes.
That people act upon their moral beliefs does not make them real, any more than people being influenced by religion makes god real.
This is well said, I cannot contest this in a clear and precise manner, but my only statement would be to restate what I said earlier. Reality is everything that actually exists, but to the religious follows you brought up God is reality. A pantheist may say God is everything or Atman is Brahman. How do we come to terms to describe reality without relying on our subjective interpretations?
I agree, but these notions become the embodiment that determines how society places its value on things. It seems to me that this is merely an evolutionary concept the helps humans regulate and function in society. I would say this is practically coinciding with the argument on morals.
Morality is an evolutionary consequence, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether its assertions represent objective reality. Human beings are capable of hallucinations consequent to the evolutionary process; that does not make the hallucination representative of objective reality.
Doesn't constitute actual reality? If the subjective perception is similar among the populace and they take action has the thought of deserving punishment not become a part of reality? I do understand that ideas cannot literally become apart of physical reality, but ideas do drive reality and can change it to fit its purpose if the beholder of the idea has the power to make the changes.
The punishment is an objective reality, but that does not mean its motivation itself was objective. That subjectively held beliefs divorced from objective reality influence objective events does not make those beliefs objective themselves. By claiming that certain things are deserved by certain people we may be able to increase the likelihood that those things will happen for those people, but that just means they happen not that they were actually deserved. The narrative can be powerful without being true.
This is well said, I cannot contest this in a clear and precise manner, but my only statement would be to restate what I said earlier. Reality is everything that actually exists, but to the religious follows you brought up God is reality. A pantheist may say God is everything or Atman is Brahman.
Subjective reality does not equate actual, objective reality. Period. The most devout believer in god could tell me that god exists but that still would not make it true in and of itself.
How do we come to terms to describe reality without relying on our subjective interpretations?
Honestly? Most of us do not. Most are not capable of it. That is a simple evolutionary reality. No matter what we do, none of us is capable of purely objective perception. What some of us can do is strive to mitigate our subjective perceptions and maximize our objective knowledge. We do this be setting standards of proof, by checking our assumptions, by challenging the fundamental assertions that we were indoctrinated into, etc.
As expected your have left me with zero notions to contest, thus I must concede from this argument in defeat, but with new insight and clarity on this particular topic. Well written, Jace.
In the face of obvious confusion over my statement, allow me to clarify:
No one deserves anything. No one is entitled to anything.
This is a statement of objective reality. There is no evidence to suggest that our conception of what is "deserved" translates outside of our subjective imagination. Take away human awareness (i.e. remove the idea), and nothing is actually deserved; it just is.
The subjective belief that people deserve anything does not translate into actuality. It just means people think that something is deserved. That does not make it true, any more than belief in god alone makes god real.
Non-responsive as your point was, I will say this: I do consider what I say to lack any objective worth. Subjectively, however, I still appreciate the my own statements and views; I just do not delude myself into thinking they actually mean anything beyond that subjective personal value.
Actually I would like to go with neither of the options given, since I don't really find that asking this question will lead to any sensible answers. The fact that I respond in the agree section is arbitrary. I will try to explain why I don't think that neither the negative nor the positive answer is tenable.
No one is entitled to anything
The is-ought problem is one of the most famous unsolved problems of philosophy. Despite it's fame no one has convincingly been able to bridge the gap between matters of facts and evaluative claims. Propositions about morality are evaluative claims, and for these reasons it's fair to assume that propositions about morality are not matters of fact.
To state that someone posses property X, is a matter of fact. On the other hand, to say that a person deserves something, is to state that "'something' ought to (not) happen to this person". Clearly this is an evaluative claim. Thus, to say that someone deserves something, is to say that "it's a matter of fact that 'something' ought (not) to happen to this person". Since evaluative claims can't be matters of fact, this statement is clearly oxymoronic.
Entitlement does make sense
We can't possible observe what objective reality is, and therefore there is no way to directly observe if entitlement exists in objective reality or not. Therefore we can't know if something in reality-as-perceived is delusional. So we can't deny our experience just because some argument shows that our experience doesn't 'objectively' make any sense
Trapped as we are in reality as perceived, we have to respect what is given first handed; our experience. I can't help but to think in terms of entitlement. No amount of argumentation will stop me from thinking and feeling in these terms. Does this mean that the existence of entitlement is ontologically true? Of course not. It does however mean that the conclusion that entitlement is oxymoronic is completely out of sync with reality-as-perceived. Therefore we can't say that entitlement doesn't make sense; ontologically it might not make sense, but there's not a good reason to propose that confidently.
Neither is tenable
I am not willing to say that entitlement is (objectively) real, neither am I willing to say that entitlement is necessarily unreal. So the only thing I am willing to say is that this problem is unsolvable, and trying to solve it will only lead to wasted time and energy. I can't be persuaded in either direction.
We can't possible observe what objective reality is
This sort of statement is a self-contradiction. You can't observe that nothing is observable. If you throw that part out and stop entirely separating "perceived" from "actual", then I'm almost on board.
Before you can determine the legitimacy of an "ought", you have to determine the why. If the reason behind the "ought" can be shown objectively to enhance the given principle it is meant to bring about, then the "ought" in question is as objectively valid as it's effectiveness in bringing about the "is".
I don't think so, I think it follows almost from definition of objective reality that we can't observe what exists in it, we can only make inferences about it. I define objective reality as the mind independent aspects of reality. Two things are relevant now.
First we need to make sure that such an objective reality exists. This is obviously a point of contention, but I think it's generally accepted that certain things happen independedly of humans thinking about it, or observing it. For instance, the world doesn't become black just because you close your eyes. Gamma radiation existed before humans conceiving of it. So the existence of an objective reality is pretty undisputed.
Secondly we need to prove that we can't possibly observe what exists in objective reality. Let me explain why using an example. Let's say we want to know if entitlement exist or does not exist in objective reality. In order to know it we have to observe whether entitlement exist in objective reality or not. This implies that we have to determine if entitlement doesn't exist if minds don't exist. So we have to observe that entitlement doesn't exist if there are no minds.
But this is clearly impossible. We can't observe what the world is like if there are no minds. The world can't be observed if there are no minds. Therefore we can't observe whether entitlement is depedent or indepedent of mind, and therefore it is impossible to know if entitlement exists in objective reality.
If the reason behind the "ought" can be shown objectively to enhance the given principle it is meant to bring about, then the "ought" in question is as objectively valid as it's effectiveness in bringing about the "is".
I don't think that shows that the ought is true. Just because we can show that a morale claim that is meant to bring about some end, does in fact bring about that end does not show that the morale claim is true. It just shows that if someone acts according to the morale claim, the intended result will happen. This doesn't mean that the intended result is right. For instance, if I claim that people should kill each other, and people follow that claim, then people will kill each other. Clearly, this doesn't mean that people ought to kill each other.
Objective reality clearly exists outside the mind, but the mind exists within objective reality.
we have to observe that entitlement doesn't exist if there are no minds.
Nothing that results from concepts would exist without minds, that doesn't mean the mind doesn't exist. Buildings objectively exist as a result of objectively existing minds with very real concepts. "There ought to be a building" doesn't imply buildings would be there without minds.
"Ought" concepts are particular to thinking agents (with minds) which exist within objective reality. Objective reality exists without the mind, but not vice verse. While concepts like entitlement may only exist as a mental construct, that construct is within objective reality. Outside of a mind there is no mental construct, or observation for that matter. Concepts are for the living. You can't remove life from the picture and claim that it is more real that way.
I don't think that shows that the ought is true... this doesn't mean that people ought to kill each other.
Your example would show that people in fact ought to kill each other according to your moral code. The validity of your moral code (sum total of "oughts") can be objectively determined by observing or reasoning the overall outcome of your moral code held consistent. Or it can be determined by the logic behind the fundamental principal that underlies your code.
A moral code based on the edicts of a non-existent entity for example, lacks sound reason. A moral code based on sacrifice of each for the good of the whole breaks down society over time. A code of might makes right works well for small tribal warring factions, but can't work as a moral code beyond that condition.
All people deserve basic rights like free speech, the ability to work when you want to, and so on, but no one is entitled to tings like healthcare, money, and other possessions. Those are things that you must obtain through work.
