Total Posts:168|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do Morals Exist?

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For right now, the definition of morals will be:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Google Definition)

There are three major viewpoints on this issue; objective, subjective, skeptic, nihilist. Those who believe that objective moral values exist believe that moral values are independent and not influenced by the opinion or belief of human beings. A good example would be:

To say that The Holocaust is objectively evil; is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them so that everybody thought The Holocaust was good.
-William Lane Craig

But to say that moral values exist independent from humans, implies the existence of a creator to set these moral values. Objective moral values could only exist if they are created and upholded by a higher being than ourselves, (a.k.a. God). Objective moral values can only exist if a supreme being, or a god exists.

In subjective morality, moral values are based on a human"s personal feelings or thoughts. Evidence for this is that across the world, different cultures vary in what they believe moral values are. For example; a radical extremist Muslim that blew himself up in a public park killing a dozen people. You may think this is an immoral act to do, you think this because of your cultural, religious and family backgrounds, but to a radical Islamic tribe, this is the most moral thing one could ever strive to do. Why is your opinion right over the guy living in the radical Islamic tribe? There is no objective force judging what is considered right or wrong, so neither of you is right, and neither of you are wrong. This is an unpopular position to hold, because by this belief system, torturing a child for fun is not inherently evil. Yet keep in mind that by this belief value, morals still exist, there just is no standard. Another idea to remember is that without humans there would be no moral values.

The third position I will be discussing is moral nihilism, the belief that moral values do not exist. For this position I will be focusing on the Error Theory, developed by Mackie. It is based upon three premises:

1) There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2) Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3) Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things. [1]

When we make moral judgements, we are trying to state truth. But since there is no moral truth, moral facts don"t exist. To put it simpler; knowledge requires truth, there is no moral truth so there is no moral knowledge, therefore moral values are only our imagination.
There are many more to check out, such as moral non-cognitivism, moral realism, moral skepticism, moral expressivism, etc. To start a good discussion I"ll ask three questions:

Which moral ideology do you side with?

Can you debunk Error Theory?

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM, Hayd wrote:

Which moral ideology do you side with?
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Can you debunk Error Theory?
Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.
Not sure what you mean.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.
Nothing easier than that lol.
Of all the views on metaethics, subjectivism is the weakest and has (if not at least close to) zero proponents in professional philosophy.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
http://www.debate.org...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:17:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:12:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.
Nothing easier than that lol.
Of all the views on metaethics, subjectivism is the weakest and has (if not at least close to) zero proponents in professional philosophy.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
http://www.debate.org...

lol
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:30:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:17:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:12:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.
Nothing easier than that lol.
Of all the views on metaethics, subjectivism is the weakest and has (if not at least close to) zero proponents in professional philosophy.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
http://www.debate.org...

lol
U askd 4 it m8
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:46:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:30:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:17:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:12:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.
Nothing easier than that lol.
Of all the views on metaethics, subjectivism is the weakest and has (if not at least close to) zero proponents in professional philosophy.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
http://www.debate.org...

lol
U askd 4 it m8

I should never try to talk about philosophy on this site ever again. You are just too good. I give up, I concede, you win. you are god.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:30:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:17:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:12:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.
Nothing easier than that lol.
Of all the views on metaethics, subjectivism is the weakest and has (if not at least close to) zero proponents in professional philosophy.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
http://www.debate.org...

lol
U askd 4 it m8

If objective morals exist, who would be the creator who sets the standard for morality?
onespaniard
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 3:40:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
For right now, the definition of morals will be:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Google Definition)

There are three major viewpoints on this issue; objective, subjective, skeptic, nihilist. Those who believe that objective moral values exist believe that moral values are independent and not influenced by the opinion or belief of human beings. A good example would be:

To say that The Holocaust is objectively evil; is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them so that everybody thought The Holocaust was good.
-William Lane Craig

But to say that moral values exist independent from humans, implies the existence of a creator to set these moral values. Objective moral values could only exist if they are created and upholded by a higher being than ourselves, (a.k.a. God). Objective moral values can only exist if a supreme being, or a god exists.

In subjective morality, moral values are based on a human"s personal feelings or thoughts. Evidence for this is that across the world, different cultures vary in what they believe moral values are. For example; a radical extremist Muslim that blew himself up in a public park killing a dozen people. You may think this is an immoral act to do, you think this because of your cultural, religious and family backgrounds, but to a radical Islamic tribe, this is the most moral thing one could ever strive to do. Why is your opinion right over the guy living in the radical Islamic tribe? There is no objective force judging what is considered right or wrong, so neither of you is right, and neither of you are wrong. This is an unpopular position to hold, because by this belief system, torturing a child for fun is not inherently evil. Yet keep in mind that by this belief value, morals still exist, there just is no standard. Another idea to remember is that without humans there would be no moral values.

The third position I will be discussing is moral nihilism, the belief that moral values do not exist. For this position I will be focusing on the Error Theory, developed by Mackie. It is based upon three premises:

1) There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2) Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3) Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things. [1]

When we make moral judgements, we are trying to state truth. But since there is no moral truth, moral facts don"t exist. To put it simpler; knowledge requires truth, there is no moral truth so there is no moral knowledge, therefore moral values are only our imagination.
There are many more to check out, such as moral non-cognitivism, moral realism, moral skepticism, moral expressivism, etc. To start a good discussion I"ll ask three questions:

Which moral ideology do you side with?

Can you debunk Error Theory?

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... : :

What if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all subjective according to each human perspective?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:02:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 11:46:55 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:30:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:17:41 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:12:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/28/2015 11:09:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:29:13 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I wouldn't call it an ideology, but I side with moral realism, i.e., objective morality.

Sure, the first premise is wrong lol.

Yes, it does preset subjective morality, but then you would have to prove subjective morality false.
Nothing easier than that lol.
Of all the views on metaethics, subjectivism is the weakest and has (if not at least close to) zero proponents in professional philosophy.

Not sure what you mean.

Well, whats an argument for moral realism?
http://www.debate.org...

lol
U askd 4 it m8

I should never try to talk about philosophy on this site ever again. You are just too good. I give up, I concede, you win. you are god.

lol
Don't let me stop you from posting here.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 4:48:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Multiple undefined terms. Define "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 4:59:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 4:48:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
Multiple undefined terms. Define "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong."

1) Why does that matter lol
2) "Good" is simple and indefinable.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:00:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 4:59:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 4:48:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
Multiple undefined terms. Define "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong."

1) Why does that matter lol

Understanding the concept of morality is critical for the conceptual coherence of it.

2) "Good" is simple and indefinable.

How so?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:02:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sure. Objective morals don't exist, but subjective morals do, as evidenced by the fact that different people have different standards of right and wrong, good and bad. When the majority of a society believes in similar or shared subjective morals, a community is formed.

Furthermore, subjective morals by their very nature discredit nihilism, because even if nothing exists, we can simply create them, as we do with relative morality.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 5:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:00:55 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/29/2015 4:59:05 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/29/2015 4:48:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
Multiple undefined terms. Define "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong."

1) Why does that matter lol

Understanding the concept of morality is critical for the conceptual coherence of it.
The concept of morality is not the same as the concepts Good, bad etc.

2) "Good" is simple and indefinable.

How so?

Any attempt to define the good rids it at least in part of it's meaning and force.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 3:40:54 AM, onespaniard wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
For right now, the definition of morals will be:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Google Definition)

There are three major viewpoints on this issue; objective, subjective, skeptic, nihilist. Those who believe that objective moral values exist believe that moral values are independent and not influenced by the opinion or belief of human beings. A good example would be:

To say that The Holocaust is objectively evil; is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them so that everybody thought The Holocaust was good.
-William Lane Craig

But to say that moral values exist independent from humans, implies the existence of a creator to set these moral values. Objective moral values could only exist if they are created and upholded by a higher being than ourselves, (a.k.a. God). Objective moral values can only exist if a supreme being, or a god exists.

In subjective morality, moral values are based on a human"s personal feelings or thoughts. Evidence for this is that across the world, different cultures vary in what they believe moral values are. For example; a radical extremist Muslim that blew himself up in a public park killing a dozen people. You may think this is an immoral act to do, you think this because of your cultural, religious and family backgrounds, but to a radical Islamic tribe, this is the most moral thing one could ever strive to do. Why is your opinion right over the guy living in the radical Islamic tribe? There is no objective force judging what is considered right or wrong, so neither of you is right, and neither of you are wrong. This is an unpopular position to hold, because by this belief system, torturing a child for fun is not inherently evil. Yet keep in mind that by this belief value, morals still exist, there just is no standard. Another idea to remember is that without humans there would be no moral values.

The third position I will be discussing is moral nihilism, the belief that moral values do not exist. For this position I will be focusing on the Error Theory, developed by Mackie. It is based upon three premises:

1) There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2) Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3) Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things. [1]

When we make moral judgements, we are trying to state truth. But since there is no moral truth, moral facts don"t exist. To put it simpler; knowledge requires truth, there is no moral truth so there is no moral knowledge, therefore moral values are only our imagination.
There are many more to check out, such as moral non-cognitivism, moral realism, moral skepticism, moral expressivism, etc. To start a good discussion I"ll ask three questions:

Which moral ideology do you side with?

Can you debunk Error Theory?

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... : :

What if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all subjective according to each human perspective?

What do you mean by the tree of knowledge? I agree good and evil is subjective according to human perspective...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 4:48:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
Multiple undefined terms. Define "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong."

Good=morally acceptable
Bad=Not morally acceptable

Does this work?
gods_angel
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:30:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
For right now, the definition of morals will be:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Google Definition)

There are three major viewpoints on this issue; objective, subjective, skeptic, nihilist. Those who believe that objective moral values exist believe that moral values are independent and not influenced by the opinion or belief of human beings. A good example would be:

To say that The Holocaust is objectively evil; is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them so that everybody thought The Holocaust was good.
-William Lane Craig

But to say that moral values exist independent from humans, implies the existence of a creator to set these moral values. Objective moral values could only exist if they are created and upholded by a higher being than ourselves, (a.k.a. God). Objective moral values can only exist if a supreme being, or a god exists.

In subjective morality, moral values are based on a human"s personal feelings or thoughts. Evidence for this is that across the world, different cultures vary in what they believe moral values are. For example; a radical extremist Muslim that blew himself up in a public park killing a dozen people. You may think this is an immoral act to do, you think this because of your cultural, religious and family backgrounds, but to a radical Islamic tribe, this is the most moral thing one could ever strive to do. Why is your opinion right over the guy living in the radical Islamic tribe? There is no objective force judging what is considered right or wrong, so neither of you is right, and neither of you are wrong. This is an unpopular position to hold, because by this belief system, torturing a child for fun is not inherently evil. Yet keep in mind that by this belief value, morals still exist, there just is no standard. Another idea to remember is that without humans there would be no moral values.

The third position I will be discussing is moral nihilism, the belief that moral values do not exist. For this position I will be focusing on the Error Theory, developed by Mackie. It is based upon three premises:

1) There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2) Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3) Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things. [1]

When we make moral judgements, we are trying to state truth. But since there is no moral truth, moral facts don"t exist. To put it simpler; knowledge requires truth, there is no moral truth so there is no moral knowledge, therefore moral values are only our imagination.
There are many more to check out, such as moral non-cognitivism, moral realism, moral skepticism, moral expressivism, etc. To start a good discussion I"ll ask three questions:

Which moral ideology do you side with? : :

Morals are all subjective according to each person. This is what confuses all of God's people

Can you debunk Error Theory?

God didn't make any errors. He created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to confuse his people while he used his Servant to reveal the tree of life.

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.

There is no such thing as real good and evil. It's only an illusion that each person believes in.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:32:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd say I'm some form of subjectivist, but I don't know exactly which subcategory. So I'll just outline my point of view and perhaps the more philosophically literate can help me out.

I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are.

I believe that "ought" statements mainly revolve around implied desires. That is, any statement "I ought to do X" is really just "If I desire Y, I ought to do X."

For instance, I could say "I ought to study for tests." But what I really mean is that "If I desire to pass tests, I ought to study for tests."

To me, when we make more general statements like "We ought not to murder," it's just the same idea at work. "If we desire a happy community, we ought not to murder."

So when I see people trying to create objective moral systems, that seems to me as though we're just trying to find the one desire that unites everyone and every action. Personally, I think that's futile because it's different for each of us.

So that's what I think. What am I?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 8:19:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 5:02:51 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Sure. Objective morals don't exist, but subjective morals do, as evidenced by the fact that different people have different standards of right and wrong, good and bad. When the majority of a society believes in similar or shared subjective morals, a community is formed.

Furthermore, subjective morals by their very nature discredit nihilism, because even if nothing exists, we can simply create them, as we do with relative morality.

Want to debate subjectivism with me Con?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 10:00:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 7:30:43 PM, gods_angel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
For right now, the definition of morals will be:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Google Definition)

There are three major viewpoints on this issue; objective, subjective, skeptic, nihilist. Those who believe that objective moral values exist believe that moral values are independent and not influenced by the opinion or belief of human beings. A good example would be:

To say that The Holocaust is objectively evil; is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them so that everybody thought The Holocaust was good.
-William Lane Craig

But to say that moral values exist independent from humans, implies the existence of a creator to set these moral values. Objective moral values could only exist if they are created and upholded by a higher being than ourselves, (a.k.a. God). Objective moral values can only exist if a supreme being, or a god exists.

In subjective morality, moral values are based on a human"s personal feelings or thoughts. Evidence for this is that across the world, different cultures vary in what they believe moral values are. For example; a radical extremist Muslim that blew himself up in a public park killing a dozen people. You may think this is an immoral act to do, you think this because of your cultural, religious and family backgrounds, but to a radical Islamic tribe, this is the most moral thing one could ever strive to do. Why is your opinion right over the guy living in the radical Islamic tribe? There is no objective force judging what is considered right or wrong, so neither of you is right, and neither of you are wrong. This is an unpopular position to hold, because by this belief system, torturing a child for fun is not inherently evil. Yet keep in mind that by this belief value, morals still exist, there just is no standard. Another idea to remember is that without humans there would be no moral values.

The third position I will be discussing is moral nihilism, the belief that moral values do not exist. For this position I will be focusing on the Error Theory, developed by Mackie. It is based upon three premises:

1) There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2) Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3) Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things. [1]

When we make moral judgements, we are trying to state truth. But since there is no moral truth, moral facts don"t exist. To put it simpler; knowledge requires truth, there is no moral truth so there is no moral knowledge, therefore moral values are only our imagination.
There are many more to check out, such as moral non-cognitivism, moral realism, moral skepticism, moral expressivism, etc. To start a good discussion I"ll ask three questions:

Which moral ideology do you side with? : :

Morals are all subjective according to each person. This is what confuses all of God's people

Can you debunk Error Theory?

God didn't make any errors. He created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to confuse his people while he used his Servant to reveal the tree of life.

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.

There is no such thing as real good and evil. It's only an illusion that each person believes in.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did God want us to become confused? I see that you believe in subjective morality, do you think morals exist at all, or only that they do but are up for interpretation?
gods_angel
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 10:05:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 10:00:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 7:30:43 PM, gods_angel wrote:
At 9/28/2015 10:06:14 PM, Hayd wrote:
For right now, the definition of morals will be:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Google Definition)

There are three major viewpoints on this issue; objective, subjective, skeptic, nihilist. Those who believe that objective moral values exist believe that moral values are independent and not influenced by the opinion or belief of human beings. A good example would be:

To say that The Holocaust is objectively evil; is to say that it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II, and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them so that everybody thought The Holocaust was good.
-William Lane Craig

But to say that moral values exist independent from humans, implies the existence of a creator to set these moral values. Objective moral values could only exist if they are created and upholded by a higher being than ourselves, (a.k.a. God). Objective moral values can only exist if a supreme being, or a god exists.

In subjective morality, moral values are based on a human"s personal feelings or thoughts. Evidence for this is that across the world, different cultures vary in what they believe moral values are. For example; a radical extremist Muslim that blew himself up in a public park killing a dozen people. You may think this is an immoral act to do, you think this because of your cultural, religious and family backgrounds, but to a radical Islamic tribe, this is the most moral thing one could ever strive to do. Why is your opinion right over the guy living in the radical Islamic tribe? There is no objective force judging what is considered right or wrong, so neither of you is right, and neither of you are wrong. This is an unpopular position to hold, because by this belief system, torturing a child for fun is not inherently evil. Yet keep in mind that by this belief value, morals still exist, there just is no standard. Another idea to remember is that without humans there would be no moral values.

The third position I will be discussing is moral nihilism, the belief that moral values do not exist. For this position I will be focusing on the Error Theory, developed by Mackie. It is based upon three premises:

1) There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2) Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3) Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things. [1]

When we make moral judgements, we are trying to state truth. But since there is no moral truth, moral facts don"t exist. To put it simpler; knowledge requires truth, there is no moral truth so there is no moral knowledge, therefore moral values are only our imagination.
There are many more to check out, such as moral non-cognitivism, moral realism, moral skepticism, moral expressivism, etc. To start a good discussion I"ll ask three questions:

Which moral ideology do you side with? : :

Morals are all subjective according to each person. This is what confuses all of God's people

Can you debunk Error Theory?

God didn't make any errors. He created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to confuse his people while he used his Servant to reveal the tree of life.

What are some other moral arguments? I'm interested to hear them.

There is no such thing as real good and evil. It's only an illusion that each person believes in.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Why did God want us to become confused? I see that you believe in subjective morality, do you think morals exist at all, or only that they do but are up for interpretation? : :

When you watch an xxx-rated movie, do you perceive nakedness as something evil or good?

When you watch a war movie, do you perceive killing the enemy as being good or evil?

Do you ever think of how the enemy feels as they're being killed by the people who claim to be good?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 10:09:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 7:32:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I'd say I'm some form of subjectivist, but I don't know exactly which subcategory. So I'll just outline my point of view and perhaps the more philosophically literate can help me out.

I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are.

I believe that "ought" statements mainly revolve around implied desires. That is, any statement "I ought to do X" is really just "If I desire Y, I ought to do X."

For instance, I could say "I ought to study for tests." But what I really mean is that "If I desire to pass tests, I ought to study for tests."

To me, when we make more general statements like "We ought not to murder," it's just the same idea at work. "If we desire a happy community, we ought not to murder."

So when I see people trying to create objective moral systems, that seems to me as though we're just trying to find the one desire that unites everyone and every action. Personally, I think that's futile because it's different for each of us.

So that's what I think. What am I?

It's an interesting ideology, I think you are saying that morality is actually just a system to get something else; desire? So morals don't actually exist, they are just a way in which to achieve something. (I shouldn't rape not for the reason that its immoral, but because then people will hate me, I will be shamed, put in jail, etc.) If you believe that morals don't exist at all, I suppose that would be nihilist, but your idea is that its more logical...
gods_angel
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 10:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 10:09:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 7:32:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I'd say I'm some form of subjectivist, but I don't know exactly which subcategory. So I'll just outline my point of view and perhaps the more philosophically literate can help me out.

I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are.

I believe that "ought" statements mainly revolve around implied desires. That is, any statement "I ought to do X" is really just "If I desire Y, I ought to do X."

For instance, I could say "I ought to study for tests." But what I really mean is that "If I desire to pass tests, I ought to study for tests."

To me, when we make more general statements like "We ought not to murder," it's just the same idea at work. "If we desire a happy community, we ought not to murder."

So when I see people trying to create objective moral systems, that seems to me as though we're just trying to find the one desire that unites everyone and every action. Personally, I think that's futile because it's different for each of us.

So that's what I think. What am I?

It's an interesting ideology, I think you are saying that morality is actually just a system to get something else; desire? So morals don't actually exist, they are just a way in which to achieve something. (I shouldn't rape not for the reason that its immoral, but because then people will hate me, I will be shamed, put in jail, etc.) If you believe that morals don't exist at all, I suppose that would be nihilist, but your idea is that its more logical... : :

A rapist is only interested in his or her own experiences, just like everyone else does. A Christian is only interested in his or her own experience and then tries to get others to experience the same experience, which is impossible. This is why everyone is confused in this world thinking that others experience the same experience as we do.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 10:33:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 10:16:03 PM, gods_angel wrote:
At 9/29/2015 10:09:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 7:32:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I'd say I'm some form of subjectivist, but I don't know exactly which subcategory. So I'll just outline my point of view and perhaps the more philosophically literate can help me out.

I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are.

I believe that "ought" statements mainly revolve around implied desires. That is, any statement "I ought to do X" is really just "If I desire Y, I ought to do X."

For instance, I could say "I ought to study for tests." But what I really mean is that "If I desire to pass tests, I ought to study for tests."

To me, when we make more general statements like "We ought not to murder," it's just the same idea at work. "If we desire a happy community, we ought not to murder."

So when I see people trying to create objective moral systems, that seems to me as though we're just trying to find the one desire that unites everyone and every action. Personally, I think that's futile because it's different for each of us.

So that's what I think. What am I?

It's an interesting ideology, I think you are saying that morality is actually just a system to get something else; desire? So morals don't actually exist, they are just a way in which to achieve something. (I shouldn't rape not for the reason that its immoral, but because then people will hate me, I will be shamed, put in jail, etc.) If you believe that morals don't exist at all, I suppose that would be nihilist, but your idea is that its more logical... : :

A rapist is only interested in his or her own experiences, just like everyone else does. A Christian is only interested in his or her own experience and then tries to get others to experience the same experience, which is impossible. This is why everyone is confused in this world thinking that others experience the same experience as we do.

Thats true, but not realistic. Christians don't exactly want other's to 'experience' what they are experiencing, they want as many people in their religion as possible because the Priests tell them to, or they want blessings from heaven, or they want their friend t o experience heaven. I don't think they do it for 'experience'.
cameraman
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 11:20:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 10:33:59 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 10:16:03 PM, gods_angel wrote:
At 9/29/2015 10:09:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 7:32:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I'd say I'm some form of subjectivist, but I don't know exactly which subcategory. So I'll just outline my point of view and perhaps the more philosophically literate can help me out.

I subscribe to David Hume's Is/Ought Gap, that is to say I don't believe "ought" statements can be true the same way "is" statements are.

I believe that "ought" statements mainly revolve around implied desires. That is, any statement "I ought to do X" is really just "If I desire Y, I ought to do X."

For instance, I could say "I ought to study for tests." But what I really mean is that "If I desire to pass tests, I ought to study for tests."

To me, when we make more general statements like "We ought not to murder," it's just the same idea at work. "If we desire a happy community, we ought not to murder."

So when I see people trying to create objective moral systems, that seems to me as though we're just trying to find the one desire that unites everyone and every action. Personally, I think that's futile because it's different for each of us.

So that's what I think. What am I?

It's an interesting ideology, I think you are saying that morality is actually just a system to get something else; desire? So morals don't actually exist, they are just a way in which to achieve something. (I shouldn't rape not for the reason that its immoral, but because then people will hate me, I will be shamed, put in jail, etc.) If you believe that morals don't exist at all, I suppose that would be nihilist, but your idea is that its more logical... : :

A rapist is only interested in his or her own experiences, just like everyone else does. A Christian is only interested in his or her own experience and then tries to get others to experience the same experience, which is impossible. This is why everyone is confused in this world thinking that others experience the same experience as we do.

Thats true, but not realistic. Christians don't exactly want other's to 'experience' what they are experiencing, they want as many people in their religion as possible because the Priests tell them to, or they want blessings from heaven, or they want their friend t o experience heaven. I don't think they do it for 'experience'. : :

Fear is what motivates most people. Fear comes from the lack of knowledge so the more people in a group who have the same kinds of fears, the easier it is for a member of the group to tolerate his or her fears. This is why Christians are motivated to grow their herd. They want others to share in the same fears that they have.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 11:37:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:20:08 PM, cameraman wrote:
Fear is what motivates most people. Fear comes from the lack of knowledge so the more people in a group who have the same kinds of fears, the easier it is for a member of the group to tolerate his or her fears. This is why Christians are motivated to grow their herd. They want others to share in the same fears that they have.

Are Christians conscious that they are in fear?
cameraman
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 12:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:37:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:20:08 PM, cameraman wrote:
Fear is what motivates most people. Fear comes from the lack of knowledge so the more people in a group who have the same kinds of fears, the easier it is for a member of the group to tolerate his or her fears. This is why Christians are motivated to grow their herd. They want others to share in the same fears that they have.

Are Christians conscious that they are in fear? : :

Many of them live in fears that they can't explain. This is what keeps them fearing evil things when I know that good and evil are only subjective thoughts that aren't real at all.

What's real is our Creator and His thoughts that were spoken into a program called Eternal Life. We're only characters in His program.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 12:35:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 12:32:44 AM, cameraman wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:37:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:20:08 PM, cameraman wrote:
Fear is what motivates most people. Fear comes from the lack of knowledge so the more people in a group who have the same kinds of fears, the easier it is for a member of the group to tolerate his or her fears. This is why Christians are motivated to grow their herd. They want others to share in the same fears that they have.

Are Christians conscious that they are in fear? : :

Many of them live in fears that they can't explain. This is what keeps them fearing evil things when I know that good and evil are only subjective thoughts that aren't real at all.

What's real is our Creator and His thoughts that were spoken into a program called Eternal Life. We're only characters in His program.

Fear is an emotion, you can only consciously feel emotions. If Christians cannot consciously know they are in fear they are not in fear.
cameraman
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 12:41:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 12:35:07 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/30/2015 12:32:44 AM, cameraman wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:37:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/29/2015 11:20:08 PM, cameraman wrote:
Fear is what motivates most people. Fear comes from the lack of knowledge so the more people in a group who have the same kinds of fears, the easier it is for a member of the group to tolerate his or her fears. This is why Christians are motivated to grow their herd. They want others to share in the same fears that they have.

Are Christians conscious that they are in fear? : :

Many of them live in fears that they can't explain. This is what keeps them fearing evil things when I know that good and evil are only subjective thoughts that aren't real at all.

What's real is our Creator and His thoughts that were spoken into a program called Eternal Life. We're only characters in His program.

Fear is an emotion, you can only consciously feel emotions. If Christians cannot consciously know they are in fear they are not in fear. : :

There are many fears that are unconscious to a person. Many of these fears are deep memories of things that happened to them but the biggest fear of all is that man doesn't know how they were created. This is a sub-conscious fear that keeps man confused. This is why scientists are searching for our true created existence.