Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 07:50 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 07:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  You not understanding my posts is not me being "wishy-washy".

Fair enough.

Chas, I will ask for clarification though, do agree that there is nothing objectively wrong with genocide?

For example, we can look to the European invasion into North America that started about 500 years ago. Someone might argue that it was objectively wrong to kill all of the natives Americans and take their land. Would you agree to that, or would you describe the value judgment on an event like that as subjective?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 08:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 07:50 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Fair enough.

Chas, I will ask for clarification though, do agree that there is nothing objectively wrong with genocide?

For example, we can look to the European invasion into North America that started about 500 years ago. Someone might argue that it was objectively wrong to kill all of the natives Americans and take their land. Would you agree to that, or would you describe the value judgment on an event like that as subjective?

Since morality and ethics are not objectively determined or measurable, i.e. not objective, then no. There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.

All morals and ethics are determined by groups of people, but 'subjective' is an inadequate or incomplete characterization. Morality is based on assumptions/premises/axioms held, consciously or unconsciously, by people due to culture and emotion. Our emotions are biological and therefore evolutionarily based. There are many things considered good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse nearly universally but that does not make them objectively so.

No behaviors are without context, making all behaviors relative to context.

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
25-03-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 08:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Chas, I will ask for clarification though, do agree that there is nothing objectively wrong with genocide?

For example, we can look to the European invasion into North America that started about 500 years ago. Someone might argue that it was objectively wrong to kill all of the natives Americans and take their land. Would you agree to that, or would you describe the value judgment on an event like that as subjective?

Since morality and ethics are not objectively determined or measurable, i.e. not objective, then no. There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.

All morals and ethics are determined by groups of people, but 'subjective' is an inadequate or incomplete characterization. Morality is based on assumptions/premises/axioms held, consciously or unconsciously, by people due to culture and emotion. Our emotions are biological and therefore evolutionarily based. There are many things considered good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse nearly universally but that does not make them objectively so.

No behaviors are without context, making all behaviors relative to context.

I guess our only real disagreement is on the use of the word "subjective". Perhaps if we were to broaden the definition of "subjective" to simply mean "not objective", would you then feel that the word is adequate? Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that morality is arbitrary, but only that there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:55 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 08:37 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  Since morality and ethics are not objectively determined or measurable, i.e. not objective, then no. There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.

All morals and ethics are determined by groups of people, but 'subjective' is an inadequate or incomplete characterization. Morality is based on assumptions/premises/axioms held, consciously or unconsciously, by people due to culture and emotion. Our emotions are biological and therefore evolutionarily based. There are many things considered good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse nearly universally but that does not make them objectively so.

No behaviors are without context, making all behaviors relative to context.

I guess our only real disagreement is on the use of the word "subjective". Perhaps if we were to broaden the definition of "subjective" to simply mean "not objective", would you then feel that the word is adequate? Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that morality is arbitrary, but only that there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions.

Not really, because the determination of morality is more complicated it being just 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-03-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 08:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.

Just so you don't feel left out, I'll go ahead and accuse you being in line with ISIS. GaspSadcryfaceHoboWeepingBlinkThumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
25-03-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 09:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.

Just so you don't feel left out, I'll go ahead and accuse you being in line with ISIS. GaspSadcryfaceHoboWeepingBlinkThumbsup

Also, earlier I made the claim that most atheists believe in objective morality, and you correctly called BS. You're right, we would need a poll to either prove or disprove that claim. It's actually a hypothesis of mine, but I hope that after witnessing the responses that some members made to me after I said that nothing is objectively wrong, that perhaps you can see that there is at least a significant number of them, and I would be surprised if the majority of atheists think that genocide and slavery are not objectively wrong. I say that nothing is objectively wrong, and some atheists figure I must be a member of ISIS.....Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 02:19 PM)ScottD Wrote:  You can definitely argue that rule of law is based on the 10 commandments. [...]
Agreed; one can definitely argue that our rules of law are based on the ten commandments, but one will also definitely be beaten by superior debate.

At any rate, in an enlightened 21st century, the ten commandments are starting to show their 2,000-year-old age.....

1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me. [Pure fantasy fiction.]
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain. [Meaningless, see 1.]
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day. [Also meaningless, see 1.]
4. Honor your father and your mother. [Reasonable within defined limits; not always OK.]
5. You shall not kill. [Reasonable within defined limits; think self protection or warfare.]
6. You shall not commit adultery. [Dependent on personal morals; think mutually agree wife-swapping parties.]
7. You shall not steal. [Agreed.]
8. You shall not bear false witness. [Misrepresenting the truth? OK under certain conditions. Think comforting a dying geriatric or infant.]
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. [Committing adultery in one's heart? No harm there.]
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. [Jealousy? Perfectly OK if constrained. And nothing more than an intractable human trait.]

I'd like you to tell me Scott, what current laws of the land are based on commandments #1, #2, and #3.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
25-03-2016, 12:43 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 10:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 09:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Just so you don't feel left out, I'll go ahead and accuse you being in line with ISIS. GaspSadcryfaceHoboWeepingBlinkThumbsup

Also, earlier I made the claim that most atheists believe in objective morality, and you correctly called BS. You're right, we would need a poll to either prove or disprove that claim. It's actually a hypothesis of mine, but I hope that after witnessing the responses that some members made to me after I said that nothing is objectively wrong, that perhaps you can see that there is at least a significant number of them, and I would be surprised if the majority of atheists think that genocide and slavery are not objectively wrong. I say that nothing is objectively wrong, and some atheists figure I must be a member of ISIS.....Facepalm

There are things that each (well, most) of us find 'wrong' or distasteful.

My concern is for things that are dangerous to me, either directly or indirectly.
Those I will actively oppose and even work to eradicate. Like ISIL.

There are also things that I enjoy and harm no one else that I am prevented from enjoying, e.g. drugs, and consider that prohibition wrong and even immoral.

But those are my standards, neither universal nor objective. They are based on the way I want things to be.

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
25-03-2016, 12:44 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(25-03-2016 10:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 09:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Just so you don't feel left out, I'll go ahead and accuse you being in line with ISIS. GaspSadcryfaceHoboWeepingBlinkThumbsup

Also, earlier I made the claim that most atheists believe in objective morality, and you correctly called BS. You're right, we would need a poll to either prove or disprove that claim. It's actually a hypothesis of mine, but I hope that after witnessing the responses that some members made to me after I said that nothing is objectively wrong, that perhaps you can see that there is at least a significant number of them, and I would be surprised if the majority of atheists think that genocide and slavery are not objectively wrong. I say that nothing is objectively wrong, and some atheists figure I must be a member of ISIS.....Facepalm

Depends on your definition of atheist, you could also say most atheists wouldn't even really view their thoughts on atheist and may of not had much education or formulated ideas of moral arguments in defined way too much in their life. According to tomasia it's the case, as 74% or whatever philosophers who are atheists said they marked objective morality as a belief. Now it was kinda a collection of options so what the range of that is and what the range of how they interpret that will surely vary in the moral philosophical. Because like some have been saying, there is a lot more wiggleroom in these ideas when you're philosophically examining potentials of moral views than the term of it being subjective or objective. even in a idea like moral relativism the range within what it means has been used various ways.

This forum, where the majority of people who vote in poll show that they're introverts and INT(J or P) types if you dabble at all in that myers briggs Jungian type of understanding. We here aren't really a great example of the range of thoughts of people. Perhaps we are and that's a fluke, though maybe that data reflects the type of people on a skeptically inclined forum community.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
25-03-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  I said I believe. You want me to prove God exists? Why am I on the hook to prove God's existence? I believe God is evident in everything. No one can prove it. Prove he doesn't exist. You can't
You're not "on the hook" mate—with all its implied negative connotations. All we ever ask of you and your brothers and sisters is to provide some sort of empirical, tangible, viable evidence that your god—or gods—exist. You're basing your whole physical existence and your entire life's raison d'être on the belief that gods, or supernatural entities, exist in the real world and offer guidance and succour and protection etc.

Surely then you must have at least a modicum of evidence to satisfy yourself into following, or glorifying or obeying this god-person, and living in accord with his/her commandments? What is it? That's all we ask.

And as you've asked the inevitable question of most theists here—to "prove" that god doesn't exist—I suggest you utilise the forum's search function. It's been done to death already.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: