Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 07:38 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Where did I say that? Why do you suppose that?

So now you DO subscribe to moral nihilism?
I think what Chas was trying to say earlier (Chas correct me if I an wrong) was that it is possible for objective morality to exist without requiring a God to exist. He wasn't saying that it existed or not. Just that if it did exist, a god is not required for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
24-03-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:38 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  So now you DO subscribe to moral nihilism?
I think what Chas was trying to say earlier (Chas correct me if I an wrong) was that it is possible for objective morality to exist without requiring a God to exist. He wasn't saying that it existed or not. Just that if it did exist, a god is not required for it.

Thanks Jason,

I was actually referring to other threads where Chas had rejected moral nihilism (I'm too lazy to go digging them up). Perhaps Chas has changed his mind, or perhaps I misunderstood him. Hopefully he will clarify his position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:38 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:30 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  So now you DO subscribe to moral nihilism?
I think what Chas was trying to say earlier (Chas correct me if I an wrong) was that it is possible for objective morality to exist without requiring a God to exist. He wasn't saying that it existed or not. Just that if it did exist, a god is not required for it.

Precisely.

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, 08:17 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:42 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:38 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I think what Chas was trying to say earlier (Chas correct me if I an wrong) was that it is possible for objective morality to exist without requiring a God to exist. He wasn't saying that it existed or not. Just that if it did exist, a god is not required for it.

Thanks Jason,

I was actually referring to other threads where Chas had rejected moral nihilism (I'm too lazy to go digging them up). Perhaps Chas has changed his mind, or perhaps I misunderstood him. Hopefully he will clarify his position.

I believe you are confused. What I reject is that subjective morality means anything is "just an opinion".

"Just an opinion" is shallow and dismissive.

Pro tip: Moral nihilism is not just one thing; there are several versions of it.

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, 08:19 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 07:42 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
Hopefully he will clarify his position.

Here's something I'm failing to comprehend.

You (Matt), and Tommy and others in the past seem insistent that other people need to ascribe to some pre-defined 'position'.

Kinda reminds me of the "Which football team do you support?" question or the "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground... presumably intended as a way of categorising someone as a preliminary to making a judgement about them and deciding whether they were 'of the right tribe'.

Back then, as now, I have no answer ... even 'none of the above' seems like an inadequate statement.

I think the answer I used to give was ... "I'm still thinking about it."

I suspect that the majority of the deep and independent thinkers on this site might have developed their own 'position' which may or may not yet have an official label.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
24-03-2016, 08:26 AM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:42 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
Hopefully he will clarify his position.

Here's something I'm failing to comprehend.

You (Matt), and Tommy and others in the past seem insistent that other people need to ascribe to some pre-defined 'position'.

Kinda reminds me of the "Which football team do you support?" question or the "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground... presumably intended as a way of categorising someone as a preliminary to making a judgement about them and deciding whether they were 'of the right tribe'.

Back then, as now, I have no answer ... even 'none of the above' seems like an inadequate statement.

I think the answer I used to give was ... "I'm still thinking about it."

I suspect that the majority of the deep and independent thinkers on this site might have developed their own 'position' which may or may not yet have an official label.

Consider

I think the problem is that many folks don't clearly express there own views. Like Chas inability to answer whether he lacks a belief in subjective morality or not, add that to Individuals like unbeliever who not only believe that morality is subjective, but that's it's obviously subjective.

I think there's something that should be addressed when one group imagines the answer is obvious, and another who imagines it is too difficult to categorize.

It all seems rather confused and contradictory, and perhaps more revealing of a lack of consistent thought on the matter than anything else.

"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, 08:29 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(23-03-2016 07:18 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My conclusion is that given the goal of living and given that man is subject to the law of identity, certain actions are objectively right and others are objectively wrong.

Unless by "objectively right" you mean "serves the stated purpose", this does not follow. That is my point.

I thought I made it clear what the purpose is, life. You re-wrote my conclusion and put it in quotes as if you were quoting me, to be a certain action serves a given purpose. You are dropping an important context, namely that my argument makes clear the purpose is life. If I set out to prove that a certain action serves a given purpose then that would not necessarily have any relation to morality. After all, murder can serve a given purpose but not the purpose I stated in my argument. Theft can serve a given purpose but not a moral one. Lying can serve a given purpose but not a moral one. So how about refute the actual argument that I made and not re-write it. If you say that my argument proves it's conclusion if "objectively right" means "serves the stated purpose" then you have conceded that my argument proves it's conclusion because "the stated" purpose was life. The only way it does not prove that morality is objective is if morality has no relation to life. If you think it doesn't then tell me what it does relate to.
(23-03-2016 07:18 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 07:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  What is the difference between an action which is objectively right and one that is objectively moral. Is a moral action something other than a right action? Is an objectively wrong action a moral action?

That's also rather my point. You stated that your argument was deductive proof of objective morality, but your conclusion is merely that some actions are objectively "right" - that is, serve a given purpose, not "right" as in the context of morality. This would seem entirely unrelated to your initial statement about having a deductive proof for objective morality.

This does not answer my question. What is the difference between an action which is objectively right, given the stated purpose in my argument, and an action which is morally right? Is a moral action something other than a right action and is an objectively wrong action, again given the purpose of life, a moral action?

So you are saying that morality has no relation to life. That's the only way I can understand this. I stated in the argument that life was the goal. On my view an objectively right action taken to achieve that goal is an objectively moral action. I equate right with morality. I don't understand the controversy here or the dichotomy. But it's early and I'm only half awake.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 08:32 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground...

Huh Never heard of such a thing DLJ, care to explain to someone of non British decent?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
24-03-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Here's something I'm failing to comprehend.

You (Matt), and Tommy and others in the past seem insistent that other people need to ascribe to some pre-defined 'position'.

Kinda reminds me of the "Which football team do you support?" question or the "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground... presumably intended as a way of categorising someone as a preliminary to making a judgement about them and deciding whether they were 'of the right tribe'.

Back then, as now, I have no answer ... even 'none of the above' seems like an inadequate statement.

I think the answer I used to give was ... "I'm still thinking about it."

I suspect that the majority of the deep and independent thinkers on this site might have developed their own 'position' which may or may not yet have an official label.

Consider

I think the problem is that many folks don't clearly express there own views. Like Chas inability to answer whether he lacks a belief in subjective morality or not, add that to Individuals like unbeliever who not only believe that morality is subjective, but that's it's obviously subjective.

Oh, do fuck off. Inability? Really?

Your lack of comprehension does not translate into my 'inability'.

Quote:I think there's something that should be addressed when one group imagines the answer is obvious, and another who imagines it is too difficult to categorize.

It all seems rather confused and contradictory, and perhaps more revealing of a lack of consistent thought on the matter than anything else.

It is only confused in your mind and the minds of others who claim there is objective morality but cannot define it, give concrete examples of it, nor even defend it except by assertion.

Morality is a social construct. Every society has constructed morality and constantly revises it.
Cultures that do not revise their morality die out as the world about them changes and leaves them behind.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-03-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
I think there's something that should be addressed when one group imagines the answer is obvious, and another who imagines it is too difficult to categorize.
...

... or, as in my case, another who considers that the categories are confused, out-dated or irrelevant.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: