Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 11:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ... or, as in my case, another who considers that the categories are confused, out-dated or irrelevant.

Yes

The categories are confused only when it's come to morality, or in general?

I'll ask you a similar question to one I posed to Bucky, which he dodged.

Can you provide an example of a non-moral subjective statement, as well as non-moral objective statement, and elaborate on why one statement is objective and the other is not.

I'm trying to gauge when it is the line becomes confusing, and outdated.

Well you asked me that two weeks ago or last week and you have nothing of informative follow ups.

I didn't elaborate though, but it was right after you called my writing confusing so I decided to give you a clear and direct answer to that.

What I said was. I am & it is. Do you require that to be elaborated on?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-03-2016, 12:00 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The problem is that many atheists are inconsistent and speak out of both sides of their mouth. In the video above, the atheist says that there is no basis for objective morality, but he also says that what Hitler did was objectively wrong. And, we've all heard (many times on this site) an atheist proclaim that his morals are superior to the morals of a religious person, but that would be impossible without an objective basis for morality, wouldn't it? With no objective basis, morals could only be different, and there would be no basis to say that one set of morals is superior to another.

The only way to win is not to play.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-03-2016, 12:00 PM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 11:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 11:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mean my lack of comprehension of your non-answers?

Do you believe morality is subjective, or do you lack a belief that morality is subjective?

Are you going to actually answer this question this time around?

If you had any deductive thinking ability you would see the answer, but I suppose I must spoon feed you.

Objective vs subjective is a false dichotomy, as noted above by DLJ, although in different terminology.

There is no external source for morality and no external scale by which to measure it.

Morality and ethics are social constructs with a biological basis, hence the near universality of many 'moral' principles since we are all of one species.

I have said all of this before, so before you go accusing someone of the inability to answer a question, check your facts.

So you lack a belief that morality is subjective. You don't believe morality is subjective, (considering it an inappropriate label).

Unbeliever suggested it was obviously subjective, I used you as an example of someone who doesn't believe it's obviously subjective, and you threw a tantrum to only agree with my basic characterization.

"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, 12:02 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 10:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  However, it would be sensible to argue that there are objectively (quantitatively) and subjectively (qualitatively) better or worse methods for determining the value of a particular stance or course of action.

Namely a decision-making / governance system based on processes and facts would be superior to one based on faith or divine command.

Are you saying that a governance based on facts would be objectively superior to one based on faith or divine command? Because that would be circular reasoning. That would only be superior should the person already have a desire for such a governance. If someone desired governance based on faith and/or divine command, then governance based on facts would be inferior. You can say that you prefer one type of government over another, but you can't say that one is objectively better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:03 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 11:55 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Objective statement (1+1=2)

You realize that is relative to a radix right? I guess it is objective given a radix but it is no way absolute.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-03-2016, 12:09 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 12:52 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:02 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 10:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  However, it would be sensible to argue that there are objectively (quantitatively) and subjectively (qualitatively) better or worse methods for determining the value of a particular stance or course of action.

Namely a decision-making / governance system based on processes and facts would be superior to one based on faith or divine command.

Are you saying that a governance based on facts would be objectively superior to one based on faith or divine command? Because that would be circular reasoning. That would only be superior should the person already have a desire for such a governance. If someone desired governance based on faith and/or divine command, then governance based on facts would be inferior. You can say that you prefer one type of government over another, but you can't say that one is objectively better.

The part you keep circling around is the notion the religious/faith based vs fact/evidence based may exactly have the same goal, desire, & result agreed upon.

If two people have the same goals with agreed on value notions but use two different methods, you don't think it's possible to figure out or judge one as being a better method?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-03-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 11:55 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Objective statement (1+1=2)

You realize that is relative to a radix right? I guess it is objective given a radix but it is no way absolute.

An awful lot of people seem to confuse "objective" with "axiomatic".

I mean, it's "objectively" true that under Euclidean geometry parallel lines will never intersect, but... we can always just swap out our axioms.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:02 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
You can say that you prefer one type of government over another, but you can't say that one is objectively better.

Governance system ... not government.

Well, a faith-based approach to decision-making could get lucky, I suppose.

Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 11:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you had any deductive thinking ability you would see the answer, but I suppose I must spoon feed you.

Objective vs subjective is a false dichotomy, as noted above by DLJ, although in different terminology.

There is no external source for morality and no external scale by which to measure it.

Morality and ethics are social constructs with a biological basis, hence the near universality of many 'moral' principles since we are all of one species.

I have said all of this before, so before you go accusing someone of the inability to answer a question, check your facts.

So you lack a belief that morality is subjective. You don't believe morality is subjective, (considering it an inappropriate label).

Unbeliever suggested it was obviously subjective, I used you as an example of someone who doesn't believe it's obviously subjective, and you threw a tantrum to only agree with my basic characterization.

It was not a tantrum and the purpose was to show your disregard of fact.

Re-read the post and learn something.

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, 12:48 PM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you lack a belief that morality is subjective. You don't believe morality is subjective, (considering it an inappropriate label).

Unbeliever suggested it was obviously subjective, I used you as an example of someone who doesn't believe it's obviously subjective, and you threw a tantrum to only agree with my basic characterization.

It was not a tantrum and the purpose was to show your disregard of fact.

Re-read the post and learn something.

Fact, Chas lacks a belief that morality is subjective, finding that category inappropriate.

Chas disagrees with Unbelievers contention that morality is obviously 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: