For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
I tried and it was not good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(12-03-2014 12:04 PM)donotwant Wrote:  We are comparing subjectivity of health to subjectivity of morality.
I am saying that health and morals are objective but morality only concerns other individuals not the individual himself. Which means I can do whatever I want as long as it does not harm others or infringes upon my autonomy.

Also people can choose to stay unhealthy but they can't say they are healthy if they aren't.

I do not understand this comparison. Health is objective morality is not.
If one person says tooth decay is healthy and another say it is not, you can prove one person wrong with evidence and fact.
If one person says it is morally acceptable to shoot an intruder in the head and one person says it is not, you can only use facts and evidence to prove what is legal you cannot prove either of them wrong.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(12-03-2014 12:19 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I tried and it was not good.
What did you mean when you said
(12-03-2014 11:56 AM)donotwant Wrote:  To me morality is about relation of creature to other creatures.

Does killing and eating another animal count as being moral or immoral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(12-03-2014 12:25 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 12:19 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I tried and it was not good.
What did you mean when you said
(12-03-2014 11:56 AM)donotwant Wrote:  To me morality is about relation of creature to other creatures.

Does killing and eating another animal count as being moral or immoral?

Not immoral until replacement will be found^^
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(12-03-2014 12:27 PM)donotwant Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 12:25 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What did you mean when you said

Does killing and eating another animal count as being moral or immoral?

Not immoral until replacement will be found^^
Humans are omnivores, we can eat vegetables and/or meat.
Is it immoral for omnivores to eat meat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
I told you I tried and it wasn't good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(12-03-2014 12:37 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I told you I tried and it wasn't good.
What does "wasn't good" mean?


Me, I've eaten many tasty vegetarian meals. I'm sure I could live happily off vegetables.
Am I immoral when I eat meat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 10:14 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(12-03-2014 12:25 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 12:04 PM)donotwant Wrote:  We are comparing subjectivity of health to subjectivity of morality.
I am saying that health and morals are objective but morality only concerns other individuals not the individual himself. Which means I can do whatever I want as long as it does not harm others or infringes upon my autonomy.

Also people can choose to stay unhealthy but they can't say they are healthy if they aren't.

I do not understand this comparison. Health is objective morality is not.
If one person says tooth decay is healthy and another say it is not, you can prove one person wrong with evidence and fact.
If one person says it is morally acceptable to shoot an intruder in the head and one person says it is not, you can only use facts and evidence to prove what is legal you cannot prove either of them wrong.


DNW is having a shit-fit because he can't get it through his head that not everyone shares his 'objective' values, and thus not everyone analyzes things on the same scale or with the same end goal in mind. So he keeps jumping around and moving the goal post because I keep coming up with examples of how these things are subjective and relative, and he doesn't like it (I imagine that it makes his brain hurt). I've done so with morality, bullies, setting someone on fire, and finally brushing your teeth.


(12-03-2014 06:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 05:57 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Well we discuss if you think that health is subjective or not so I want to see what do you mean by health. Now come on tell me.

What is considered healthy is subjective.

100,000 years ago, living to the age of 20 without dying of an tooth borne infection would probably have been considered 'good health'. Now someone that is 5'10 and 150 lbs might consider themselves 'healthy', while another person might with the same weight and height may consider themselves 'unhealthy' because they think they are either too fat, too skinny, or possibly for some other reason.

I know what you're getting at, so I'll spell it out. Yes we can attempt to objectively evaluate what choices can make us healthier, depending on how each of us defines 'healthy'. To an anorexic, this means starving yourself to get thinner. To a professional athlete this might mean dieting and exercise, or abusing steroids. Once again 5'10 and 150 lbs might just be fine for some people, but would that be considered a 'healthy' end goal for NFL linebacker? How about a sumo wrestler? These professionals have a very different end goal for what they consider 'healthy' to meet the demands for their sport.

So once again, the goal or the scale used to judge is subjective (do you go by BMI, how long it takes you to run a mile, or just how 'good' you feel after working out?); but within that framework you can attempt to make objective distinctions between which choices and actions will further your goal better (like eating lots of protein to bulk up as a bodybuilder, which would not be as valuable to an olympic fencer).

He still cannot parse the distinction between objective choices within a set, and the subjective nature of the values upon which that set selection is built upon.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: For those atheists that believe in objective morality, can you prove it?
(11-03-2014 02:54 PM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:52 PM)donotwant Wrote:  Define objective.

It exists outside of your brain.

According to Absolute Atheist that not only reject religion but anything outside of materialism ...I am my brain. If objective reality is defined as that which exist "outside my brain" does that mean that I do not exist?

That is my question is not about objective morality but about objective reality.

Is there an objective reality?

If that objective reality is defined also as reality that exist outside my brain then since according to absolute atheist I have no existence in reality since I can not exist outside of my brain.

So who is observing this reality assuming reality exist?

This is why I always say Atheism leads to Nihilism.

Though I admit I see all thinking leading to Nihilism whether Atheist or Theistic thinking. So as a philosopher although I encourage thinking to get there when trying to understand Metaphysics I also encourage people to go beyond thinking once you get there. Observation and thinking is not the same thing.

Thinking involves thoughts which is dependent on language or words. But it is the observer that gives words meaning and it is by observing that thinking becomes more clear or cloudy.

To me objective reality is a contradiction in terms. This is because once reality is observed it becomes subjective. This leads to consensus reality. That is reality is that which is outside of you than you see yourself as a subject among objects outside of you. And if only what you perceive outside of you is real than you are not real. Then again who is doing the perceiving?

This is known as dualistic thinking. The Nondual Metaphysics does not divide the world between Subjects and Objects. To see all Reality as subjective is to imply that is all in the imagination. Not only does this contradict the definition of reality since there is no one to do the imagining it leads to pure Nihilism to follow this type of thinking to its conclusion. Since Nihilism negates itself we are only left with the observer. Not the thinker but awareness itself.

You can not get to this awareness by reasoning but you can not avoid awareness by reasoning either. Awareness like the Universe just is.

This is why I am a Pantheist.

Of course if all is God then all Theism becomes unnecessary. But I have no other word for it. Im not going to say I am a Pan *LOL*

Perhaps it would be better just to say I AM .

Ps yes I think this addresses the subject of objective morality. Because the idea of Objective Morality assumes Objective Reality
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: