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.
Objective morality exists indisputably in the mind of atheists like Richard Dawkins as societies rational evaluation of values and consequences.
For any action, what will be the result?
Is free sex moral? See what the result will be and decide. A night of bliss, disease, unwanted pregnancies, one parent families burdened off on the state.
An easier option: Is it moral not to eat? Obviously not because we will die.
Atheists will tell us that Christian morality is subjective - but, from the Creators point of view, God knows and wants the best for His creation - perfect values, perfect actions, perfect results; knowing the effects His actions will have indisputably - surely objectivity.
If we are to judge morality by human rational evaluation we should watch the news and read the newspapers and consider whether we are in moral decline.
Utilitarianism in practice tends to be more subjective than not. "Greater good" according to whom? Who's to decide which results are desirable and which not?
In order for utilitarianism to hold any value as an objective practice, objective moral values must first be established independently of it.
There are universal human values. The desire for food and shelter, etc.
The fact that some people prefer some things over things doesn't change the fact that in an ideal world, everybody's preferences would be satisfied.
It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths.
I challenge you to find even a single universal constant. Many refuse food and shelter on religious grounds. And if moral values were to be equated with those related to basic physiological survival, wouldn't that create different sets of moral principles for different life-forms?
Even if one refuses food for religious reasons, that doesn't change the fact that they desire it.
There's some terminological difficulty that comes up when talking about morality. I like to say that morals are values traditionally held by a population whereas ethics are values which are derived logically.
The ethic that "food is good when you're very hungry" is universally true because (arguably) all humans desire food.
There are universal human values. The desire for food and shelter, etc.
Variation within a population guarantees that there can never be a totally homogeneous distribution of a trait.
So, what you're really saying is that a majority of the population can agree on some things. However, because these are ideas that could just have easily evolved to be different, it means that even if a majority shares them they are not objective.
Variation within a population guarantees that there can never be a totally homogeneous distribution of a trait.
Does having a brain count as a trait? Some characteristics are homogeneous. I think it's safe to say 100% of humans desire food.
what you're really saying is that a majority of the population can agree on some things
An extremely large majority -- possibly 99 or even 100% of people, depending on which value we're talking about.
because these are ideas that could just have easily evolved to be different, it means that even if a majority shares them they are not objective
Did you not read the part where I said:
"It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths."
I'm not saying universal values are objective. I'm saying that for us as humans, universal values work the same way as objective truths. "It's good to eat when you're very hungry" is not objectively true, but it might as well be.
Does having a brain count as a trait? Some characteristics are homogeneous. I think it's safe to say 100% of humans desire food.
No, the brain is an amalgamation of many traits. Also, anencephaly is a disorder that causes a person to be born without a large portion of the brain.
I know of no homogeneous traits shared or guaranteed to be shared amongst all members of our population. For any trait you can imagine, there is an opposite defect or permutation. Even hunger.
"It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths."
I'm not saying universal values are objective. I'm saying that for us as humans, universal values work the same way as objective truths. "It's good to eat when you're very hungry" is not objectively true, but it might as well be.
It may be the case that you can treat these as nearly universal, but because the debate is about objectivity we cannot defend an argument that amounts to "good enough." It either is or it is not.
Objective morality exists indisputably in the mind of atheists like Richard Dawkins as societies rational evaluation of values and consequences.
For any action, what will be the result?
You're just redefining morality to be "consequences."
Morality has always been about more than consequences, it deals with cultural beliefs.
Atheists will tell us that Christian morality is subjective - but, from the Creators point of view, God knows and wants the best for His creation - perfect values, perfect actions, perfect results; knowing the effects His actions will have indisputably - surely objectivity.
Just saying "god makes X objective" is irrelevant to the question. Insisting that god makes morality objective is like insisting that the president makes laws objective. It's a deferral of your subjective judgment to another subjective authority.
Even if there were a god and he made a moral code, it would not be an objective moral code, but a moral code based on that god's whims.
If we are to judge morality by human rational evaluation we should watch the news and read the newspapers and consider whether we are in moral decline.
Morality being what it is, subjective, anyone will tell you that we're in a decline, and anyone else will say that we are in an improvement, and both will be no more correct than the other.
Objective morals exist, although in a different sense of the word morals. When morals, devoid of the compulsion implied by religion, is defined, the word is nearly synonymous with ethics. Now ethics, a more proper word, is defined as such: a branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct. Objective morals (otherwise known as objective ethics) consist not of a "moral responsibility" to the life of others, but a responsibility to the preservation of one's own values based on objective, and earthy, substance.
Objective definition 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art>
Morals definition 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
It maybe extremely hard for one to be objective, but it is the job of all judges. They are not suppose to let any belief or prejudice influence the court. Does this really happen? I doubt it, but I'm trying to be objective about morals.
It maybe extremely hard for one to be objective, but it is the job of all judges. They are not suppose to let any belief or prejudice influence the court. Does this really happen? I doubt it, but I'm trying to be objective about morals.
Objectivity doesn't exist for living beings.
Further, all morals are enforced by us alone, and have no natural backing. A natural law is objective, our laws are not.
I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4 or that for me to walk off a sky-scraper and remain unmoved in mid-air would be impossible, there's no objective value to these statements because I'm a living being?
I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4 or that for me to walk off a sky-scraper and remain unmoved in mid-air would be impossible, there's no objective value to these statements because I'm a living being?
I am saying that as a living, thinking being you are incapable of having objective feelings. It's because you only experience a small perspective of the greater whole that is reality, so you will always have bias and limited information.
we are here because He gave us objectivity and Free will as His favorite creations...yes, He stated what we hold true on earth He will hold true in Heaven....but our morals are guided by Him..
No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true? To make an argument, especially on this issue, proves that objective (external to you, the subject, in reality) morals exist.
No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?
We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.
To make an argument, especially on this issue, proves that objective (external to you, the subject, in reality) morals exist.
The debate isn't about things being objectively true, but morality being objectively true. Arguing on here doesn't rely on objective morality or belief in objective morality.
No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?
We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.
It sounds like you only believe in physical objects, "things." My question is, WHY does anyone ARGUE, make value judgments...invoke a scoring system... where does the evaluation come from if there are only things, but no "right" or "wrong." If you say, it's my "subjective" valuation, then why argue? You sort of disqualify your self from commenting on whether morals are objective or not if you don't invoke "right" and "wrong" in an objective sense. If you say the subjective things could be actually true, you mean objectively true without intending to prove my point; objective truth, right and wrong, and hence "ethics" or "morality" are objectively grounded.
It sounds like you only believe in physical objects, "things."
You keep making unwarranted assumptions.
My question is, WHY does anyone ARGUE, make value judgments...invoke a scoring system... where does the evaluation come from if there are only things, but no "right" or "wrong."
I already answered you on this point. The issue of morality being subjective or objective has an objective answer. There are issues that have objective, factual answers and positions.
If this is too hard for you to understand, then realise that morality being categorised as subjective is an objective statement because it relies on definition, not feeling.
You sort of disqualify your self from commenting on whether morals are objective or not if you don't invoke "right" and "wrong" in an objective sense.
It isn't an issue of right or wrong. Those are moral issues. You don't use moral arguments to justify morality, because you're arguing in circles.
If you say the subjective things could be actually true, you mean objectively true without intending to prove my point; objective truth, right and wrong, and hence "ethics" or "morality" are objectively grounded.
Morality cannot be objective because rightness and wrongness do not exist externally to our imaginations, and different organisms have different ideas of right and wrong.
Chickens will kill each others' offspring as a matter of keeping rival young away from their own, and they will take territories at the expense of members of their group. The males will rape the females and keep a harem. These are examples of chicken morality, what they decide as right and wrong.
Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate). If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth. Because if he is the source, and origin of what IS, then he is also the objective "original," "model" and "Truth." Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.
Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate).
Morality cannot be objective because it is based on a subjective sense, a feeling. Saying that god makes morality, a subjective thing, objective is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."
If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth.
No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow. Also if you try to argue that god is objective, again you are making the mistake of confusing authority with objectivity, or you have committed a logical contradiction by assuming that god is all-present which cannot fit with our universe.
Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.
I'll end with an example that should be easy to grasp.
Kim Jong-il is the supreme leader of North Korea. He makes the laws according to his nature, and enforces those laws with his police and military force. According to your reasoning, he is the source of North Korean objective values, because he is the ultimate leader where he resides.
The simple answer is that he makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.
...is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."
The simple answer is that [ Kim Jong Il ] makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.
No, these don't 't fit at all: Wizards, Magic, or Kim Jong Il are not the basis of our reality, or the basis of what was made and what IS.
No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow.
No, they're not whims, as I said, they reflect His nature, what ultimately IS.
Even if things such as love, life, we're subjectively valued and decreed by God, which could be possible (but I would doubt because of the "His nature" argument) this would be the closest thing to objective morals as far as humans can get. They aren't then in the realm of our subjective values but grounded in ultimate reality.
No, these don't 't fit at all: Wizards, Magic, or Kim Jong Il are not the basis of our reality, or the basis of what was made and what IS.
That's what "god" is defined to be. A cosmic wizard, who uses magic.
Kim Jong-il is a human version of what god is described as: authoritarian, infallible, and all-knowing.
No, they're not whims, as I said, they reflect His nature, what ultimately IS.
Whims reflect the nature of a person. In the case of god, any moral laws he makes are based on his whims. They lack objectivity because they do not exist in the universe apart from concepts in the minds of intelligent beings.
Even if things such as love, life, we're subjectively valued and decreed by God, which could be possible (but I would doubt because of the "His nature" argument) this would be the closest thing to objective morals as far as humans can get. They aren't then in the realm of our subjective values but grounded in ultimate reality.
Here's a simple litmus test to show you're wrong:
If morals were grounded in reality, then we could quantitatively measure them like how we measure cosmic background radiation, or gravity, or entropy. We cannot.
Your "argument" uses a word with positive connotations "nature" to replace an equivalent word "whims" and then conflates that with reality, as if all his whims make up reality when if he did create morality, his whims that lead to its development would be apart from those whims that created reality. Do you follow?
yes. but on an individual basis only. we are all free to believe what we want. thats what we were given by the higher power.. free will. we all have our ideals on what is morally acceptable, but since we were all raised different, we cannot judge others. accept youre brothers and sisters for who they are and what they do to define themselves, not by some old archaic code we longer remember....
we all have our ideals on what is morally acceptable, but since we were all raised different, we cannot judge others. accept youre brothers and sisters for who they are and what they do to define themselves, not by some old archaic code we longer remember....
Only in as far as self-preservation. Unless they have a psychological health issue, no one describes murder as a pleasant experience. It's not th at murder is a universal taboo, so much as it will always be considered a "bad" deed in the subconscious we call a heart. To an extent objective morality does exist, but only in the interest of protecting and preserving the species.
Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species." For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.
Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species."
Morality is an emergent phenomenon based on our evolved minds.
For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.
Adultery is not objectively morally wrong, and that you suggest it is must mean you don't know what objectivity is.
That you feel it is wrong has no basis on objectivity.
If it were objectively wrong, then natural law would either not permit it or condemn it.
Well, unless you want to argue that nothing is anything and everyone is always right no matter what (which kind of defeats the purpose of seeking truth or having an argument in the first place), it means that you need to make a more specific argument.
Granted. I suppose taking fault with how obviously wrong your original argument was would have made more sense.
Morals, you see, lie clearly within the realm of the objective. It's practically part of their definition that they are a primarily personal code of behavior. Unless you fiercely believe in a higher power, (making further debate pointless) one has to admit that morals are not set in stone.
If, on the other hand, one were to argue as you already have; that everything is objective (including witnessed events, educated theories, quantifiable evidence, etc.) you are radically broadening the definition of "objective" far beyond the relatively simple scope required to cast morals as such, rendering this and all other debates pointless and making the same mistake you are now accusing me of.
No. No they do not. Objective things are materialistic. I've never seen a moral floating around, they only exist in the mind.
Sure, the mind is composed of material, but then your talking about the quantitative properties of the brain, not the qualitative properties of the mind.
I'm not sure if numbers are as "concrete" as objective morals are, but...
You say "things exist," ... you mean objectively, external to perception, though our perception is subjective, we know with certainty enough to state "things exist." But if it's 3 things in a certain group or locality, that grouping of things, or the number of them doesn't exist outside of our perception or "projection"?
If that were true than wouldn't you carry out the logic to say the "things" don't really exist either?
There's no line between objective and subjective. They aren't opposite, but complimentary.
So, in a way objective things are subjective because they are perceived subjectively, then again subjective morals are in a way objective because they do in fact exist manifested by your very physical brain.
But, "things" are more objective than thoughts an that things are rooted in the objective where thoughts are rooted in the subjective.
So I say objective morals don't exist. In a way they do, but not in the way everyone here seems to be saying they do. Objective morals exist in that there is no clear separating between the subjective and the objective, not in that there are absolute set morals that are 100% correct and free of contradiction.
It doesn't require projection to understand that one object and another object make two objects. It simply requires understanding what the terms refer to, objectively.
Labelling is not purely subjective. If it were communication would break down entire. Words have agreed upon, universal purpose which is derived objectively.
Objective things are not confined to materialism. It's not just "in your mind" that murder, rape, child abuse are wrong. We know, you know they are wrong. There are transcendent moral truths, right or wrong, that are true, NOT just in the eye of the beholder, the subject, (therefore subjective), but in the object (therefore objectively wrong, e.g. murder, rape, child abuse). Why else complain about the evil in the world, or evil done to you, if it's just "in your mind?"
Then YOU have a peculiar definition of what constitutes as "objective".
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
It's not just "in your mind" that murder, rape, child abuse are wrong.
Yes it is. If there was nothing to label murder as wrong then how could it be "wrong"? This sort of judgment is entirely based on what one subjectively considers moral.
We know, you know they are wrong.
Actually, I don't think any of the things you listed are immoral. Don't put words in my mouth (or rather, project your prejudices onto me).
So I suppose I'm proof that you are wrong. If these things are objectively wrong then I wouldn't be able to truthfully deny them. Walls are objective, I can't pass through them regardless of if I deny their objectivity. But, I can absolutely chose what I view as immoral - if anything. Therefore, morality is subjective.
There are transcendent moral truths, right or wrong, that are true, NOT just in the eye of the beholder, the subject, (therefore subjective), but in the object (therefore objectively wrong, e.g. murder, rape, child abuse).
Again, an act isn't "immoral" until one labels it so. There's no objective immoral acts, it's purely an invention.
Show me an act that is immoral without being labeled immoral. It's impossible, you will never succeed because for the act to be immoral you would FIRST have to label it as such. Understand?
Why else complain about the evil in the world, or evil done to you, if it's just "in your mind?"
Show me where exactly in my comment did I even once complain about the "evil" in the world.
You can't, because I didn't. Stop straw-manning me, you're not fooling anyone.
While the arguments you were disputing were silly to say morals don't exist in the mind, it's also silly to assume that because it's in the mind it doesn't have a distinct purpose to it. Pain, for example, is a mind trick. It lets us know that our body is being damaged and that we need to stop before we hurt ourselves. Who's to say that gut-churning feeling we get when we do something universally unacceptable isn't an instinct or a built-in self-preservation mechanism.
it's also silly to assume that because it's in the mind it doesn't have a distinct purpose to it. Pain, for example, is a mind trick. It lets us know that our body is being damaged and that we need to stop before we hurt ourselves. Who's to say that gut-churning feeling we get when we do something universally unacceptable isn't an instinct or a built-in self-preservation mechanism.
It doesn't matter if morals like pain have a utility in this debate. What matters is whether morals exist outside of our perceptions.
The conscience isn't a natural thing found in the mind. It is a mechanism built into children by society. It is a means to control a child's rebellious behavior. If you never teach a child that thievery is "wrong", they will steal constantly as long as theft remains beneficial for them.
Fear is a natural thing, you don't need to teach children fear. But, things like morals and conscience must be built in over time.
The conscience isn't a natural thing found in the mind. It is a mechanism built into children by society.
This isn't true in the slightest. Conscionable behavior held dear by the majority of society is foundational to human civilization. Man is able to function outside of a state of nature because he holds certain moral precepts valid and worthwhile, and his appreciation of those precepts demonstrably evolved over thousands of years, leaving traces of that appreciation in varying degrees in less advanced species as well.
Man's reticence to engage in acts of theft and murder developed as part of his evolution, not as some bullshit societal norm.
Conscionable behavior held dear by the majority of society is foundational to human civilization.
Actually, people willing to live near each other is the foundation of civilization. Besides, what you just said shows conscience is a societal mechanism, not the contrary. XD
Man is able to function outside of a state of nature
This too is testimony to conscience NOT being a natural thing... perhaps you should read your comments aloud to yourself before you post them from now on.=/
and his appreciation of those precepts demonstrably evolved over thousands of years,
This factually not true. Even in the time of Socrates you could find philosophers everywhere, each with a different philosophy on morals. There were utilitarians, ethical relativists, deontologicalists, etc. etc. etc.
If you're talking about Lloyd DeMause's work on psycho-history then you must understand that he is studying the general insanity of society through the ages and this is what you are connecting to morality, general insanity.
leaving traces of that appreciation in varying degrees in less advanced species as well.
Irrelevant and factually not true. Chimps won't "feel bad" about stealing from another chimp. Baboons won't remorse when they murder another baboon in a fight.
Besides, if this top-down hierarchy of conscience you're talking about is true then it means morals are NOT emergent and thus unnatural. Your statements are, once again, testimony to the unnatural mechanism of the conscience. XD
Man's reticence to engage in acts of theft and murder developed as part of his evolution, not as some bullshit societal norm.
Murder, perhaps, because NOT killing each other is needed for civilization. But, things like thievery are 100% based on society. Children steal all the time. they don't stop until the idea that thievery is wrong is instilled into them. Or, the child will, on their own, learn that stealing inspires a mistrust in his peers and ruins his reputation.
That would stop the child from stealing and not once must he feel remorse for doing it. Morality just isn't a necessity for civilization.
Side note: that AD you linked as "supporting evidence" means nothing as none of his arguments are outlined in the review (as one would expect) so it's impossible to get any context on the book content unless I buy it. Which I'm obviously NOT going to do.
I doubt you've even read that book since it doesn't even go on sale until October... which means you actually had the nerve to link and ad promoting a book you haven't read just so you could seem like you had at least SOME evidence backing you.
Besides, from what the reviews imply, this book set out to prove that one can a have a moral code without being in a religion. This in NO WAY stands antithesis to the conscience being a social construct.
No, I don't. You're just wrong a lot. I'd do the same for anyone else. =p
Besides, what you just said shows conscience is a societal mechanism, not the contrary. XD
Not really, unless you're fond of leaps of reasoning. XD
This too is testimony to conscience NOT being a natural thing... perhaps you should read your comments aloud to yourself before you post them from now on.=/
Again, not really. I am attesting to man's evolution as a rational being. Maybe you should read my comments aloud to yourself before attempting to refute them from now on. =/
This factually not true. Even in the time of Socrates you could find philosophers everywhere, each with a different philosophy on morals. There were utilitarians, ethical relativists, deontologicalists, etc. etc. etc.
You've misunderstood me dreadfully. Laws against murder, theft, rape, those all existed, even waaaaaay back in the time of So-Crates.
If you're talking about Lloyd DeMause's work on psycho-history
I'm not.
Chimps won't "feel bad" about stealing from another chimp. Baboons won't remorse when they murder another baboon in a fight.
if this top-down hierarchy of conscience you're talking about is true then it means morals are NOT emergent and thus unnatural. Your statements are, once again, testimony to the unnatural mechanism of the conscience. XD
Allow me to paraphrase: "Evolutionary morals? Unnatural! XD"
Murder, perhaps, because NOT killing each other is needed for civilization. But, things like thievery are 100% based on society. Children steal all the time. they don't stop until the idea that thievery is wrong is instilled into them. Or, the child will, on their own, learn that stealing inspires a mistrust in his peers and ruins his reputation.
Can you say "c-c-c-c-conjecture?" Link a study, genius! XD
that AD you linked as "supporting evidence" means nothing as none of his arguments are outlined in the review (as one would expect) so it's impossible to get any context on the book content
I linked it because it was general enough to give a vague idea of a vast area of study, maybe inspire you to go to YouTube and view one of countless lectures on the subject, maybe go to Google and type in "Primate morality." You know, I hoped that it might inspire--I don't know--thought.
unless I buy it. Which I'm obviously NOT going to do.
Ever heard of a library?
Or do you just dislike unnecessary reading?
I doubt you've even read that book since it doesn't even go on sale until October... which means you actually had the nerve to link and ad promoting a book you haven't read just so you could seem like you had at least SOME evidence backing you.
Don't sell yourself short. I didn't expect that you would somehow not notice that the book hadn't been released. Like I said, it was the most generic link I could think of, considering that I can only embed one in every post.
Besides, from what the reviews imply, this book set out to prove that one can a have a moral code without being in a religion. This in NO WAY stands antithesis to the conscience being a social construct.
Again, I hoped that the preview of the book would spark your interest. I apparently missed that there was nothing to ignite.
The author makes the argument that morality is biologically-based. Which, granted, is not the argument I'm making, but it specifically refutes the claim you made and is not exclusive to those that I make. Here:
No, I don't. You're just wrong a lot. I'd do the same for anyone else. =p
Yeah, that must be why you've abandoned all your other arguments against me... =/
Conscionable behavior held dear by the majority of society is foundational to human civilization.
Man is able to function outside of a state of nature
You say these statements DON'T imply that the consciousness is unnatural? Wow, perhaps it's you making the logical leaps.
If consciousness is natural, then why "hold it dear"? There's no need, it would be factual. If consciousness is natural, then how is it a function outside of nature? This is a direct contradiction.
You are wrong by your own words.
You've misunderstood me dreadfully. Laws against murder, theft, rape, those all existed, even waaaaaay back in the time of So-Crates.
Ah, forgive me. I assumed your argument in the most logical manner, but YOU meant it in a much less intelligent light.
Simply because man conceived of morality in the past does in NO way prove morality is objective. This is a non-sequitur at best...
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4534969
This paper set out to show a higher cognitive ability in apes. This has set out to show apes recognize social construct, not that they are philosophers of morality.
But even if it did, this would also in no way prove that morals are objective. This too is a non-sequitur.
Ok, understand, social construct =/= morality. I don't steal things, not because I'd feel bad about it later, but because it's detrimental to my reputation and I prefer to not be a pariah.
Likewise, if a monkey chooses not to steal from another monkey it will be because he fears the disutility of getting caught, NOT because he'd mentally punish himself for it later.
Morality isn't needed for society to function, or even for an individual to function. All morality is, is ones preferences super-imposed as rules.
Even if monkeys and apes were moral philosophers, that too would in NO WAY prove morals are objective.
Again, you are wrong.
Allow me to paraphrase: "Evolutionary morals? Unnatural! XD"
Even if this is what you meant, it's still irrelevant and untrue.
Can you say "c-c-c-c-conjecture?" Link a study, genius! XD
Have you never known children? Do you think they don't steal? Or is it that you think only through self-punishment will they stop.. =/
I am proof that one can be both a moral-nihilist AND not a thief. Hell, even as a kid it wasn't the act that I feared, but the effects of being caught.
Do you know what conjecture is? It's a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.
Unless you know of an objective means to rip thoughts out of a child's head, then you're only left with what appears correct and has (can) not be disproven.
The reason I don't steal comes from my natural and rational desire to not ostracize myself. There's no morality involved.
I linked it because it was general enough to give a vague idea of a vast area of study, maybe inspire you to go to YouTube and view one of countless lectures on the subject, maybe go to Google and type in "Primate morality." You know, I hoped that it might inspire--I don't know--thought.
You're a liar. You linked it because you thought it was relevant. It wasn't. You made this reason up specifically because I called you out on this idiocy. If you wanted me to look studies up, you would have just said so. Or, at least you would have posted it in the dispute, NOT as "supporting evidence"... which it was not.
Ever heard of a library?
Or do you just dislike unnecessary reading?
Am I to rent a book from a library when it isn't even out? Do you expect me to wait two months, read the book, then come back here and continue debating?
No, I'm not going to do that. You're going to have to debate on your own merits.
Don't sell yourself short. I didn't expect that you would somehow not notice that the book hadn't been released. Like I said, it was the most generic link I could think of, considering that I can only embed one in every post.
... You're saying that because you could only post one link you figured it logical to post that which supported you the LEAST?!? I'm not buying it. You tried to pull a fast one on me and it failed. That's what has happened here.
Again, I hoped that the preview of the book would spark your interest. I apparently missed that there was nothing to ignite.
The author makes the argument that morality is biologically-based. Which, granted, is not the argument I'm making, but it specifically refutes the claim you made and is not exclusive to those that I make.
You're a fool. You assumed I hadn't read up on this topic already, when just the opposite was true to a least the extent that I could easily confer this ad has nothing to do with your position.
Just, don't do such foolish things. =/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Yeah, it's too much to argue point-by-point.
I'll just say this: Everyone has different preferences. Their morality is based on their preferences. Preferences are natural, but super-imposing them as "oughts" for all to follow is not. It is a social construct built into children that there is an objective code of behavior to follow.
Not that I would ever do such evil things--this is just an example, please understand, but lets say that, I agreed with you, as you said: "morality is subjective," and I came over to your house, beat you up, raped you, your spouse or sister, abused your child, and then killed the rest of your family... all because under my "morality," I thought that there was nothing immoral about it. Think about that picture, the pain and grief that I know you would experience. You're telling me, that you really wouldn't complain about it, because "it's in your mind" or "only a label" and so you wouldn't define those actions as "immoral" or "evil"? I really don't think you can live up to your assertions if really tested. They state too much.
Just because we label something in our mind, doesn't mean it doesn't correspond to objective reality or morality.
I don't know what dictionary you're using but from m-w.com here are some other sense of the adjective "objective":
1) b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>
3) expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Not that I would ever do such evil things--this is just an example, please understand, but lets say that, I agreed with you, as you said: "morality is subjective," and I came over to your house, beat you up, raped you, your spouse or sister, abused your child, and then killed the rest of your family... all because under my "morality," I thought that there was nothing immoral about it. Think about that picture, the pain and grief that I know you would experience.
It doesn't matter how absurd an evil deed is, it remains evil only within our minds. There are no laws of nature that find it evil, and if we all suddenly vanished one day our sense of evil would vanish too.
You're telling me, that you really wouldn't complain about it, because "it's in your mind" or "only a label" and so you wouldn't define those actions as "immoral" or "evil"? I really don't think you can live up to your assertions if really tested. They state too much.
He wasn't saying that. He was stating that objectively what you just described isn't evil because evil isn't an objective thing.
Objectivity isn't a prerequisite for outrage.
I don't know what dictionary you're using but from m-w.com here are some other sense of the adjective "objective":
Morality doesn't exist in any of those other meanings either.
Not that I would ever do such evil things--this is just an example, please understand, but lets say that, I agreed with you, as you said: "morality is subjective," and I came over to your house, beat you up, raped you, your spouse or sister, abused your child, and then killed the rest of your family... all because under my "morality," I thought that there was nothing immoral about it. Think about that picture, the pain and grief that I know you would experience. You're telling me, that you really wouldn't complain about it, because "it's in your mind" or "only a label" and so you wouldn't define those actions as "immoral" or "evil"? I really don't think you can live up to your assertions if really tested. They state too much.
Morality is a system built upon your current personal preferences. You're preferences will exist with or without defining them as morality.
You see, if I prefer to not have my wife and kids killed/raped etc. then I logically would take precautions to prevent such things.
I don't need to label your acts as "immoral" to convince myself to seek revenge on you, all I'd need to do is say to myself "this man has taken away the things I love, I will do the same to him".
Or I can choose not revenge and move on with my life. When you only adhere to your preferences you can choose without any trouble, but when you have an idea of justice you will be at odds. You may want to take revenge, but your morality commands you don't, or you may want to leave it be but your morality demands justice.
Perhaps you WANT revenge AND your morality allows this, but then that's no different than if you only followed your preferences in the first place.
Just because we label something in our mind, doesn't mean it doesn't correspond to objective reality or morality.
Almost correct. Just because we label something in our mind, doesn't mean it doesn't correspond to objective reality is correct and I haven't argued against this, but adding "morality" at the end makes this inconsistent and contradictory.
1) b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>
Well, morality certainly isn't independent of the mind, so by this definition objective morality is not possible.
3) expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
The again, by this definition objective morality cannot exist. Everyone has different preferences. Everyone interprets events in their own way, no two people are entirely alike. This is why no two philosophers ever agree entirely.
Sure, most people will agree on things like murder and thievery. But, this is only because it's almost universally true that people prefer not to have their things stolen or to be killed. So again it is a matter of preference, not of some objective moral law.
This is easily shown when you ask people about the exceptions to no murder/no stealing that they believe in. Some say it's o.k. to kill if you are attacked, some say never. Some say you can steal if you are starving, others say you can steal to feed orphan kittens - or something like that.
Yes it is. If there was nothing to label murder as wrong then how could it be "wrong"? This sort of judgment is entirely based on what one subjectively considers moral.
The same way one designates one thing "violating the laws of physics."
Is that sort of judgment based on what one subjectively considers "physics?"
So I suppose I'm proof that you are wrong. If these things are objectively wrong then I wouldn't be able to truthfully deny them. Walls are objective, I can't pass through them regardless of if I deny their objectivity. But, I can absolutely chose what I view as immoral - if anything. Therefore, morality is subjective.
This is a terrible argument. Consensus throughout humanity isn't required for something to retain objective status, and there are plenty of people who will tell you that they can walk through walls. Does that make the solidity of walls (by definition) any more subjective?
Stop straw-manning me, you're not fooling anyone.
He's not "straw-manning" you, he's speaking in general. Don't be so defensive.
The same way one designates one thing "violating the laws of physics."
Is that sort of judgment based on what one subjectively considers "physics?"
Physics isn't objective. It exists outside of our minds as reality. Attempting to break the laws of physics cannot work even if you believe it can.
This is a terrible argument. Consensus throughout humanity isn't required for something to retain objective status, and there are plenty of people who will tell you that they can walk through walls. Does that make the solidity of walls (by definition) any more subjective?
It doesn't matter what people believe they can do, for objective reality it matters what exists outside the mind.
The same way one designates one thing "violating the laws of physics."
Is that sort of judgment based on what one subjectively considers "physics?"
This is a poor analogy. Show me how to "violate the laws of physics"... you can't, but you can easily violate the laws of some-guys-morality.
This is a terrible argument. Consensus throughout humanity isn't required for something to retain objective status, and there are plenty of people who will tell you that they can walk through walls. Does that make the solidity of walls (by definition) any more subjective?
Simply claiming you can walk through walls doesn't make it so.
If I can freely change morality and chose not to have morality at all then clearly morality is subjective. If it's objective, like the solidity of a wall then I can't simply "chose" to not have morality. If morality is objective built into my brain then I would have to objectively remove that part of my brain to remove morality. If I can remove morality via subjective choices then it only exists in my mind subjectively.
He's not "straw-manning" you, he's speaking in general. Don't be so defensive.
I'm not "in general" though, I'm an individual. Debunking arguments that I haven't made just because other people might is still straw-manning, assface.
P.s. an enemy declaration after one disagreement? Really? Well, if you're so quick to make enemies...
No, you have a flawed understanding of what objectivity is. Objectivity refers to objects external of the subject which we refer to. Subjectivity has to do with our own personal experience of things, not the things themselves.
You are conflating the thing itself with conceptualization of the thing. They are not the same. Even if all humans were to cease to exist and there was no longer anyone to label or categorize phenomenon, does that phenomenon cease to exist? Do the laws of physics cease to exist if we do? No, the conceptualization of those laws ceases to exist if there is no subject to conceptualize them, but the things themselves do not cease to exist. This is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
While you may be right that not everyone necessarily thinks that murdering is wrong, that does not address the argument of whether or not they are, objectively, immoral. One can believe whatever one wants about objective facts or claims, it doesn't render the fact or claim itself invalid or wrong. For instance, you are welcome to think the world is flat or that gravity doesn't exist, it doesn't render those claims subjective, it just makes you wrong. In other words, you can deny or even be mistaken about objective facts.
Your counter "show me an act that is immoral without being labelled immoral" is a red herring and an arbitrary rule set by you. If an act is categorized by certain properties that we choose to call immoral, why shouldn't I call it immoral, why this arbitrary rule? Furthermore, the categorization itself doesn't make an act immoral, rather the objective analysis of the act makes it so. You might as well say "show me a food that is a fruit without being labelled a fruit." I don't have to call it a fruit for it to be a fruit, just understand what the category means.
Why? Why would to respond to a post made literally years ago? I don't want to read through all of this to figure out what I was arguing and what you're objecting to. I don't understand why you people do this.
Morals are a person's beliefs on what is fundamentally right and wrong, based on their opinion, or the opinion of some religious institution. How can opinion be objective?
1) I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.... Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.
2) Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true? Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity or it proves your belief in objective morality.
but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.
I did not. This is not about ethics, this is about whether objective morals exist.
Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay?
Is it okay for us to invade his country, kill 150,000+ civilians and cause incredible damage to infrastructure, just to impose (y)our democratic values upon them?
I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.
At what point did I say that everybody has the right to live according to their own morals?
Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?
That is why I argued. Please re-read what you just refuted.
Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity
Friend, I think a lot of people like you are confused and unclear on this issue and that is why your answer is confusing if not proving my point.
Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity
Why?
Because you gave your conclusion: "How can opinion be objective?" (Your opinion is implicitly subjective and therefore not to be trusted, a self-defeating statement.)
or it proves your belief in objective morality.
Why?
because when asked
Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?
you said :
That is why I argued.
Also, your strong responses and reaction show you have opinions that you believe are really true, objectively in reality.
By your own admission, you say and prove your belief in objective morals so perhaps you should consider changing sides. : )
By the way, sorry I'm confused about your point or distinction: "This is not about ethics, this is about whether objective morals [exist]." What is the difference? I would contend basically one and the same, both derived from objective truth.
I think a lot of people like you are confused and unclear on this issue and that is why your answer is confusing if not proving my point.
You don't understand, hence it must be my fault?
Because you gave your conclusion: "How can opinion be objective?" (Your opinion is implicitly subjective and therefore not to be trusted, a self-defeating statement.)
I didn't give my opinion, I gave my analysis, upon which my opinion is based.
because when asked
Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?
you said :
That is why I argued.
And that stands.
Also, your strong responses and reaction show you have opinions that you believe are really true, objectively in reality.
Why do you assume that I think subjectivity and veracity are mutually exclusive?
What is the difference? I would contend basically one and the same, both derived from objective truth.
To clarify:
The ethics of the morals are not being debated. I.E, we are not discussing whether it is acceptable to kill a man because your morals dictate that you do so (your terrorist example).
And where opinions are consistent with reality, no subjectivity exists. Get it?
Gods man, have you nothing new to say? Endless blathering about facts. We are dealing with morality, not reality. What part of this can you not understand?
You're not providing any reasoning behind your assertion that morality is anything less than an aspect of reality. You're just saying, "It's a feeling because it's a feeling and feelings aren't objective." C'mon, guy. You must be capable of something more than this.
You're not providing any reasoning behind your assertion that morality is anything less than an aspect of reality. You're just saying, "It's a feeling because it's a feeling and feelings aren't objective." C'mon, guy. You must be capable of something more than this.
All you are doing is masquerading logic as morality and vice versa.
That's the thing: it's not masquerading when you've submitted no rationale for them to be distinct.
Anyway, if we're both being so unreasonable, let's stop being little girls (it may be difficult for you, I know, but I urge you to try your damnedest) and resume the submission of actual arguments.
Can you give any reason that anything should be excluded from the force of logical principle?
In order to do that, you would have to invalidate logic itself, which would render your reasoning itself a redundancy. Good luck with that.
As you have fallaciously declared them to be identical
Then quit your incessant bitching of, "It's a fallacy, it's a fallacy, you're wrong and everyone else is right!" and prove me wrong, dumbass. Jesus, does someone pay you to be passive-aggressive or what?
logic is not the philosophy upon which to build a society, or its morals.
Why? If not in logic, then in what? Whim? Nothing?
Imagine your proposed society of illogic. Just imagine it. Do you care naught for sense?
Then quit your incessant bitching of, "It's a fallacy, it's a fallacy, you're wrong and everyone else is right!" and prove me wrong, dumbass. Jesus, does someone pay you to be passive-aggressive or what?
So you cannot prove them to be identical and so instead try to divert me with a jibe.
Why?
Because we are not logical beings. We are emotional.
If not in logic, then in what?
I do not claim to have that answer, though I would place some faith in honour and decency.
Imagine your proposed society of illogic.
Not placing all of one's faith in logic does not equate to precluding it entirely.
I'm trying to be friendly, understand you, reach common ground and have an interesting debate. Is that possible?
Parts one and four are.
"morals" are the confines of subjective men, while
"ethics" are external and objectively true?
Do I hear that right?
No. I said "ethics behind morals". In other words, morals are based upon one's understanding of ethics, though the opposite can be said. I simply didn't want to say "the morals behind morals". Ethics are not set in stone, they are the product of a man's understanding and disposition of/to the facts. For example:
A man's wife is murdered. FactObjective
The man is angry. Response to fact.Subjective
He decides that the right thing to do is kill the murderer. Disposition to factSubjective
He tracks the murderer to his home. FactObjective
The murderer has two children. FactObjective
Now, the man has three main choices:
A) Kill him anyway.
B) Report him to the authorities.
C) Do nothing.
Now answer me this, who can decide, objectively, which is unequivocally right thing to do? How could anyone? Is killing your wife's murderer wrong? Who says it is? Why are they correct? What if I disagree? The basic question is, how can anybody say which is the right decision, without employing their own opinion?
Nope. It is an objective fact that the man is angry. Something being a response to another fact, regardless of whether it pertains to human emotion or anything else, doesn't make it any less factual.
He decides that the right thing to do is kill the murderer.Disposition to factSubjective
Again, another fact spurred into action by an initial fact. His decision that killing the murderer was the right thing to do? Objective. No one can argue that he didn't decide that killing the murderer was the right thing to do. What we can argue is whether that decision was objectively wrong, objectively right, or objectively carried neither of those values (not necessarily making it subjective by default). I say it's objectively wrong.
He tracks the murderer to his home.FactObjective
Yep.
The murderer has two children.FactObjective
Uh-huh.
Now answer me this, who can decide, objectively, which is unequivocally right thing to do? How could anyone?
Pretty easily, as it turns out.
Is killing your wife's murderer wrong?
Yes.
Who says it is?
Morals do.
Why are they correct?
Logic.
What if I disagree?
Then you're wrong.
The basic question is, how can anybody say which is the right decision, without employing their own opinion?
Again, pretty easily. The same way you'd make any other objective distinction: through study and analytic thought.
Nope. It is an objective fact that the man is angry. Something being a response to another fact, regardless of whether it pertains to human emotion or anything else, doesn't make it any less factual.
No, it is subjective for the man to be angry. I am disparaging the fact and reporting reaction to the fact.
Again, another fact spurred into action by an initial fact.
A fact spurred by the emotions spurred by the original fact. That is subjective.
His decision that killing the murderer was the right thing to do? Objective.
Who is this emotionless entity you attribute these decisions to?
I say it's objectively wrong.
Why do you say that?
Pretty easily, as it turns out.
No, you made the decision yourself, making it subjective. Humans are incapable of suppressing their emotions when it comes to such decisions.
Yes.
No.
Morals do.
Your morals do. Mine don't.
Logic.
This is not about the logical decision, but the moral one.
Then you're wrong.
Why?
Again, pretty easily. The same way you'd make any other objective distinction: through study and analytic thought.
You can advise him as to what the logical thing to do would be, but you can't tell him morally, without employing your own or somebody else's feelings on the matter.
Because to take the life of another human being is to violate his inherent right to life. That's immoral.
No, you made the decision yourself, making it subjective. Humans are incapable of suppressing their emotions when it comes to such decisions.
I made the decision based on an objective methodology. Again, "2 + 2 = 4" does not suddenly and inexplicably become subjective by virtue of the fact that it's a conclusion arrived at by a fallible being.
No.
Why?
Your morals do. Mine don't.
My morals? Well, again, my math tells me the same thing universal math does. Does that mean we're both wrong?
This is not about the logical decision, but the moral one.
The overlap is astounding.
Why?
Because you reached your conclusion through a faulty rationalization, presumably. Why don't you explain to me why you disagree?
You can advise him as to what the logical thing to do would be, but you can't tell him morally, without employing your own or somebody else's feelings on the matter.
Again, logic and morality are not mutually exclusive. If you think otherwise, you're thinking of the wrong morality (which would explain a lot about your stance on the subject).
Because to take the life of another human being is to violate his inherent right to life. That's immoral.
To you, not to me.
. Again, "2 + 2 = 4" does not suddenly and inexplicably become subjective
2+2=4 is not a moral.
Why?
Because he killed your wife.
My morals? Well, again, my math tells me the same thing universal math does.
Mathematics is not morality.
The overlap is astounding.
Morals do not have to be logical. It makes logical sense to rape women, but most men's morals forbid it.
Because you reached your conclusion through a faulty rationalization, presumably. Why don't you explain to me why you disagree?
All you have done to refute me is quote example unrelated to morality, and call me wrong. Your argument amounts to "mathematics and facts are not subjective, thus morals are not either."
Again, logic and morality are not mutually exclusive.
Nor are they necessarily juxtaposed.
If you think otherwise, you're thinking of the wrong morality (which would explain a lot about your stance on the subject).
So? Like I said, if it's not immoral to you, then you are immoral and thus "wrong" in several senses of the word.
2+2=4 is not a moral.
I don't think you quite understand what morality is. See, ethics are to morality as maths are to numbers. It is, in the loosest sense, a guide to how we might logically approach the living of our lives, just like math is a guide to how we are to logically approach quantity, shape and arrangement. To claim that ethics should be the one discipline subject to subjective reasoning, that it should be the single area exempt from the laws of thought, is nothing less than special pleading. You haven't provided an accredited definition of morality that confirms your conjecture. You haven't provided much of anything in the way of evidence or reasoning, and I'm beginning to think this was an 8/10.
Because he killed your wife.
That sounds like it would make for great justification if we were talking about reasons you would want to kill him. But emotion/instinct and morality are distinctly separate things. Why should you? What moral reasoning would compel you to kill another human being?
Note: I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing in the same situation. I probably would. But I would be wrong in doing so.
Mathematics is not morality.
You're an astute young buck, aren't you?
Morals do not have to be logical. It makes logical sense to rape women, but most men's morals forbid it.
I'd like to hear your logical justification of rape. Maybe those men are wrong.
All you have done to refute me is quote example unrelated to morality, and call me wrong. Your argument amounts to "mathematics and facts are not subjective, thus morals are not either."
Re-read my posts a few times and try a little harder to understand.
To be fair, you haven't really submitted much for me to refute, so I've been made to repeat myself each successive time you fail to understand. If you'd like to submit a cogent argument, it's not too late.
For simplicity's sake, my argument is this: It is a logical impossibility for a thing to be both right and wrong. If, when asked the same question, two people come up with two different answers, one or both of them is wrong. That's just the way logic works, and it's the pattern that everything in the universe must follow.
So? Like I said, if it's not immoral to you, then you are immoral
And you think yourself a logical being? Incredible.
I don't think you quite understand what morality is. See, ethics are to morality as maths are to numbers.
And numbers are to morality as chalk is to cheese.
To claim that ethics should be the one discipline subject to subjective reasoning, that it should be the single area exempt from the laws of thought, is nothing less than special pleading.
To me, forcing one's morals upon another is immoral.
But emotion/instinct and morality are distinctly separate things.
I would call emotion an intrinsic aspect of morality. Killing children is generally regarded to be wrong. Do you think this is because of some Darwinian necessity or because we cannot emotionally countenance such a thing?
Why should you?
Honour.
What moral reasoning would compel you to kill another human being?
Yes, what moral reasoning could possibly compel me to kill my wife's murderer?
But I would be wrong in doing so.
According to what force?
You're an astute young buck, aren't you?
Ah, so you have no refutation of merit.
I'd like to hear your logical justification of rape.
Spreading one's seed to multiple mothers.
Re-read my posts a few times and try a little harder to understand.
They have been subjected to intense scrutiny and have been found wanting.
To be fair, you haven't really submitted much for me to refute, so I've been made to repeat myself each successive time you fail to understand. If you'd like to submit a cogent argument, it's not too late.
You have yet to do so yourself.
It is a logical impossibility for a thing to be both right and wrong.
Depends on what the "thing" is.
If, when asked the same question, two people come up with two different answers, one or both of them is wrong.
What is your favourite band?
Do you like chocolate?
What is your mother's name?
When do you go to bed?
What is your profession?
No shit. They're closer to synonymous.
Not on this planet or in this language.
Are you absolutely sure that you're not autistic?
Asperger's? Anything?
As positive as one can be about these things, but if I am indeed so afflicted, it seems pointless to ask me.
And numbers are to morality as chalk is to cheese.
That is not how an analogy goes, but okay.
I should say, though, that mathematics (like the logic that defines it) is always relevant.
To me, forcing one's morals upon another is immoral.
But "one's morals" is a misnomer. There are simply things that are moral and things that aren't. Unless you are a vehemently irrational person, "my morals" are the same as "your morals" or "his morals" or "her morals:" they are all simply morals. If one person chooses to deny them or fails to reason them out coherently, that doesn't mean "his morals" are just as valid as those of someone who was more successful.
Killing children is generally regarded to be wrong. Do you think this is because of some Darwinian necessity or because we cannot emotionally countenance such a thing?
It is "generally regarded" to be wrong by Darwinian necessity, which is what evokes our emotion over it and causes us to find it unconscionable. It is wrong by virtue of a logical process.
Honour.
That's about as vague as "for God." What constitutes that honor and why is it good?
Yes, what moral reasoning could possibly compel me to kill my wife's murderer?
That's what I asked you. I can understand how it might be viscerally pleasing (hence why I might do so myself), but what makes it moral?
According to what force?
Please note that I'm only as repetitive as you make me here:
Logic.
Ah, so you have no refutation of merit.
What refutation is there to offer to "mathematics and morality are not the same thing?" It's not that it's wrong; it's just completely and laughably irrelevant. Neurology and astrophysics aren't the same thing. Your rebuttal?
Spreading one's seed to multiple mothers.
That's an evolutionary justification, not a logical one. (See: naturalistic fallacy)
Depends on what the "thing" is.
Why should it?
What is your favourite band?
Do you like chocolate?
What is your mother's name?
When do you go to bed?
What is your profession?
You can't be serious.
These are all subjectively phrased questions. "You" in each question refers to a different person (the subject; hence "subjectivity," durrrr), still meaning that if you asked the same question (as in a question that meant the same thing [do I really have to explain this?]), each answer would still yield the same results if correct.
I should say, though, that mathematics (like the logic that defines it) is always relevant.
I have mathematically disproved your theories already. A refutation which you conveniently ignored.
If one person chooses to deny them or fails to reason them out coherently, that doesn't mean "his morals" are just as valid as those of someone who was more successful.
Thus your refutation amounts to "I am a bigot, everybody who disagrees with me is wrong".
It is "generally regarded" to be wrong by Darwinian necessity, which is what evokes our emotion over it and causes us to find it unconscionable. It is wrong by virtue of a logical process.
That is not true. When I hear of 40 children being killed in a bombing, my initial reaction is not "Oh no, what will become of the species?".
That's about as vague as "for God." What constitutes that honor and why is it good?
You cannot understand why honour demands that I kill my wife's murderer? People these days...
That's what I asked you. I can understand how it might be viscerally pleasing (hence why I might do so myself), but what makes it moral?
He may murder again. He also killed your wife, fool. If your morals do not dictate that you avenge your family's destruction, then that is your loss. Mine, on the other hand, demand it.
Please note that I'm only as repetitive as you make me here: Logic.
There are logical arguments for and against all morals.
What refutation is there to offer to "mathematics and morality are not the same thing?" It's not that it's wrong; it's just completely and laughably irrelevant.
If you do not disagree that they are disparate, then you must understand why mathematical examples are inappropriate in a moral debate.
Neurology and astrophysics aren't the same thing. Your rebuttal?
Don't state that a brain is an organ to prove the theory that stars are too. If the allusion is beyond you, then that is your problem.
That's an evolutionary justification, not a logical one.
Not evolutionary at all. Creating more children is the logical way of ensuring that your genes are preserved.
You can't be serious.
These are all subjectively phrased questions.
You said "any question".
You don't seem to be an authority on either.
Well you are as bigoted as I am, so I can understand why my disagreement implies ignorance to you.
I have mathematically disproved your theories already.
You mathematically disproved nothing; you phrased your conjecture algebraically.
Thus your refutation amounts to "I am a bigot, everybody who disagrees with me is wrong."
That would be a great summation, again, if you had so far been able to establish that morals are unique in being the one thing within the sphere of human knowledge that is exempt from the laws of thought. No bigotry is involved where one is actually right.
That is not true. When I hear of 40 children being killed in a bombing, my initial reaction is not "Oh no, what will become of the species?"
Neither is that of an advanced ape. Instead, it feels what is commonly known as "sadness."
You cannot understand why honour demands that I kill my wife's murderer? People these days...
I'll take that as "I don't know." So that's "I don't know" against "Murder as an inherent evil." Golly, which do you think is more reasonable? An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
He may murder again.
This sounds like the beginning of a "greater good" argument. Action versus omission. Omission is always the more moral choice.
He also killed your wife, fool. If your morals do not dictate that you avenge your family's destruction, then that is your loss. Mine, on the other hand, demand it.
There's nothing particularly reasonable about what ultimately amounts to spite.
Honorable, sure, but given that you weren't even able to define honor when I asked, you're hardly justified to act in its name.
There are logical arguments for and against all morals.
That's not how logic works, but alright. Give me some examples. And better ones than your appeal to rape, because that's turning out to be really disappointing.
If you do not disagree that they are disparate, then you must understand why mathematical examples are inappropriate in a moral debate.
Like I said, mathematics is always relevant. The fact that they are, in fact, separate studies, doesn't change the fact that certain principles are all-encompassing. The principle of non-contradiction, for example, or the fact that if you take one thing and put it with another thing, you invariably have a pair of two things.
Don't state that a brain is an organ to prove the theory that stars are too.
Dude, you've already submitted a mathematical argument. Well, I mean, not argument, but conjecture. But either way, you implicitly agreed that mathematical expression spans broad expanses in doing so.
And again, I didn't actually make a mathematical argument. I made an analogy to take the place of actual logical principles (which I'm sure you'd just deny the effect of here in the topsy-turvy subjectivist "everybody's right about everything" land of morality if I submitted them).
Not evolutionary at all. Creating more children is the logical way of ensuring that your genes are preserved.
Why is the preservation of one's genes a logical/moral good? And no, "I just think it is!/That's just what my morals tell me!" is not a valid response.
See? Morality is hard!!!
You said "any question".
And I stand by that. If someone asks you, "What's your favorite band?" and you answer "U2," and someone comes to me and asks me the same question, "What's his favorite band?" and I don't answer "U2," then I am wrong (or you were lying and I'm right, or we're both mistaken). This is not a difficult concept.
You mathematically disproved nothing; you phrased your conjecture algebraically.
I had thought that it was the only language you understood. Evidently I was wrong.
That would be a great summation, again, if you had so far been able to establish that morals are unique in being the one thing within the sphere of human knowledge that is exempt from the laws of thought.
Neither is that of an advanced ape. Instead, it feels what is commonly known as "sadness."
Sadness = a feeling. Subjective = from feelings.
I'll take that as "I don't know." So that's "I don't know" against "Murder as an inherent evil."
Why would a logical being consider murder evil? Evil is an entirely subjective notion.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Forgiveness for the loss of an eye leaves the just world blind and the criminals the only ones who can see.
There's nothing particularly reasonable about what ultimately amounts to spite.
The desire to do harm to your wife's murderer is perfectly reasonable. Following one's desires is equally reasonable.
Honorable, sure, but given that you weren't even able to define honor when I asked, you're hardly justified to act in its name.
I am perfectly capable of telling you what my definition of honour is, but it would apparently be meaningless to you, so forgive me if I am unwilling to spend several hours explaining such a concept to an idiot.
That's not how logic works, but alright.
I don't believe you understand how logic works. If you did, you would understand why it is not a suitable system by which to declare something moral.
Give me some examples.
Abortion:
Pro
Circumstances may be such that the child's life would be unhappy or that the parents' could not support the child.
Con
Some consider the act of abortion to be murder.
Pro
The birth may endanger the mother's life, necessitating action.
Con
The operation may destroy both the zygote and the mother, rendering it pointless.
but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.... Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.
It doesn't matter what becomes of people who accept that objective morality doesn't exist, for this discussion, because it has no relevancy to the truth of the statement.
Further you can't make a moral argument to support objective morality because it becomes a matter of you using morality to justify morality.
2) Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true? Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity or it proves your belief in objective morality.
That morality is subjective is an apparently objective truth.
Let's do away momentarily with your Wikipedian distinction between "ethics" and "morality." Each refers to standards of behavior, what one ought to do in any given situation where there is no other doctrine or discipline for him to refer to.
As such, morality does not fall within the jurisdiction of mere opinion.
Let's do away momentarily with your Wikipedian distinction between "ethics" and "morality."
Yeah, let's dispense with gravity so that we can argue that up is down.
Each refers to standards of behavior; what one ought to do in any given situation where there is no other doctrine or discipline for him to refer to.
If it does not refer to a doctrine or external teaching, it is based upon the mentality of the individual concerned and is thus subjective. For example, the morals of two people may differ. This implies that morality is not a definite, arbitrary thing and hence cannot be objective. Now, I have seen you use numerical examples, so I will express this mathematically:
Where morality E {1,2,3,4}
1 ≠2 ≠3 ≠4
---> 1 ≤ Morality ≤ 4 ---->
---> Morality = x
Understand?
As such, morality does not fall within the jurisdiction of mere opinion.
You say that reality is to judge which of the two people with different moral inclinations is correct, but in doing so you are assuming that it is possible for one to be "correct" about morals, and that morals are intrinsically tied into the nature of reality. To me it sounds like you are assuming your answer to the question before you make the argument. One would need to prove that morals are bound to the nature of reality (physics, one might call it) in order to assert that there can be universally "correct" morals. So far as I can tell, all manifestations of "morals" come from the thoughts of subjective beings, not inscribed somewhere in the laws of physics.
On a similar note, you say that the subjectivity of passing through walls is of equal Truth value to the subjectivity of morals, but passing through walls seems to be much more questioning the nature of physics in a very direct way, whereas we have yet to prove such a connection between morals and physics. In this case, whether or not one truly can walk through walls is objective, but whether or not one thinks they can is subjective. The only reason we label the person who claims to be capable of such feats as "wrong" is because an overwhelming majority of people subjectively think it is impossible, based on their own subjective experiences with the nature of reality.
Not really. Walls are solid, the morality of abortion is not.
How's that? The only explanation you've given so far is that people have differing opinions on it, which would be devastatingly insufficient in any other discipline.
Two people, two beliefs. If their opinions where objective, they would be identical.
You're still not really getting this. People can differ on plenty of things without affecting its absolute Truth in the least.
You need to offer something more than the fact that humanity hasn't reached a consensus on morality if you want to argue that it isn't objective, because humanity hasn't reached a consensus about anything. A good argument I've seen made is that morality doesn't exist at all. Maybe you should try that.
I think that to argue that morality is subjective essentially is to argue that morality don't exist. You can easily argue that people have personal morals, which they look to to guide them in their own sense of right and wrong; you would be hard pressed to deny that people have these thoughts. However, when you say "morality" out of the context of a specific person, it implies Morality with a capitol M, a sort of universal scale of good/evil, a.k.a. objective morals. To argue against objective morality is to argue against Morality.
I would imagine so, but you're not explaining how that's relevant; only repeating it. People disagree on the nature of all sorts of things, as I've repeated over and over and over and over again. Disagreement does not foster subjectivity. Opinion polls are ultimately meaningless. We disagree about whether objective morals exist. That doesn't make the existence of objective morals a subjective matter. Ultimately, the existence of objective morals is a proposition that has one of two values: true or false. The same is true of all things.
The crux of the matter.
Elaborate.
No, you're not. You are simply reiterating an opinion that you cannot prove to be correct,
And hey, that's exactly what you're doing. Or maybe you're not and you're just refusing to explain your reasoning to be esoteric. Maybe now we can get somewhere, eh?
No, I never argued that all opinions are incorrect; only that those in direct conflict with reality are. I say "vanilla is better than chocolate." There's no distinct factor in reality that makes vanilla better than chocolate (this could be disputed, I'm just giving an example). My opinion is therefore wrong. It's really not all that difficult to understand.
x=-b+/- sqrt(bb)-4ac/2a
People come in different colours.
Britain is an island.
Water is wet.
If you think these things are universally accepted by all people with opinions as fact, then you haven't met enough people with opinions.
Morality does exist, in the minds of those with morals.
there are none.
Either those values in the minds of those with morals represent real principles or they don't. Can't have it both ways, champ.
Or perhaps you are just incapable of understanding.
People disagree on the nature of all sorts of things, as I've repeated over and over and over and over again. Disagreement does not foster subjectivity.
Yes it does.
Opinion polls are ultimately meaningless.
I did not mention opinion poles. Their veracity or lack thereof has no connection to their subjectivity.
We disagree about whether objective morals exist. That doesn't make the existence of objective morals a subjective matter.
Right, because there aren't any. You are confusing facts with morals. If a wall is red, then it is red regardless of what people think. The same logic cannot apply to morals.
Ultimately, the existence of objective morals is a proposition that has one of two values: true or false. The same is true of all things.
U2 are the greatest band in the world. True or false?
Elaborate.
I have thrice elaborated. I have come to the unhappy conclusion that you are simply incapable of understanding.
And hey, that's exactly what you're doing. Or maybe you're not and you're just refusing to explain your reasoning to be esoteric. Maybe now we can get somewhere, eh?
I have given numerous examples, whereas your arguments are in the format of:
"It isn't true, therefore it isn't true, and because of this fact, I do not believe that it is true; by extension, it is not true."
No, I never argued that all opinions are incorrect
You said in effect that subjectivity and veracity were mutually exclusive.
"vanilla is better than chocolate."
What if you say "chocolate is worth far more than vanilla", because you like it more? That statement is true (in pecuniary terms), regardless of whether you googled it.
If you think these things are universally accepted by all people with opinions as fact, then you haven't met enough people with opinions.
I have never met anybody who disagreed with me over whether people come in different colours, whether water is wet, or whether x really does =-b+/-sqrt((bxb)-4ac)/2a. If you have...
Either those values in the minds of those with morals represent real principles or they don't.
Why? How can a moral be incorrect? There is no "MORAL GOD(!)".
Or perhaps you are just incapable of understanding.
Never know until you try, eh, scamp?
Yes it does.
Wanna qualify that, Tim?
I did not mention opinion poles.
Neither did I, hurr.
Right, because there aren't any.
Wanna qualify that, Tim?
U2 are the greatest band in the world. True or false?
False.
I have given numerous examples
How about quoting one (that is, if you've become too weary with my soporific dullardry to make one last attempt at an actual, substantiative objection)?
"What if you say "chocolate is worth far more than vanilla", because you like it more?"
That's an objective fact objective regardless of your motivation for saying it, but one unrelated to the question at hand. Quality and monetary value are often disparate, and to point to its monetary value as an indicator of quality would be a non-sequitur.
I have never met anybody who disagreed with me over whether people come in different colours, whether water is wet, or whether x really does =-b+/-sqrt((bxb)-4ac)/2a. If you have...
You don't seem like the kind of guy who does a lot of meeting.
I've met several people who contend that people don't come in different colors, learned of a guy who most decidedly believed that water was not wet when I first started studying philosophy, and encountered dozens who claim not to actually "believe" in math.
But hey, everyone's opinions are valid, right? It's all subjective. All a matter of opinion. Everybody is right about everything all the time, every notion served is equal, and nothing's anything. You've convinced me.
Why? How can a moral be incorrect? There is no "MORAL GOD(!)".
The same way anything can be incorrect: by being logically disproved. There isn't a "'_____ GOD(!)'" for every proposition actively working to make it correct or incorrect; they assume one of those values on their own merits. Again, that is just the way logic works. You'd do well to have a gander at the Wikipedia page at the least if you wish to continue this discussion.
And I mean, it's generally assumed as a part of the scientific process that most things are incorrect until proven. But it's better to actively disprove shit when you're able.
Disagreement in matters of intangible values does imply subjectivity, by its very nature.
Wanna qualify that, Tim?
How about you provide an example of an objective moral? You have not done this yet.
False.
I would say the statement was true. Why do you consider the statement to be wrong? Because you don't like U2 as much as another band?
How about quoting one
Abortion.
That's an objective fact objective regardless of your motivation for saying it
Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal tastes, opinions or feelings. Liking chocolate more than vanilla is the fact, saying that it is hence worth more than vanilla is a subjective statement.
Quality and monetary value are often disparate, and to point to its monetary value as an indicator of quality would be a non-sequitur.
That measurement of worth was not pecuniary.
You don't seem like the kind of guy who does a lot of meeting.
Why not?
I've met several people who contend that people don't come in different colors, learned of a guy who most decidedly believed that water was not wet when I first started studying philosophy, and encountered dozens who claim not to actually "believe" in math.
I stand corrected then. However, bragging about associating with a society of idiots is not commendable.
But hey, everyone's opinions are valid, right? It's all subjective. All a matter of opinion. Everybody is right about everything all the time, every notion served is equal, and nothing's anything.
Fact and Morality. Apple and Orange. Chalk and Cheese.
The same way anything can be incorrect: by being logically disproved.
I have never seen a moral disproved.
There isn't a "'_____ GOD(!)'" for every proposition actively working to make it correct or incorrect
You are once again juxtaposing moral and fact. For a student of philosophy, you don't seem to grasp the difference.
You'd do well to have a gander at the Wikipedia page at the least if you wish to continue this discussion.
I have no wish to continue this discussion, but you are incorrigible.
And I mean, it's generally assumed as a part of the scientific process that most things are incorrect until proven.
Science cannot be applied to morality, rather vice versa.
Disagreement in matters of intangible values does imply subjectivity, by its very nature.
That's hardly axiomatic. Elaboration is necessary.
The existence of an omnipotent being is intangible. People disagree about it. So, in following your reasoning, it is possible for an omnipotent being to both exist and not exist, depending on your preference? That's not subjectivity; that's intellectual sloth.
You have not done this yet.
I have, actually. Scroll up a few posts.
Why do you consider the statement to be wrong? Because you don't like U2 as much as another band?
Nope. My opinion doesn't factor in. It's false because U2's opus fails to meet much of the criteria classically requisite of "good music." Of course, being that I'm not a music expert, I could be wrong. But all evidence of which I am aware points to that not being the case.
Liking chocolate more than vanilla is the fact, saying that it is hence worth more than vanilla is a subjective statement.
But you couldn't use chocolate's monetary worth as justification unless it were actually true. You're conflating motivation and justification. If you were saying, as you didn't suggest in the last post but mentioned here, that chocolate is worth more than vanilla because you like it more, that would be both objectively incorrect and really, really stupid.
That measurement of worth was not pecuniary.
Then why mention pecunia at all? And if it wasn't pecuniary, what are you using to justify the assertion?
Why not?
RE:autism
bragging
Hey, you asked.
a society of idiots
It's pretty unjustifiably arrogant to hold them in such low regard while refusing to acknowledge the innumerable qualities you share with them.
Fact and Morality. Apple and Orange. Chalk and Cheese.
You've yet to substantiate any line of reasoning that would suggest this.
I have never seen a moral disproved.
This is a terrible shock to me and the rest of the nation.
Honestly, have you ever actually had a conversation about morality before this? You seem unaccustomed.
You are once again juxtaposing moral and fact.
And you once again prove yourself to be quite the attentive student. Two gold stars for you.
you are incorrigible.
I'm highly vulnerable to reason, if you wanted to try that.
Science cannot be applied to morality, rather vice versa.
The morality of abortion is subjective because there are arguments for and against it, both of which are endorsed by a group of people. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, and arguing logically will make see you make an idiot out of yourself.
So, in following your reasoning, it is possible for an omnipotent being to both exist and not exist, depending on your preference? That's not subjectivity; that's intellectual sloth.
A better analogy would be "If God is proven to exist, then the persona of that God (Buddha, Allah etc) is a subjective matter". To continue the metaphor, you are saying that Allah is the only logical God, thus Buddha and Yahweh are foolish concepts.
I have, actually. Scroll up a few posts.
No, you have said that 2+2=4, hence morals are objective and logical. You have thus far failed to produce even one example of an objective, logical moral.
It's false because U2's opus fails to meet much of the criteria classically requisite of "good music.
You clearly have a one-track mind, so I forgive your idiocy.
But you couldn't use chocolate's monetary worth as justification unless it were actually true. If you were saying, as you didn't suggest in the last post but mentioned here, that chocolate is worth more than vanilla because you like it more, that would be both objectively incorrect and really, really stupid.
1) I was illustrating two points; one, that subjective statements can correlate to reality, but can also be objectively incorrect. Two, that being objectively incorrect does not render the statement entirely fallacious.
2) I did stipulate that the statement was born of the speaker's disposition.
RE:autism
I am not autistic.
It's pretty unjustifiably arrogant to hold them in such low regard while refusing to acknowledge the innumerable qualities you share with them.
I can only judge these people by the information you have given me. Now the rest of your argument is repetitive drivel, so I'll ignore it.
I think there is more common ground here than first appeared:
If morality relies on external truth, doctrine, God perhaps, as you you seem to believe, and not within subjective opinions of men, then shouldn't you be arguing on the other side (the Yes side) of this debate?
What is the difference between ethics and morality, if that is germane to this topic?
If morality relies on external truth, doctrine, God perhaps, as you you seem to believe, and not within subjective opinions of men, then shouldn't you be arguing on the other side (the Yes side) of this debate?
Some is, some isn't. Besides, religion and God are the inventions of man, rendering the same subjective connotations unto their proclamations.
What is the difference between ethics and morality
You have taken my juxtaposition of the words out of context.
You made a category error: you conflated beliefs with opinions. Not all beliefs are opinions. How do you know that morality is based solely on opinion?
First of all, opinions are not always some form of bias. But that's irrelevant.
How do you know that all morality is always based on opinions?
What we "make of" things are not always opinions. When we take evidence or good reasoning we can make scientific laws and theories or even entire philosophies of them.
There is a major problem with using "objective" and "Morality" in the same sentence. The simple fact is that social morality is subjective. That being said there is factual evidence to indicate that there are certain morals or maybe more accurately "principles" that have generally negative consequences if they are violated. Murder, stealing, lying, adultery, ect....generally have negative consequenses. Of course; some people would argue what constitutes negative consequences.....morals and values have more to do with one's personal beliefs and popular social views. For instance; in medieval times it was common practice for women to marry and have children in thier early teens. This was not commonly viewed as immoral. It is commonly viewed as immoral in our society. No; I'm not advacating teen pregnancy. Just sayin.
This is the most cogent argument of them all, but I'm still going to dispute it.
If there is factual evidence on which morality is based, how is it subjective? If we are basing morality upon negative consequences, an objective consideration, then isn't morality itself then objective?
While values may be subjective and influenced by social norms that does not necessarily mean that morality is also subjective.
Whether teens get pregnant early is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of whether their judgment is poor or not, so that was a bad example. Making a bad choice is not necessarily the same as making an immoral one.
