So what "level playing field" moral systems can you draw up from science?
Eugenics?
..... (
)
We live in an amoral society..
- Thread starter Challenger78
- Start date
Eugenics?
..... (
)
The vast majority of people are moral most of the time. The ones that make the evening news on TV are the exceptions, not the rule. "Man in supermarket helps old lady pick up dropped fruit" doesn't make for an exciting headline, so small acts of kindness go unreported. "Woman regrets telling a lie, and tries to make it up to the person she lied to" doesn't make the news either, but this kind of thing happens all the time.
The vast majority of people know the difference between right and wrong, and strive to be "good" most of the time. Most people, most of the time, are basically decent.
It's one reason why evil people can have such an impact when they act.
Religious morals, incomplete and selective as they mostly are, are generally reasonable guides to how to behave, with a few exceptions. On the other hand, religion mostly covers the very obvious, like "don't murder people", "don't steal from others". The holy books don't tackle the kinds of questions people really want to know the moral answers to, like "When is abortion ok?"
I don't see why there's a link between those two claims.
Religion doesn't keep people moral. The religious are demonstrably no more moral than the non-religious.
On a lot of moral issues, people actually agree most of the time.
So what "level playing field" moral systems can you draw up from science?
Eugenics?
..... (
Moral systems -from science- can be developed in two main ways:
1. Involuntarily: As long as science provides real and respectful knowledge and results, the methods and ethics of scientific research will power more universal and calm approaches towards different, strange, and unknown people and their issues in longer period. We appreciate the fact that the role of the profession has effects on behaviour, personality and beliefs which are basic areas for morality.
2. Voluntarily: We can socially formulate the scientific methods as valuable moral basis, just as we had interpret "the reason" two and a half centuries ago. If science tells us the interdependent co-existence of different systems (atoms, dna or forces), or if science shows us that we are nothing but a bunch of ape or mammal mutants, so it requires great effort to come up with the idea of Eugenics (believing in Eugenics doesn't require any effort, though). Intention is essence.
Moral does not grow on trees, and it is "designed" to prevent people eating each other: It is a set of human social aggreement and perception about life, self and others and the evolution of moral values have been constantly re-shaped by human activities. Scientific approach (more correct form: humans who somehow take science seriously) must value everything in nature, since "everything in nature" is what science deals with.
Why shouldn't we kill? Why should we protect? Why should we help? are rather classical moral questions and have been answered by religious, traditional or practical principles and reasons, up until the age of reason. Growing number of people all around the world giving privilage to scientific explanations among others. We will also need to deal with new type of moral issues in near future, including the existential value of Artificial Intelligence on global scale, what will be the common and most useful ground to decide on this issue?
That's my point.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but remember, people get to determine what "moral" is.
According to a certain moral point of view. Remember this, because it is extremely relevant.
Again, evil from your point of view!
Even for those with morals, the morals are subjective. The morals are influenced by a variety of factors, including individual philosophy and choice, and are based on various things such as convenience, righteousness, or a twisted idea.
Hitler, to himself, was "righteous" and those opposed to him were great evils. To many Nazi followers, he was "good" and killing Jews was the "right" thing to do
He is no more wrong than you or me. And no more right. It is a matter of opinion; similarly, you might find a certain painting beautiful and I might not. Neither of our opinions is "wrong"
I agree, but the key difference is that the religious believe, falsely, in the objective existence of morals, whereas, for the most part the nonreligious are rational enough to understand the subjective nature of morality
Yes. However an entire population believing that blue is the "best" color, doesn't make that statement a fact.
I'm curious to hear how "respectful" finds footing in an empirical tradition ...
The highlighted word could just as easily be replaced with "immoral", since even immoral things are socially formulated.
precisely
and since the "intention" of science doesn't share a parallel with any moral foundations, you have a system that can morally end up anywhere.
On the contrary, there is no need for science to value everything, let alone a need for science to value everything equally (in fact the very issue that science is fragmented into a variety of disciplines indicates that is not the case - for instance much of the sciences of biology, geology, etc has been subservient to (the rapid advancements made in) physics.
Its not clear how the age of reason answered such moral imperatives in a uniform or even satisfactory manner
Its not clear how that privilege extends to moral grounds.
Who, when faced with a moral dilemma, seeks the advice of a scientist?
Even the regulatory arm of morals, law and justice, is at odds with many scientific issues. (for instance, try defining guilt within the current empirical framework of selfhood
) In the meantime there is a clear distinction between science and science fiction
Norsefire:
Who else is going to do it?
One that is shared by the vast majority of people (who I was talking about).
Who else's point of view am I supposed to speak from?
Everybody interprets all information through a filter of personal prejudices and so on. Why should morals be any different?
You think so?
I don't believe you.
You're wrong.
What you've just done is to attempt to throw away all commonly understood ideas of morality. Sorry, Norsefire, but I'm not buying it.
Haven't we had this discussion before? Or was it with somebody else?
With that statement, you're subscribing to a particular theory of morals. It's important to remember that.
Who else is going to do it?
One that is shared by the vast majority of people (who I was talking about).
Who else's point of view am I supposed to speak from?
Everybody interprets all information through a filter of personal prejudices and so on. Why should morals be any different?
You think so?
I don't believe you.
You're wrong.
What you've just done is to attempt to throw away all commonly understood ideas of morality. Sorry, Norsefire, but I'm not buying it.
Haven't we had this discussion before? Or was it with somebody else?
With that statement, you're subscribing to a particular theory of morals. It's important to remember that.
Therefore any action is permissable from a certain moral viewpoint, which makes the entire concept of morality useless.
Very true, but so what? If alot of people think blue is the best color, that doesn't make it so.
I am simply pointing out, then, that morality is nothing more than mere opinion.
Obviously, otherwise he would not have done what he did. There are those, like Hitler, who can do things you and I consider "evil" but they themselves see no problem. There are those that do things which they feel are wrong, but still do them, too.
Mere opinion, either way.
Ah, so Hitler thought what he did was wrong and did it anyway? That makes sense.
I am throwing away nothing...I am merely stating that all morality is an opinon. And that's it. And that, there, is a fact.
Yes, moral relativity. However moral relativity is always the case; it's a fact that morality is relative.
Norsefire:
People don't have extended arguments about what is the best colour, yet they do have extended arguments about what is moral.
Why do you think that is?
Mere opinion based on what? Nothing? Personal preference? Personal preference decided by what?
You're skimming the surface and saying nothing. You need to start thinking at some point.
At some level, Hitler must have known that what he was doing was wrong. Does he give you the impression of being a man happy in himself? If not, why not?
If you wish to claim that all morality is relative, then you're in no position to criticise anybody who wants to claim that it is absolute. They are as entitled to their opnion as you are.
People don't have extended arguments about what is the best colour, yet they do have extended arguments about what is moral.
Why do you think that is?
Mere opinion based on what? Nothing? Personal preference? Personal preference decided by what?
You're skimming the surface and saying nothing. You need to start thinking at some point.
At some level, Hitler must have known that what he was doing was wrong. Does he give you the impression of being a man happy in himself? If not, why not?
If you wish to claim that all morality is relative, then you're in no position to criticise anybody who wants to claim that it is absolute. They are as entitled to their opnion as you are.
Dear Lightgigantic,
Let me tell you how scientific emprical research creates "respectful" knowledge. You understand and experience the importance of it, you can answer some questions and it leads to new questions. You preserve this kind of knowledge and teach it to your generations. Like we do for the geometric discoveries of ancient Greek civilization. The opposite type of knowledge is "irrespectful" or "gas type" knowledge, it evaporates because it doesn't deserve any respect.
Secondly, if I am examining word "moral" under the subtitle of "voluntarily", of course it can be interchanged with "immoral". No doubt of that. Here where the intentional use of scientific ethic comes to the scene: No paleontologist can approach to bones as if they were "only" bones. Because his or her job is to excavate historical knowledge out of them. This person appreciates these bones, like other scientists in their own area. Appreciation of every bit of natural world can be a "voluntary" input to construct a new type of moral.
And for that I repeat my statement: Scientists must value the nature as long as they hope to learn something from it. The type of "learning" that scientists are dealing with is not a natural process. It is not like a chimpanzee learning what is dangerous or what fruit is more tasty. Scientist has to put unnatural human patience, recording, interpratation and measurement into the process. Respect, being gentle, not to sleep for the aim, they are all parts of the valuation effort.
Thirdly, age of reason gave us another type of criteria, thinking tools and possible models other than nature and religion had been provided for thousands of years. Of course it did not completely show the solutions for moral problems. But at least now, when we want to deal with a moral issue (Such as why shouldn't we kill or torture), we can use the reason to justify our legal or principle starting point. We do not have to find a relevant page from the bible or Quran.
I totally and completely disagree between the existence of "clear distinction between science and science fiction" since our science is fulfilling the dreams of Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov or Gene Roddenberry. Science is actually nothing but a tool just to satisfy our dreams. In this sense, you can organise your technology, your moral, your direction and everything else according to your dream, expectations about future.
If you do not put the human factor into the equation science, arts and other tools will loose all its motivation. Unless there is a "non-human" element such as cognitive robots, aliens or Gods. As far as we know there is not, at least their existence are not proven.
And please stay in the scope of the topic: Because when you move to the areas such as law and justice you might find yourself in a vast area where how scientific approach has changed our perception on mental state, motivation and millions of other details about crime and criminals. Just check out the changes in last century.
What I understood is, your perception of science is restricted to a microscope or a telescope recording an observation. I think it has bigger effects than this, including to overal moral valuation system of greater human societies all around the world.
Let me tell you how scientific emprical research creates "respectful" knowledge. You understand and experience the importance of it, you can answer some questions and it leads to new questions. You preserve this kind of knowledge and teach it to your generations. Like we do for the geometric discoveries of ancient Greek civilization. The opposite type of knowledge is "irrespectful" or "gas type" knowledge, it evaporates because it doesn't deserve any respect.
Secondly, if I am examining word "moral" under the subtitle of "voluntarily", of course it can be interchanged with "immoral". No doubt of that. Here where the intentional use of scientific ethic comes to the scene: No paleontologist can approach to bones as if they were "only" bones. Because his or her job is to excavate historical knowledge out of them. This person appreciates these bones, like other scientists in their own area. Appreciation of every bit of natural world can be a "voluntary" input to construct a new type of moral.
And for that I repeat my statement: Scientists must value the nature as long as they hope to learn something from it. The type of "learning" that scientists are dealing with is not a natural process. It is not like a chimpanzee learning what is dangerous or what fruit is more tasty. Scientist has to put unnatural human patience, recording, interpratation and measurement into the process. Respect, being gentle, not to sleep for the aim, they are all parts of the valuation effort.
Thirdly, age of reason gave us another type of criteria, thinking tools and possible models other than nature and religion had been provided for thousands of years. Of course it did not completely show the solutions for moral problems. But at least now, when we want to deal with a moral issue (Such as why shouldn't we kill or torture), we can use the reason to justify our legal or principle starting point. We do not have to find a relevant page from the bible or Quran.
I totally and completely disagree between the existence of "clear distinction between science and science fiction" since our science is fulfilling the dreams of Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov or Gene Roddenberry. Science is actually nothing but a tool just to satisfy our dreams. In this sense, you can organise your technology, your moral, your direction and everything else according to your dream, expectations about future.
If you do not put the human factor into the equation science, arts and other tools will loose all its motivation. Unless there is a "non-human" element such as cognitive robots, aliens or Gods. As far as we know there is not, at least their existence are not proven.
And please stay in the scope of the topic: Because when you move to the areas such as law and justice you might find yourself in a vast area where how scientific approach has changed our perception on mental state, motivation and millions of other details about crime and criminals. Just check out the changes in last century.
What I understood is, your perception of science is restricted to a microscope or a telescope recording an observation. I think it has bigger effects than this, including to overal moral valuation system of greater human societies all around the world.
Last edited:
Because morals are alot more relevant in our society. I'm not saying morals are unimportant...just, objectively nonexistent.
On a variety of factors. Culture, heritage, one's own childhood growing up, media, and basic human psychology.
Again, my point is just that it is an opinon.
No, because what he did *wasn't* wrong...in his eyes.
Why was he unhappy? I don't know, I didn't know the man. However, maybe the fact that he was losing the war, had mental illness, and had a terrible childhood had something to do with it.
Absolutely, but their statements are wrong, nonetheless.
Similarly, someone can still say that "blue is the best color" is a fact, but that is still wrong no matter what...it's not absolute, it's not a fact.
Unpacking how it is viewed as "important" reveals a host of values that often wind up contradictory when viewed by variegated communities. History illustrates this clearly.
Ditto above
Just like there is no consensus on what is important, there is no consensus on what is useless.
Its not clear how the trickle down effect of a paleontologist work ethic has any bearing on the morality of the community at large.
Any work ethic has the requirement to meet an aim
:shrug:
Secular governments have means for determining value. This in no way points to a consensus or a victory of reason. In fact, as illustrated by waterboarding, reason can be used in all sorts of novel ways ...
I wasn't aware when consciousness was capable of being replicated within the discipline of AI (.... outside of the writings of Asimov et al)
Sure
That doesn't mean that every dream (aka dream of Asimov) can be realized by science.
Hence the contribution of "science" to whole dream/aspiration thing is secondary.
IOW it has no claim for laying a consensus to morality if it is applied "properly" since we all recognize how it is "important" in the same fashion.
I agree that humanity is intuitively hooked up to ideas of transcendence.
Sure
But essential components of morality (such as justice, guilt and reward for example) certainly don't gain anything from a more detailed examination of the physical world.
Anything can give rise to a moral position or a changed perspective of social norms. The problem is that you assume that science, by its nature, changes us in a uniform, morally uplifting way.
I find this notion strange since science and technology, despite giving us many increased benefits, certainly don't give us increased jolliness.
(check out the WHO statistics on which countries boast the most happy populations and see where the OECD countries stand)
"Unpacking how it is viewed as "important" reveals a host of values that often wind up contradictory when viewed by variegated communities. History illustrates this clearly."
I do calculate the velocity of galaxies and with this calculation I can predict the expansion rate of the universe. I still do not know every single force in cosmos (dark energy or dark matter). But my calculations pay. No matter what community, individual do believe or not believe. I can observe, calculate, repeat and get predicted results every single time. That's how I can use science in technology as well. This knowledge, once proven, is important, because it is above human perception. It is about the pattern of physical world. This knowledge can be consumed by any intelligence, and not necessarily only by humans: If there are alien civilizations, or if humans can make conscious AI s, they will also have to use, obey and deal with certain number of protons in this atom, or certain genetic codes in certain living organisms. They, or changing society of ours can apply different methods to crack these codes; but these natural systems have their own relatively independent set of rules. This knowledge was there before humans, they will possibly be there after humans (at least they can continue without humans), The "importance" is not so relative, at the end of the day, even if you want to make changes to the rule, you have to understand it with set of knowledge.
Consensus? Science tells me that I can send and receive radio waves with certain frequency. Satellites and communication work. I do not need any consensus on this. It works simple as that. If some people are not agree on the mechanism of the device, they can either speculate, or believe that some mystic thing is going on (like they invented various divine explanations for thousands of years just to explain why rain falls, why there is night and day, etc.), or better, they can come up with an alternative mechanism, and it’d better work. Not something like telepathy. We are not trying to find a best groom for the bride; we are trying to predict if we can survive after any possible –because they happened before- catastrophes (asteroid hit; climate change; diseases; energy problem; just name it). Consensus may play part in which one is more likely than other, not on the fact that they exist and not on their causes: Earthquakes are about the movements of continental plates. You just calculate where your city will end up in 100 million years –if everything else remain same-, as well as where it was 100 million years ago.
“Any work ethic has the requirement to meet an aim”
Life is also a kind of work. It has mechanism(s). Moral values or opinions are not package software. Where do you get them? From other humans. Where do they get them? Like all of us, from their environment: Church, family, school, friends, work, hobbies, jail, war and so on. Some perceptions through experiencing and thinking on people, events, society and many other areas of human life have been coded as moral values. Different societies, different occupations and engagements contribute, as well as effect and create this valuation process. On what ground we can separate scientific tradition and its effects on moral valuation. Think about Darwin: If he preferred Church’s explanation over his own findings, the theory of evolution could have a different history. His moral choice persuaded him to continue on his work.
“Its not clear how the trickle down effect of a paleontologist work ethic has any bearing on the morality of the community at large.”
Respect and appreciation, alongside with disrespect and curse, are very much related with moral judgement. Some of our (community at large) basic moral values and judgements come from historical stories. And these stories have heroes and villains, wars, difficult conditions, etc. They tell us how should we treat others, to country, to family and most of us circulate our understanding around them. Everything accumulates and processed in our poor brains and we develop judgements.
Science has already put the world and nature in front of us as subjects which deserve great deal of appreciation, attention and respect (even if you want to reduce it to “respect because of the fear”). Science has also stories, heroes, values and history. If you put the story of a palaeontologist, his or her work ethic, findings, how he or she treats the part of the great existence of universe, how important a bone can be, and where does human being stands in this history; would they make an effect on morals of new generation? (Your answer would be none, since science is an isolated mechanic repetition, and it does make any effect on moral) . What kind of moral result(s) would you expect getting from the new generation? Will they beat each other with bones? Maybe, but not because of what they found in the palaeontologist is nothing but boredom; but because other moral stories are privileged over the one that scientist involved.
Scientists find themselves in situations involved with joys, knowledge, sharing the knowledge, finding evidence, searching for what is really going on. But they follow either non-moral lifestyle where no judgement is attached when they think about wars, hunger, poverty and inequality. They do not hate, so they can work for Americans as well as they can work for Hitler? Overall, it does not matter who they are working for, because science is dealing with bigger realities. Yes it does, but through the channels of human mind.
And I do not claim that:
“The problem is that you assume that science, by its nature, changes us in a uniform, morally uplifting way.”
What I claim that, science CAN BE used as morally uplifting way. This is a choice. This is an option. This is arbitrary. This depends on intention. Not by nature. By politics and design. If we want to see less ignorant, more just and peaceful human existence in individual and global level. I am not saying that science is the only way to do that, I am saying that science has a great deal of “potential” for this, and it CAN BE employed in this way. You are claiming that:
“But essential components of morality (such as justice, guilt and reward for example) certainly don't gain anything from a more detailed examination of the physical world.” I say that you can get, deduce, and obtain ANYTHING from ANY world you wish: That’s how some people started to feel “guilt” when they consider their individual role in global environmental changes. Can any other moral source make feel a person guilty about burning fossil fuel? No. Science and valuing scientific examination can give that. How can pure scientific data help us to get an opinion on other moral issues such as abortion? It is up to us. Not nature.
If you like to compare statistics from accepted organisations, you can try to see how the level of scientific engagement plays important role in the development, problem solving, producing alternatives, number of deaths due to lack of basic sanitation and many other small and big issues. What type of reactions are given towards any newly emerging issues? You can find great deal of scientific activity and regulations (law, general health criteria, distribution of basic needs) behind these OECD countries. At least they can support their dream with science.
I have no intention to say anything about conscious AIs. Because I strongly believe(!) that we -as species- have already become somehow, kind of, Artificial Intelligence comparing to the rest of nature. Some principles of mechanisms (like eating, coupling, and/dying) are similar to other animals; but our societies and the way we approach things are quite artificial: Forget about the world of millions of unnatural gadgets and ideas we are living in; We wear things and cover our "privates"; how can you get "more artificial" than this? Obviously because of our morals...
I do calculate the velocity of galaxies and with this calculation I can predict the expansion rate of the universe. I still do not know every single force in cosmos (dark energy or dark matter). But my calculations pay. No matter what community, individual do believe or not believe. I can observe, calculate, repeat and get predicted results every single time. That's how I can use science in technology as well. This knowledge, once proven, is important, because it is above human perception. It is about the pattern of physical world. This knowledge can be consumed by any intelligence, and not necessarily only by humans: If there are alien civilizations, or if humans can make conscious AI s, they will also have to use, obey and deal with certain number of protons in this atom, or certain genetic codes in certain living organisms. They, or changing society of ours can apply different methods to crack these codes; but these natural systems have their own relatively independent set of rules. This knowledge was there before humans, they will possibly be there after humans (at least they can continue without humans), The "importance" is not so relative, at the end of the day, even if you want to make changes to the rule, you have to understand it with set of knowledge.
Consensus? Science tells me that I can send and receive radio waves with certain frequency. Satellites and communication work. I do not need any consensus on this. It works simple as that. If some people are not agree on the mechanism of the device, they can either speculate, or believe that some mystic thing is going on (like they invented various divine explanations for thousands of years just to explain why rain falls, why there is night and day, etc.), or better, they can come up with an alternative mechanism, and it’d better work. Not something like telepathy. We are not trying to find a best groom for the bride; we are trying to predict if we can survive after any possible –because they happened before- catastrophes (asteroid hit; climate change; diseases; energy problem; just name it). Consensus may play part in which one is more likely than other, not on the fact that they exist and not on their causes: Earthquakes are about the movements of continental plates. You just calculate where your city will end up in 100 million years –if everything else remain same-, as well as where it was 100 million years ago.
“Any work ethic has the requirement to meet an aim”
Life is also a kind of work. It has mechanism(s). Moral values or opinions are not package software. Where do you get them? From other humans. Where do they get them? Like all of us, from their environment: Church, family, school, friends, work, hobbies, jail, war and so on. Some perceptions through experiencing and thinking on people, events, society and many other areas of human life have been coded as moral values. Different societies, different occupations and engagements contribute, as well as effect and create this valuation process. On what ground we can separate scientific tradition and its effects on moral valuation. Think about Darwin: If he preferred Church’s explanation over his own findings, the theory of evolution could have a different history. His moral choice persuaded him to continue on his work.
“Its not clear how the trickle down effect of a paleontologist work ethic has any bearing on the morality of the community at large.”
Respect and appreciation, alongside with disrespect and curse, are very much related with moral judgement. Some of our (community at large) basic moral values and judgements come from historical stories. And these stories have heroes and villains, wars, difficult conditions, etc. They tell us how should we treat others, to country, to family and most of us circulate our understanding around them. Everything accumulates and processed in our poor brains and we develop judgements.
Science has already put the world and nature in front of us as subjects which deserve great deal of appreciation, attention and respect (even if you want to reduce it to “respect because of the fear”). Science has also stories, heroes, values and history. If you put the story of a palaeontologist, his or her work ethic, findings, how he or she treats the part of the great existence of universe, how important a bone can be, and where does human being stands in this history; would they make an effect on morals of new generation? (Your answer would be none, since science is an isolated mechanic repetition, and it does make any effect on moral) . What kind of moral result(s) would you expect getting from the new generation? Will they beat each other with bones? Maybe, but not because of what they found in the palaeontologist is nothing but boredom; but because other moral stories are privileged over the one that scientist involved.
Scientists find themselves in situations involved with joys, knowledge, sharing the knowledge, finding evidence, searching for what is really going on. But they follow either non-moral lifestyle where no judgement is attached when they think about wars, hunger, poverty and inequality. They do not hate, so they can work for Americans as well as they can work for Hitler? Overall, it does not matter who they are working for, because science is dealing with bigger realities. Yes it does, but through the channels of human mind.
And I do not claim that:
“The problem is that you assume that science, by its nature, changes us in a uniform, morally uplifting way.”
What I claim that, science CAN BE used as morally uplifting way. This is a choice. This is an option. This is arbitrary. This depends on intention. Not by nature. By politics and design. If we want to see less ignorant, more just and peaceful human existence in individual and global level. I am not saying that science is the only way to do that, I am saying that science has a great deal of “potential” for this, and it CAN BE employed in this way. You are claiming that:
“But essential components of morality (such as justice, guilt and reward for example) certainly don't gain anything from a more detailed examination of the physical world.” I say that you can get, deduce, and obtain ANYTHING from ANY world you wish: That’s how some people started to feel “guilt” when they consider their individual role in global environmental changes. Can any other moral source make feel a person guilty about burning fossil fuel? No. Science and valuing scientific examination can give that. How can pure scientific data help us to get an opinion on other moral issues such as abortion? It is up to us. Not nature.
If you like to compare statistics from accepted organisations, you can try to see how the level of scientific engagement plays important role in the development, problem solving, producing alternatives, number of deaths due to lack of basic sanitation and many other small and big issues. What type of reactions are given towards any newly emerging issues? You can find great deal of scientific activity and regulations (law, general health criteria, distribution of basic needs) behind these OECD countries. At least they can support their dream with science.
I have no intention to say anything about conscious AIs. Because I strongly believe(!) that we -as species- have already become somehow, kind of, Artificial Intelligence comparing to the rest of nature. Some principles of mechanisms (like eating, coupling, and/dying) are similar to other animals; but our societies and the way we approach things are quite artificial: Forget about the world of millions of unnatural gadgets and ideas we are living in; We wear things and cover our "privates"; how can you get "more artificial" than this? Obviously because of our morals...
Last edited:
I would say it is mainly because you don't live with many artists. I assure you extended arguments about the best color most definitely happen and can get quite heated. You can kick one off by picking something say teal and saying you don't like how that blue looks.
Mere opinion need not be based on anything.
Relative doesn't mean there is no right or wrong or that everything is just opinion, it only means that things like right and wrong are dependent upon external factors like context and not obsolute.
You have YOUR own values that only YOU will abide by, then you must decide if you want to abide by the laws of others that write laws to protect everyone.