Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:42:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

It could, but I see no reason to believe it does. Occam's Razor would say it is an unnecessary assumption. If objectivism is true, then not only do we strongly disapprove of x, but x is being wrong is objectively true and is grounded in something external. However, if subjectivism is true, then we just strongly disapprove of x.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 9:15:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, it does. My sig is actually limited to those morals which aren't objective (I think it sounds more concise the way it is).

At least to me, an objective moral is a moral which has objective basis.

For example...

Non-objective: Abortion is always wrong, because it is murder.

Clearly this is subjective (and false), as it has been scientifically shown that a fetus is not considered alive for its entire development.

Objective: Abortion after the point that the fetus is considered alive is wrong, because it is murder.

This is objective, because while it uses the subjective term "wrong", it asserts its reasoning based off factual evidence.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 9:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My post didn't appear, for some reason. And it was so long! Woe unto the house of Quatermass. I shall begin again:

I live my life by objective thought and reason, I don't know if this is what you mean, but it's how I rock'n'roll!

The reason for this is that, as a scientist, I find that environment is the prime affector of behaviour. Indeed, environment is the only thing I can find that gives people their value systems. Genetics, to a degree, generate propensity toward a certain kind of behaviour, but they do not give you a set of values, that has to come from the environment.

This being the case, it follows that everyone is perfectly well adjusted to the environment from which they come. So being, there can be no moral or immoral people, good or bad people, but that everyone is normal according to the environment they exist in. Now, if the environment they exist in is distorted or twisted in some way, the people will reflect that in their behaviour.

If you took a young Jewish boy and raised him in a Nazi family where all he heard all day was Nazi propaganda and he had no other sources of influence, then he would become a Nazi. Likewise if you took a young Nazi boy and raised him in a Jewish family and that was his only experience in life, then he would grow up with Jewish beliefs and values.

If you went to the tribes of Ancient Mayan culture and said to one of them 'Did you know that sacrificing people every day just to make sure the sun rises is wrong?' He wouldn't even know what you meant, he can't. To him sacrificial offerings to their gods is normal according to that environment.

If you then went to a headhunter of the Amazon tribes and said 'Doesn't it bother you that you have ten shrunken heads?' He might say 'Yeah it does, my brother has twenty!' Is he immoral? Wrong? Sick? Twisted? Evil? No, he's reflecting his culture and society. Which is all people tend to do if they don't have a wide range of experiences from different cultures and societies, which few people do.

So to me this means there can be no moral or immoral people, but merely people whose behaviour is in correlation to the environment they're in. Can you change them? No, you can't, if you change them but leave their environment untouched, they'll revert to their previous conditioning. You have to change the environment and then the people will change as a result.

An experiment I did to demonstrate this: I put some mice in a box, with just a little bit of food in the corner. The mice were hungry so soon they began to fight each other for the food. In this case the environmental factor is scarcity and the resultant behaviour is greed and violence. While they were fighting I began to line the bottom of the box quite thickly with food and, in short order, they stopped fighting altogether. What had changed? The scarce resource 'food' had suddenly become abundant. I had changed the conditions of their environment (by eliminating the scarcity of the resource 'food') and changed the behaviour as a result of this.

Another example is during the times before there was a USA, each territory of the Americas was patrolled by Militia. When all the states united, the Militia for the most part disappeared. Why? Because the environmental conditions no longer called for it.

So this is what lead me lead my life by using objective thought and reasoning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:22:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 9:15:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Yes, it does. My sig is actually limited to those morals which aren't objective (I think it sounds more concise the way it is).

At least to me, an objective moral is a moral which has objective basis.

For example...

Non-objective: Abortion is always wrong, because it is murder.

Clearly this is subjective (and false), as it has been scientifically shown that a fetus is not considered alive for its entire development.

Objective: Abortion after the point that the fetus is considered alive is wrong, because it is murder.

This is objective, because while it uses the subjective term "wrong", it asserts its reasoning based off factual evidence.

What if someone doesn't think that abortion after the fetus is considered alive is wrong? What makes you right over them?
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:05:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If morality didn't exist we would not have the idea to talk about in the first place. When we discuss subjectivity, we are actually discussing capability. It is fascinating that, as a people, we don't make much progress toward better moral practices as we move through time. It seems we are stagnant. We look at these devices we are using and claim we are becoming better people, but in what way, exactly? I still look at people like Plato, Jesus, Shakespeare, etc. as just as good if not better than any of us. If anything, they were stronger and purer without so many polluting forces in their life. Would Beethoven have been greater with an iPad? I could only imagine him being much, MUCH less great.

Moral subjectivity seems to be a much more popular idea nowadays, only because our moral understanding is degrading so badly. Look at the word ambition, for example. It is a pillar of positivity for us in this day and age. We took a term that used to describe ruthless, power-hungry tyrants, and morphed it into a description of somebody who is actualizing their potential. Our culture is at odds with what is actually good in so many ways, it's now wonder that we would start to wonder if morality even exists at all. Many of the greatest, most celebrated goals we have are nothing but the ideals of vicious men. The greatest virtues available to man are considered by the many to be trivial and meaningless. And it is sad to see how broken and lost so many people are because they can't put such simple pieces together.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:17:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 9:15:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Yes, it does. My sig is actually limited to those morals which aren't objective (I think it sounds more concise the way it is).

At least to me, an objective moral is a moral which has objective basis.

For example...

Non-objective: Abortion is always wrong, because it is murder.

Clearly this is subjective (and false), as it has been scientifically shown that a fetus is not considered alive for its entire development.

Objective: Abortion after the point that the fetus is considered alive is wrong, because it is murder.

This is objective, because while it uses the subjective term "wrong", it asserts its reasoning based off factual evidence.

What if someone doesn't think that abortion after the fetus is considered alive is wrong? What makes you right over them?

I wouldn't be more right then them, but if they could make an objective case for their belief, then it would still be objective, however if they couldn't make an objective case, then it wouldn't be objective.

Objectivity in morality is a continuum as the simple fact of using the terms "right" and "wrong" makes it probably impossible to be 100% objective.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:20:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 9:40:11 PM, Quatermass wrote:
My post didn't appear, for some reason. And it was so long! Woe unto the house of Quatermass. I shall begin again:

I live my life by objective thought and reason, I don't know if this is what you mean, but it's how I rock'n'roll!

The reason for this is that, as a scientist, I find that environment is the prime affector of behaviour. Indeed, environment is the only thing I can find that gives people their value systems. Genetics, to a degree, generate propensity toward a certain kind of behaviour, but they do not give you a set of values, that has to come from the environment.

This being the case, it follows that everyone is perfectly well adjusted to the environment from which they come. So being, there can be no moral or immoral people, good or bad people, but that everyone is normal according to the environment they exist in. Now, if the environment they exist in is distorted or twisted in some way, the people will reflect that in their behaviour.

If you took a young Jewish boy and raised him in a Nazi family where all he heard all day was Nazi propaganda and he had no other sources of influence, then he would become a Nazi. Likewise if you took a young Nazi boy and raised him in a Jewish family and that was his only experience in life, then he would grow up with Jewish beliefs and values.

If you went to the tribes of Ancient Mayan culture and said to one of them 'Did you know that sacrificing people every day just to make sure the sun rises is wrong?' He wouldn't even know what you meant, he can't. To him sacrificial offerings to their gods is normal according to that environment.

If you then went to a headhunter of the Amazon tribes and said 'Doesn't it bother you that you have ten shrunken heads?' He might say 'Yeah it does, my brother has twenty!' Is he immoral? Wrong? Sick? Twisted? Evil? No, he's reflecting his culture and society. Which is all people tend to do if they don't have a wide range of experiences from different cultures and societies, which few people do.

So to me this means there can be no moral or immoral people, but merely people whose behaviour is in correlation to the environment they're in. Can you change them? No, you can't, if you change them but leave their environment untouched, they'll revert to their previous conditioning. You have to change the environment and then the people will change as a result.

An experiment I did to demonstrate this: I put some mice in a box, with just a little bit of food in the corner. The mice were hungry so soon they began to fight each other for the food. In this case the environmental factor is scarcity and the resultant behaviour is greed and violence. While they were fighting I began to line the bottom of the box quite thickly with food and, in short order, they stopped fighting altogether. What had changed? The scarce resource 'food' had suddenly become abundant. I had changed the conditions of their environment (by eliminating the scarcity of the resource 'food') and changed the behaviour as a result of this.

Another example is during the times before there was a USA, each territory of the Americas was patrolled by Militia. When all the states united, the Militia for the most part disappeared. Why? Because the environmental conditions no longer called for it.

So this is what lead me lead my life by using objective thought and reasoning.

You do know that the belief that "I live my life by objective thought and reason" is completely subjective, right?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:44:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

If by "Objective Morality" you mean morality that would exist independently of human beings, then I think it"s a meaningless question. To question objective morality independently of human beings is to pose the question in the context of a reality in which logic, science, morality, reasoning, questions and arguments don"t exist.

The simple objective fact is that human beings experience a reality that includes values, purposes, and meanings. The very idea that these and related concepts such as morality can be evaluated in some kind of contrived context that is independent of human beings is meaningless.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:18:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What a cop out answer. Morality being objective is not obvious like our belief in the external world. This is just a way for you to not have to defend your foundationless belief.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:26:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

It actually should be clear that morality is subjective. We only deem things "wrong" because we strongly disapprove of them. Why we strongly disapprove of things reduces to subjective feelings (similar how why I like red over purple has no objective basis). I don't like rape, and neither do most sane people. This just means morality is collectively subjective; not objective.

Again, morality being objective is not even close to obvious, like the external world. That is an absurd answer. Calling things self-evident only works if the things actually are self-evident. You cannot just call a controversial position self-evident to try weasel out of supporting your stance.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:27:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:18:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What a cop out answer. Morality being objective is not obvious like our belief in the external world.

Yes it is.

This is just a way for you to not have to defend your foundationless belief.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:30:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:27:03 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:18:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What a cop out answer. Morality being objective is not obvious like our belief in the external world.

Yes it is.

No its not.


This is just a way for you to not have to defend your foundationless belief.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:34:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:26:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

It actually should be clear that morality is subjective. We only deem things "wrong" because we strongly disapprove of them. Why we strongly disapprove of things reduces to subjective feelings (similar how why I like red over purple has no objective basis). I don't like rape, and neither do most sane people. This just means morality is collectively subjective; not objective.

Again, morality being objective is not even close to obvious, like the external world. That is an absurd answer. Calling things self-evident only works if the things actually are self-evident. You cannot just call a controversial position self-evident to try weasel out of supporting your stance.

By that standard you can't call anything self evident since practically everything in philosophy is "controversial".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:37:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

+1
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:37:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:30:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:27:03 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:18:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What a cop out answer. Morality being objective is not obvious like our belief in the external world.

Yes it is.

No its not.


Yup.


This is just a way for you to not have to defend your foundationless belief.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:39:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:37:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:30:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:27:03 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:18:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What a cop out answer. Morality being objective is not obvious like our belief in the external world.

Yes it is.

No its not.


Yup.

Nope.



This is just a way for you to not have to defend your foundationless belief.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:43:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.

The external world is obvious - just as obvious as objective morality. Didn't know you could read my mind either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:45:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:39:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:37:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:30:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:27:03 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:18:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What a cop out answer. Morality being objective is not obvious like our belief in the external world.

Yes it is.

No its not.


Yup.

Nope.


Yup.



This is just a way for you to not have to defend your foundationless belief.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:47:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:43:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.

The external world is obvious - just as obvious as objective morality.

Objective morality isn't obvious at all, let alone close to as obvious as the external world. Calling something obvious that isn't so you don't have to defend it is intellectual laziness.

Didn't know you could read my mind either.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:56:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:47:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:43:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.

The external world is obvious - just as obvious as objective morality.

Objective morality isn't obvious at all, let alone close to as obvious as the external world. Calling something obvious that isn't so you don't have to defend it is intellectual laziness.


Sure it is. I'm just calling it obvious because it is - not because I'm "intellectually lazy". There are number of good arguments for objective morals like the argument from impartiality, the argument from deliberative indispensability, etc. It's just that these arguments are not needed to show that there is prima facie warrant for believing that there are objective morals.

Didn't know you could read my mind either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 9:57:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

Who told you I believe in an external world? Who told you I don't? The fact of the matter is that no truth is available independently of the means by which truth is ascertained. So all descriptions of existence must be qualified by the phrase "as it appears."

But frankly, this is irrelevant to the reason why objective morality is absurd. Moral judgement requires valuation. Valuation requires a subject to assign the value. Value is a measure of the utility of a certain means to certain ends. Where ends are relative, value is relative. Ends must always be relative because ends are idealizations, and finally, only thinking subjects can conceive of ideals.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:06:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:56:08 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:47:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:43:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.

The external world is obvious - just as obvious as objective morality.

Objective morality isn't obvious at all, let alone close to as obvious as the external world. Calling something obvious that isn't so you don't have to defend it is intellectual laziness.


Sure it is. I'm just calling it obvious because it is - not because I'm "intellectually lazy".

Nope, it's because you are intellectually lazy or else you would defend your position which is not obvious at all in the slightest.

There are number of good arguments for objective morals like the argument from impartiality, the argument from deliberative indispensability, etc.

There are a lot of good rebuttals too.

It's just that these arguments are not needed to show that there is prima facie warrant for believing that there are objective morals.

What prima facie warrant? It doesn't even seem "at first glance" that morality is objective.


Didn't know you could read my mind either.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:11:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 9:57:17 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

Who told you I believe in an external world? Who told you I don't? The fact of the matter is that no truth is available independently of the means by which truth is ascertained. So all descriptions of existence must be qualified by the phrase "as it appears."

But frankly, this is irrelevant to the reason why objective morality is absurd. Moral judgement requires valuation. Valuation requires a subject to assign the value. Value is a measure of the utility of a certain means to certain ends. Where ends are relative, value is relative. Ends must always be relative because ends are idealizations, and finally, only thinking subjects can conceive of ideals.

This is one of the reasons why I think objective morality is outrageous as well. It should be "obvious" that morality is based on our subjective preferences and what we subjectively put value to.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:15:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 10:06:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:56:08 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:47:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:43:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.

The external world is obvious - just as obvious as objective morality.

Objective morality isn't obvious at all, let alone close to as obvious as the external world. Calling something obvious that isn't so you don't have to defend it is intellectual laziness.


Sure it is. I'm just calling it obvious because it is - not because I'm "intellectually lazy".

Nope, it's because you are intellectually lazy or else you would defend your position which is not obvious at all in the slightest.


*yawn* I'll get to it in a debate.

There are number of good arguments for objective morals like the argument from impartiality, the argument from deliberative indispensability, etc.

There are a lot of good rebuttals too.


Lol, do you even know what these arguments are? Can you state them? Then state exactly what's wrong them? I'll wait.

It's just that these arguments are not needed to show that there is prima facie warrant for believing that there are objective morals.

What prima facie warrant? It doesn't even seem "at first glance" that morality is objective.


Yup.

Didn't know you could read my mind either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:20:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 10:15:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 10:06:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:56:08 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:47:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:43:06 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:38:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:36:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/5/2013 9:34:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:25:04 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:29:02 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Does objective morality exist?
What is evidence or reasoning for your answer?

I think objective morality exist, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that needs evidence to be justified. It's like our belief in the external world, the past, the uniformity of nature, other minds, causation, an enduring self, etc. Our perception of morality is natural, nearly universal (with the exception being those we consider mentally ill), and hard to consistently deny. I would call it a synthetic a priori item of knowledge.

What confounded nonsense.

If you can't defend a position that is not a logical axiom, then please at least admit to the illegitimate foundation of the position.

Please defend your belief in an external world. I'll make sure to show you how bad your reasons are for believing that an external world exists.

The external world is obvious; objective morality isn't. You are comparing something that is obvious, with something that isn't in order to weasel out of defending your controversial stance.

The external world is obvious - just as obvious as objective morality.

Objective morality isn't obvious at all, let alone close to as obvious as the external world. Calling something obvious that isn't so you don't have to defend it is intellectual laziness.


Sure it is. I'm just calling it obvious because it is - not because I'm "intellectually lazy".

Nope, it's because you are intellectually lazy or else you would defend your position which is not obvious at all in the slightest.


*yawn* I'll get to it in a debate.

I'll be happy to refute it.


There are number of good arguments for objective morals like the argument from impartiality, the argument from deliberative indispensability, etc.

There are a lot of good rebuttals too.


Lol, do you even know what these arguments are? Can you state them? Then state exactly what's wrong them? I'll wait.

What is right with them? I'll wait...


It's just that these arguments are not needed to show that there is prima facie warrant for believing that there are objective morals.

What prima facie warrant? It doesn't even seem "at first glance" that morality is objective.


Yup.

Nope.

This one word game is fun!


Didn't know you could read my mind either.