Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is morality subjective then? Several posters here argued with me quite recently that morality isn't subjective either, like Chas and Bucky, Clyde too I think, I didn't see you chiming in at the time. Is that your position?

And secondly, when it comes to the question or objective morality, different people will likely give different weights to a variety of different considerations. Factors like a core morality that seems to be consistent even in cross cultural studies, might for some be supportive of a view that morality is objective, and etc... You can dismissive of these factors, it would be even harder to use these factors in support of a view that morality is subjective.

Whether they want to admit it or not, most atheists believe in objective morality.

Horseshit. Drinking Beverage

Provide evidence.

Hint: You can't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-03-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 11:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:02 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's still one of definition.

No one has even the faintest idea what a "factually true" moral belief would be, or how it might be differentiated from one that is factually untrue.

Because it is insufficiently defined.

All moral statements are factually untrue. Objective morality is very sufficiently defined.

Provide evidence, e.g. this alleged sufficient definition.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 05:37 AM
Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 09:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is morality subjective then? Several posters here argued with me quite recently that morality isn't subjective either, like Chas and Bucky, Clyde too I think, I didn't see you chiming in at the time. Is that your position?

I said no such thing. Please provide a link to the post where you think I did.

So you believe morality is subjective?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:54 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Whether they want to admit it or not, most atheists believe in objective morality.

Horseshit. Drinking Beverage

Provide evidence.

Hint: You can't.

Can you please explain to us why you reject moral nihilism as being true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:03 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 09:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  All moral statements are factually untrue. Objective morality is very sufficiently defined.

Provide evidence, e.g. this alleged sufficient definition.

If morality is subjective, then it is nothing more than personal preference. If it is objective, then it is true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Examples: A moral objectivist might say something like, "basic human rights tells us that all people have the right to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't interfere with others, and governments should legislate based on this basic right."

A moral nihilist might say something like, "it is my preference that people don't commit genocide, but there is actually nothing wrong with it."

Also, a person who believes that morality is dependent on context, is indeed a moral objectivist as Tomasia pointed out earlier. If it's wrong to kill your baby for fun, but right to kill your baby to save dozens of others, then morality must be real and objective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:15 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 05:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said no such thing. Please provide a link to the post where you think I did.

So you believe morality is subjective?

Please provide a link to the post where you think I did.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 06:54 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Horseshit. Drinking Beverage

Provide evidence.

Hint: You can't.

Can you please explain to us why you reject moral nihilism as being true?

Where did I say that? Why do you suppose that?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:17 AM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 05:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you believe morality is subjective?

Please provide a link to the post where you think I did.

I'm asking you a question do you believe morality is subjective, or would you say you lack a belief that morality is subjective?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 07:20 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:03 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Provide evidence, e.g. this alleged sufficient definition.

If morality is subjective, then it is nothing more than personal preference.

Silly and false. Actions have consequences and those may be harmful, neutral, oir beneficial depending on the circumstances.

Quote:If it is objective, then it is true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Yes. Now please give some examples.

Quote:Examples: A moral objectivist might say something like, "basic human rights tells us that all people have the right to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't interfere with others, and governments should legislate based on this basic right."

And that is based on a premise that is not an absolute.

Quote:A moral nihilist might say something like, "it is my preference that people don't commit genocide, but there is actually nothing wrong with it."

And that is based on a the nihilist's opinion.

Quote:Also, a person who believes that morality is dependent on context, is indeed a moral objectivist as Tomasia pointed out earlier.

No, that doesn't even make sense. It is an inversion of the meaning of objective.

Quote:If it's wrong to kill your baby for fun, but right to kill your baby to save dozens of others, then morality must be real and objective.

Non sequitur.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-03-2016, 07:30 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 06:54 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Can you please explain to us why you reject moral nihilism as being true?

Where did I say that? Why do you suppose that?

So now you DO subscribe to moral nihilism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: