Why are people stuck on morality? Watch

Dualcore
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 5 years ago
#61
(Original post by Ashahedow)
Isolation appears to be the common denominator in depression. Whether that isolation is tangible or in their mind.
All these things can be a factor in a shift in virtues and morality, causing distress. This is when suicidal behaviours are most likely to occur.

People can become depressed for a whole host of reasons.
Say you're presented with two depressed patients. One patient experienced an emotionally and physically abusive upbringing. The other lead a wholesome, affluent lifestyle. Both exhibit symptoms of major depression. You cannot shun the affluent individual because they had an easy life. That's why therapists diagnose based on the patient's present state instead of history.

Even then, there's only so much therapists and psychiatrists can do.
I think you've missed what I was trying to say, what I meant was depression can arise independently of bad life experiences, and it can arise without negative influence from other people and society.
0
quote
reply
Ashahedow
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#62
Report 5 years ago
#62
(Original post by Dualcore)
I think you've missed what I was trying to say, what I meant was depression can arise independently of bad life experiences, and it can arise without negative influence from other people and society.
That was exactly what I said, though my explanation was longwinded.
0
quote
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#63
(Original post by Juichiro)
There is no rational basis of morality and hence no scientific basis. This means that morality is not derived from reason which implies that morality is not objective. Morality is the set of preferences an individual or group has regarding ways of living. Morality is as based on reality as the arts or any non rational thing is.
Yes but to say that morality is "subjective" or "non-scientific" is to say that our desires and states of well-being differ so much between ourselves that they are incompatible with each other. It is to say that there is no objectively "good" society which we all, on average, value more than a "bad" society.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#64
Report 5 years ago
#64
(Original post by felamaslen)
Yes but to say that morality is "subjective" or "non-scientific" is to say that our desires and states of well-being differ so much between ourselves that they are incompatible with each other. It is to say that there is no objectively "good" society which we all, on average, value more than a "bad" society.
No, that is not true. To say that something is subjective is to say that it has no objective basis and hence no scientific nor rational basis. Even we all were to feel the same, it would not change the fact that our feelings and desires are irrational.

And yes, there is no objective "good" at all. "Good" and "bad" are words with no objective meaning as any dictionary will show you. They are template words meant to be reflective of the desirability placed by the speaker.
0
quote
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#65
(Original post by Juichiro)
No, that is not true. To say that something is subjective is to say that it has no objective basis and hence no scientific nor rational basis. Even we all were to feel the same, it would not change the fact that our feelings and desires are irrational.

And yes, there is no objective "good" at all. "Good" and "bad" are words with no objective meaning as any dictionary will show you. They are template words meant to be reflective of the desirability placed by the speaker.
You're getting confused as to what "good" and "bad" refer to. The definition of "good" to my mind is that which we find enjoyable and healthy for our mental well-being. That is certainly objective if you ask me.

Not having a broken leg is objectively good.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#66
Report 5 years ago
#66
(Original post by felamaslen)
You're getting confused as to what "good" and "bad" refer to. The definition of "good" to my mind is that which we find enjoyable and healthy for our mental well-being. That is certainly objective if you ask me.

Not having a broken leg is objectively good.
No, I am not confused. You are the one who did not bother to do some research. According to the dictionary, "good" means "to be desired or approved of" and "bad" means "not such as to be hoped for or desired". So as I said, "good" and "bad" refer to desirability. Your definition is your (subjective) definition not the (objective) definition.
0
quote
reply
BradyRae
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 5 years ago
#67
Morality is one of the single most subjective things going. A question as simple as "Does he deserve another chance" be 'he' a murderer or a child that misbehaves each person will look at the situation and see events from their lives that alter what they perceive as the "right" decision.

When you get to bigger issues it gets even more complex; "is it okay to torture captured terrorists?" for example. By your logic to increase the well being of hundreds, maybe thousands we should get information out of him by any means necessary but that is (commonly acknoleged as being) immoral.
0
quote
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#68
(Original post by BradyRae)
Morality is one of the single most subjective things going. A question as simple as "Does he deserve another chance" be 'he' a murderer or a child that misbehaves each person will look at the situation and see events from their lives that alter what they perceive as the "right" decision.

When you get to bigger issues it gets even more complex; "is it okay to torture captured terrorists?" for example. By your logic to increase the well being of hundreds, maybe thousands we should get information out of him by any means necessary but that is (commonly acknoleged as being) immoral.
If you are guaranteed to save the lives of millions as a direct result of torturing one person, then it would be moral to torture them.

The problem arises when you realise that there really is no guarantee and life is never that simple; moreover a society which tortures people has been shown (via the medieval period, in Europe) to be less healthy (as is pretty obvious in hindsight) than a society which abhors torture for any reason. That is why we do not torture or advocate the torture of captured terrorists (well at least, I don't ). It's pretty simple really.

Also, even if we can never agree on what is or is not moral, that has nothing to do with the supposed subjectivity of morality. Morality could be a sort of holy grail which we can only aspire to but never actually achieve. There are surely objectively "good" and "bad" ways to live, whether we can find them or agree upon them or not.
1
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (34)
27.64%
No (89)
72.36%

Watched Threads

View All