Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 04:50 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 04:31 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

So you hold similar views to ISIS? Just the name of the religion is different.

Got it.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 05:09 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 04:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 04:31 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

So you hold similar views to ISIS? Just the name of the religion is different.

Got it.

No, my preference is to not commit slavery and genocide, and I prefer democracy to theocracy, I'm just not foolish enough to think that my preferences are objectively superior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 05:09 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 04:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  So you hold similar views to ISIS? Just the name of the religion is different.

Got it.

No, my preference is to not commit slavery and genocide, and I prefer democracy to theocracy, I'm just not foolish enough to think that my preferences are objectively superior.


Oh okay. My bad. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
25-03-2016, 05:40 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 05:09 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 04:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  So you hold similar views to ISIS? Just the name of the religion is different.

Got it.

No, my preference is to not commit slavery and genocide, and I prefer democracy to theocracy, I'm just not foolish enough to think that my preferences are objectively superior.

Why your preference, what is it based on?
Are you saying that the preferences of ISIS are as valid as yours?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 05:51 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 05:40 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 05:09 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  No, my preference is to not commit slavery and genocide, and I prefer democracy to theocracy, I'm just not foolish enough to think that my preferences are objectively superior.

Why your preference, what is it based on?
Are you saying that the preferences of ISIS are as valid as yours?

My preference is based on biological and cultural factors, same as ISIS. It's my preference to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth. ISIS's preference is to wipe me off the face of the earth. I see them as a threat, and they see me as a threat. Not sure whether validity has anything to do with it. Is it valid for a lion to want to kill a zebra, when the zebra wants to inflict no harm to the lion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 06:20 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 05:51 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 05:40 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why your preference, what is it based on?
Are you saying that the preferences of ISIS are as valid as yours?

My preference is based on biological and cultural factors, same as ISIS. It's my preference to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth. ISIS's preference is to wipe me off the face of the earth. I see them as a threat, and they see me as a threat. Not sure whether validity has anything to do with it. Is it valid for a lion to want to kill a zebra, when the zebra wants to inflict no harm to the lion?

That sounds a lot like social darwinism to me. Please elaborate if i am wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 07:15 AM
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?

Inadequate, not inappropriate. Read the actual words I post, please.

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
25-03-2016, 07:18 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 07:22 AM by Chas.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 04:31 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 10:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

You not understanding my posts is not me being "wishy-washy".

Quote: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.

That is well-written and is actually very close to one of the points I made.

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
25-03-2016, 07:35 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 06:20 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 05:51 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  My preference is based on biological and cultural factors, same as ISIS. It's my preference to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth. ISIS's preference is to wipe me off the face of the earth. I see them as a threat, and they see me as a threat. Not sure whether validity has anything to do with it. Is it valid for a lion to want to kill a zebra, when the zebra wants to inflict no harm to the lion?

That sounds a lot like social darwinism to me. Please elaborate if i am wrong.

You are correct in that humans (and all other animals) are affected by Darwinian evolution, but I don't subscribe to Social Darwinism as any kind of a moral code, but more of an explanation of why we see what we see. I think we can look to evolutionary to psychology to help understand why humans behave the way they do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 07:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  You not understanding my posts is not me being "wishy-washy".

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