Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Are they defining the word the same way?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-03-2016, 12:52 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I thought I made it clear what the purpose is, life.

I know what the purpose is. The nature of the purpose is not the point. The point is that the selection of the purpose that should be followed is itself a value judgment. Value judgments are subjective.

(24-03-2016 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So you are saying that morality has no relation to life.

No, I am stating that your argument fails to establish that connection, and so fails to prove that objective morality exists.

(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

Not in the sense that moral objectivists would wish it, no.

(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

Because it is, in the most technical sense.

As per usual, the supposed conflict between Chas and myself comes down to the fact that I tend towards using terms in their most literal sense, while Chas takes a more utilitarian route. I say "morality is subjective" meaning "morality is not based on any sort of universal law and comes down to value judgments"; Chas says "morality is not subjective" meaning "morality is not based on any sort of universal law and comes down to value judgments, but these value judgments are not wholly arbitrary in that they are influenced by biological and other influences, so the term 'subjective' is far too simplistic".

Which I do not disagree with. I just tend towards compartmentalization of such topics, and handle issues one at a time, so I have no qualms about using such terms.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
24-03-2016, 12:56 PM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Fact, Chas lacks a belief that morality is subjective, finding that category inappropriate.

Chas disagrees with Unbelievers contention that morality is obviously subjective.

Are they defining the word the same way?

I'd let unbeliever and the elusive Chaswick argue that

"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, 12:58 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So you are saying that morality has no relation to life.

No, I am stating that your argument fails to establish that connection, and so fails to prove that objective morality exists.

What, "existence exists therefore I'm right" isn't good enough?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Are they defining the word the same way?

I'd let unbeliever and the elusive Chaswick argue that

So by admitting you don't know, you are admitting that you don't, in fact, know that they actually disagree.

Unlike what you just stated.

Real smooth.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 01:01 PM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I thought I made it clear what the purpose is, life.

I know what the purpose is. The nature of the purpose is not the point. The point is that the selection of the purpose that should be followed is itself a value judgment. Value judgments are subjective.

(24-03-2016 08:29 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So you are saying that morality has no relation to life.

No, I am stating that your argument fails to establish that connection, and so fails to prove that objective morality exists.

(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

Not in the sense that moral objectivists would wish it, no.

(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

Because it is, in the most technical sense.

As per usual, the supposed conflict between Chas and myself comes down to the fact that I tend towards using terms in their most literal sense, while Chas takes a more utilitarian route. I say "morality is subjective" meaning "morality is not based on any sort of universal law and comes down to value judgments"; Chas says "morality is not subjective" meaning "morality is not based on any sort of universal law and comes down to value judgments, but these value judgments are not wholly arbitrary in that they are influenced by biological and other influences, so the term 'subjective' is far too simplistic".

Which I do not disagree with. I just tend towards compartmentalization of such topics, and handle issues one at a time, so I have no qualms about using such terms.

So given unbelievers definition will both Chas and DLJ agree 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
24-03-2016, 01:01 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.
Nerd Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
24-03-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

No, I disagree that morality is adequately described by the idea 'subjective'.
That is why it is a false dichotomy - it is not the only factor.

Of course our moral choices are subjective to one degree or another since there is no objective scale on which to measure.
The only scales are created by people and are therefore not objective.

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, 01:03 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 01:01 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You realize that is relative to a radix right? I guess it is objective given a radix but it is no way absolute.
Nerd Dodgy

Without nerds, you wouldn't have a helicopter to fuck around with. No

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-03-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 01:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 01:01 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Nerd Dodgy

Without nerds, you wouldn't have a helicopter to fuck around with. No
Objective statement (GirlyMan is a nerd). Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: