Feb 22 2013: "The mere fact that they COULD change." In this world, everything changes over time. Even laws of physics. If you hold true to this it will not be possible to tell if something is "right" or "wrong" objectivly, only because there is no such thing as objectivly truth. Most interessting debates tend to stop after agreeing there is no objectivly truth, to solve this most debates clarify the parameters of "objectivly trutht for the sake of the debate" and most often end up with the solution "within foreseeable future". Hence my statement.
Your example: "predetors are bad" is not valid. I am showing that "rape is wrong" under a "cause/effect" theory. Your example does not have any cause, nor effect. I am saying; "Rape is wrong, because..." and I am showing the effect that makes it so. You are trying to tell me "rapeist are bad people" and I am not even cloe to that in my cause/effect theory. In fact, I have pointed out why I am not even considering it.
No no, by all means. Opinions are as far away from objectivly thruth as anything can ever be. But I do think that our base instincts are true, objectivly. Because they simply fall in under the given parameters as I explained in my prior posts. How they differ IS interesting. Opinions are based on subjective experiences, values, and so forth. They vary from person to person and you can hardly find two that thinks the same for the same reasons. Base instincts does not function after these principles, they just ARE. Ofc base instincts can differ slightly, due to many reasons, hence I brought in the statistics to eliminate the uncertainty. I disagree with you that emotions are driven by base instincts; Example: I am hungry (basedriven) so I eat. I am hungry (basedriven), but I give my bread to the homeless (emotiondriven). If I was hungry/basedriven enough, I would not do that.
I still think that the statistical body shows the basedriven instinct in humans.
Feb 21 2013: http://addofio.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/objective-vs-inter-subjective-truth/
Quote: "objective / subjective
Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: “Spinach is green” is objective, while “I like spinach” is subjective. “Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don’t like spinach,” however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects."
This means that a study, that ends up in a statistic (that can aslo be redone and have the same result like proper science) is considered objective, not subjective. Also, an objective truth is timeconsistance. It does not change over time. For to be an absolute truth, it has to be so. The statistic about how rape victims react and what circumstances people prefer to live under - is consistant. I disagree in you calling it "subjective" only because it is peoples base instincts we are considering. These base insticts comes from our "reptile brain" and will not change in any foreseeable future.
Btw: I added the url to the site I used as definition if you are interested in looking at it.
Feb 21 2013: Many interesting answers here already, but I want to try answer: "Why is rape objectively wrong?"
It is objectivly proven via statistics, that I will not go into here, that beeing a victim of rape heightens the chanse for trauma which in turn heightens the chanse for negative personal effects; Such as depression, eatig disorders, anxiety, the list goes on and on. People exposed to trauma tend to need more and produce less.
Lets then assume that the perpetrator might not be evil, as we have no proof he is, objectivly. Lets assume he is a normal man (or even a woman) that wants to live in a safe and well functioning society, prefrebly one with a good ecconomy. How can we tell something about this want, objectivly? Again, I think we can prove this both psycologicly and statisticly. The flow of people from areas/countries with poor functioning societies/ecconomies comes to mind.
The more traumaticed people he/she have around him/her, the less chanse he/she will have to live in such a society.
Hm. Yes. This question WAS easy. We do not have to go into complicated morals, not even "good or bad" to answer, a simple "cause and effect" is enough to prove that rape is objectivly wrong.
Or what say you?
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Do right and wrong exist?
Your example: "predetors are bad" is not valid. I am showing that "rape is wrong" under a "cause/effect" theory. Your example does not have any cause, nor effect. I am saying; "Rape is wrong, because..." and I am showing the effect that makes it so. You are trying to tell me "rapeist are bad people" and I am not even cloe to that in my cause/effect theory. In fact, I have pointed out why I am not even considering it.
No no, by all means. Opinions are as far away from objectivly thruth as anything can ever be. But I do think that our base instincts are true, objectivly. Because they simply fall in under the given parameters as I explained in my prior posts. How they differ IS interesting. Opinions are based on subjective experiences, values, and so forth. They vary from person to person and you can hardly find two that thinks the same for the same reasons. Base instincts does not function after these principles, they just ARE. Ofc base instincts can differ slightly, due to many reasons, hence I brought in the statistics to eliminate the uncertainty. I disagree with you that emotions are driven by base instincts; Example: I am hungry (basedriven) so I eat. I am hungry (basedriven), but I give my bread to the homeless (emotiondriven). If I was hungry/basedriven enough, I would not do that.
I still think that the statistical body shows the basedriven instinct in humans.
A comment on Conversation: Do right and wrong exist?
Quote: "objective / subjective
Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: “Spinach is green” is objective, while “I like spinach” is subjective. “Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don’t like spinach,” however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects."
This means that a study, that ends up in a statistic (that can aslo be redone and have the same result like proper science) is considered objective, not subjective. Also, an objective truth is timeconsistance. It does not change over time. For to be an absolute truth, it has to be so. The statistic about how rape victims react and what circumstances people prefer to live under - is consistant. I disagree in you calling it "subjective" only because it is peoples base instincts we are considering. These base insticts comes from our "reptile brain" and will not change in any foreseeable future.
Btw: I added the url to the site I used as definition if you are interested in looking at it.
A comment on Conversation: Do right and wrong exist?
It is objectivly proven via statistics, that I will not go into here, that beeing a victim of rape heightens the chanse for trauma which in turn heightens the chanse for negative personal effects; Such as depression, eatig disorders, anxiety, the list goes on and on. People exposed to trauma tend to need more and produce less.
Lets then assume that the perpetrator might not be evil, as we have no proof he is, objectivly. Lets assume he is a normal man (or even a woman) that wants to live in a safe and well functioning society, prefrebly one with a good ecconomy. How can we tell something about this want, objectivly? Again, I think we can prove this both psycologicly and statisticly. The flow of people from areas/countries with poor functioning societies/ecconomies comes to mind.
The more traumaticed people he/she have around him/her, the less chanse he/she will have to live in such a society.
Hm. Yes. This question WAS easy. We do not have to go into complicated morals, not even "good or bad" to answer, a simple "cause and effect" is enough to prove that rape is objectivly wrong.
Or what say you?