Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 03:03 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objecti...Subjective

I hope this will clear up the objective subjective conundrum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 03:44 PM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Can you provide an example of something thats adequately described as subjective?

Judging that one painting/color/food/song is better than another.

Quote:I want to explore what it's adequate with this example, but not adequate when it comes to morality.

Already been answered, but here you go again since you weren't paying attention.
  • Our moral sense has a basis in our biology.
  • Morals are constructed by societies.
  • Morals are taught, not inherent.

No, you haven't adequately answered the question but I'll work with you, just try and stay focused

Let's go with food taste, if I were to claim that our taste in food can't be adequately labeled as subjective you might find that a bit weird, yet you find it appropriate to make that claim about morality.

You listed some things that you're appealing to argue why the subjective label is inadequate when it comes to morality, seemingly amiss of the fact that the same can be said about pretty much everything we commonly refer to as subjective.

That there's biological underpinnings in regards to the food we consider as tasting good, social and environmental factors. What clothes are appropriate and fashionable are constructed by a variety of social influences, etc.


So what exact unique feature/s do you see when it comes to morality, that leads you to believe subjective is an inappropriate label, unlike in other commonly label subjective categories?

Is the distinction purely a matter that moral tastes, are ones you attach for more of a higher value to, that your taste in food or fashion?

Or is it something 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, 04:10 PM
RE: Moral absolutes



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-03-2016, 04:57 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 03:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Judging that one painting/color/food/song is better than another.


Already been answered, but here you go again since you weren't paying attention.
  • Our moral sense has a basis in our biology.
  • Morals are constructed by societies.
  • Morals are taught, not inherent.

No, you haven't adequately answered the question but I'll work with you, just try and stay focused

Let's go with food taste, if I were to claim that our taste in food can't be adequately labeled as subjective you might find that a bit weird, yet you find it appropriate to make that claim about morality.

You listed some things that you're appealing to argue why the subjective label is inadequate when it comes to morality, seemingly amiss of the fact that the same can be said about pretty much everything we commonly refer to as subjective.

That there's biological underpinnings in regards to the food we consider as tasting good, social and environmental factors. What clothes are appropriate and fashionable are constructed by a variety of social influences, etc.


So what exact unique feature/s do you see when it comes to morality, that leads you to believe subjective is an inappropriate label, unlike in other commonly label subjective categories?

Is the distinction purely a matter that moral tastes, are ones you attach for more of a higher value to, that your taste in food or fashion?

Or is it something else?

I'm trying to catch up on this thread. Are you suggesting that "morals" are the same as food tastes?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 10:09 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 04:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm trying to catch up on this thread. Are you suggesting that "morals" are the same as food tastes?

No. He's trying to get Chas to define "subjective" in such a way that he will be forced into arguing with me, because Chas and I tend to express the same ideas in different terms, and Tom doesn't like that.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
24-03-2016, 10:33 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
Ok guys....let's all remain calm....take a deep breath.....think happy thoughts....then throw down a couple shots and punch ourselves in the face.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 10:44 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 10:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 04:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm trying to catch up on this thread. Are you suggesting that "morals" are the same as food tastes?

No. He's trying to get Chas to define "subjective" in such a way that he will be forced into arguing with me, because Chas and I tend to express the same ideas in different terms, and Tom doesn't like that.

Oh I get it. Carry on. Thumbsup


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:03 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 03:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Judging that one painting/color/food/song is better than another.


Already been answered, but here you go again since you weren't paying attention.
  • Our moral sense has a basis in our biology.
  • Morals are constructed by societies.
  • Morals are taught, not inherent.

No, you haven't adequately answered the question but I'll work with you, just try and stay focused

Let's go with food taste, if I were to claim that our taste in food can't be adequately labeled as subjective you might find that a bit weird, yet you find it appropriate to make that claim about morality.

You listed some things that you're appealing to argue why the subjective label is inadequate when it comes to morality, seemingly amiss of the fact that the same can be said about pretty much everything we commonly refer to as subjective.

That there's biological underpinnings in regards to the food we consider as tasting good, social and environmental factors. What clothes are appropriate and fashionable are constructed by a variety of social influences, etc.


So what exact unique feature/s do you see when it comes to morality, that leads you to believe subjective is an inappropriate label, unlike in other commonly label subjective categories?

Is the distinction purely a matter that moral tastes, are ones you attach for more of a higher value to, that your taste in food or fashion?

Or is it something else?

Could you translate all that gibberish into the English language.
Thanks, awfully.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:09 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 03:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you haven't adequately answered the question but I'll work with you, just try and stay focused

Let's go with food taste, if I were to claim that our taste in food can't be adequately labeled as subjective you might find that a bit weird, yet you find it appropriate to make that claim about morality.

You listed some things that you're appealing to argue why the subjective label is inadequate when it comes to morality, seemingly amiss of the fact that the same can be said about pretty much everything we commonly refer to as subjective.

That there's biological underpinnings in regards to the food we consider as tasting good, social and environmental factors. What clothes are appropriate and fashionable are constructed by a variety of social influences, etc.


So what exact unique feature/s do you see when it comes to morality, that leads you to believe subjective is an inappropriate label, unlike in other commonly label subjective categories?

Is the distinction purely a matter that moral tastes, are ones you attach for more of a higher value to, that your taste in food or fashion?

Or is it something else?

Could you translate all that gibberish into the English language.
Thanks, awfully.
American English or English english?


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 04:31 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 10:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 04:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm trying to catch up on this thread. Are you suggesting that "morals" are the same as food tastes?

No. He's trying to get Chas to define "subjective" in such a way that he will be forced into arguing with me, because Chas and I tend to express the same ideas in different terms, and Tom doesn't like that.

No. It's because Chas is very wishy-washy about his position. He describes morality as not objective, but he also says it's not "not objective" (subjective). He sounds very confused, so we try to get him to elaborate. Many atheists fall into the trap of thinking that things like slavery and genocide are objectively wrong, or that democracy is objectively better than theocracy. Not saying that is the case with Chas, it's just hard to get a clear answer out of him.

I will also make the claim that morals are like food tastes, but you have to look at food tastes in a broader sense. One of the characteristics of our evolved sense of taste is that it can recognize the difference between things that harm us, and things that are beneficial to us. For example, our taste might repel us from things like certain poisonous berries or rotten meat, and attract us to ripe fruits and fresh meat. Similarly, we will probably be attracted to certain moral behaviors, like altruism, and repelled by others, for example stealing and murder, and it's easy to see how this could be beneficial. Another example we could look at is that some people don't like bananas, some don't like tomatoes, etc. These smaller differences in taste could be similar to smaller differences of morality, for example which drugs we want be legal, and how much we want them to be taxed. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions, just like there are no right and wrong foods to eat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: