Total Posts:160|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality for retards

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 2:51:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
specifically for Cerebral narcissists.

We have actual morality and our moral systems they are not the same.

Actual morality is based on what benefits human suvival and well being. Our moral systems are peoples best understandings of what benefits our survival and well being. Retard keeps confusing the moral systems with the objective morality. There are things that are better for human well being then others. Certains things do benefit human well being and survival and others do not. If this idiot would attempt to learn this and stop translating it to something his brain can comprehend, we could put this stupid topic to bed.

Again, objective morality is based on what is beneficail.

Moral systems are based on what we believe to be beneficial to us.

It is also quite possible that this idiot doesn't realize that just because we have labeled something morality does not make it subjective. It can be objective inspite of a subjective decision to label it as morality.

Why this idiot concistently fails to grasp this and says I am saying objective has anything to do with what a large number of people believe is beyond me. The idiocy in him is strong.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:15:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 2:51:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
specifically for Cerebral narcissists.

If this is specifically for me (or should that be us) might I be permitted to ask questions or attempt to refute what you are saying.

Though this has been done to death and you never acknowledged pages and pages of such discussion.


We have actual morality and our moral systems they are not the same.

That is a necessary belief if you are a moral objectivist yes.

Actual morality is based on what benefits human suvival and well being.

According to you yes, you have to show how this statement is true and objective however. At the moment we have "I believe that actual objective morality is real and is based on human survival and well being". You have to show that this is real and true.

Our moral systems are peoples best understandings of what benefits our survival and well being.

But they are demonstrably not.

For instance... "ooh that tart at number 57 has already shacked up with a new man, and her husband only died last year" is a moral statement. It is based in no way on a consideration of survival or well being unsconcious or otherwise. Indeed it seems to go contrary to both virtues.

Retard keeps confusing the moral systems with the objective morality.

Retard does not accept the existence of objective morality.

There are things that are better for human well being then others. Certains things do benefit human well being and survival and others do not. If this idiot would attempt to learn this and stop translating it to something his brain can comprehend, we could put this stupid topic to bed.

I fully understand that, I have never questioned this, challenged this or quibbled over this in any way shape or form. I have pointed this out to you. I asked you to repeat what my objections were to your moral system and you could not awnser me.

That is the problem, you take a rational statement or question and it passes through the sh1t you call a brain, it comes out sh1t. Discussion with you is very hard.

My issue is this, yes there are things that are better or worse for human survival and well being than others. However this does not correlate to a moral system, morality being arbitary and emotive. Neither does it equate to an objective moral system because there is no objective reason to define survival and well being as objective moral virtues. Unfortunately you don't get what objective means.


Again, objective morality is based on what is beneficail.

Moral systems are based on what we believe to be beneficial to us.


It is also quite possible that this idiot doesn't realize that just because we have labeled something morality does not make it subjective. It can be objective inspite of a subjective decision to label it as morality.

Again you are replying to a fake point I never raised. Something is objectively true irrespective of labels or recognition.

Why this idiot concistently fails to grasp this and says I am saying objective has anything to do with what a large number of people believe is beyond me. The idiocy in him is strong.

It's a direct quote plucked from months of trying to teach you what objective means.

Do you no longer believe your former statements?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 2:51:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:

Again, objective morality is based on what is beneficail.

Moral systems are based on what we believe to be beneficial to us.

So you are saying that objective morality is not a moral system?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it objectively moral to kill one person to save multiple people?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 3:47:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You will never understand my points as to whether or not your system is morality or objective, in a sense they are irrelevant anyway.

Have you considered how they are practically applied? Are the virtues of survival and well being applied to the individual scale, the societal scale or to both?

So for instance if say the death penalty is shown to cause a net reduction in crime does the argument that inevitably innocent people will be executed carry any weight with you?

If it were shown that the third world needs to exist to enable the existence of a progressing developing first world should we not care about the starving people in africa?

What if they were a hated ethnic minority, you could invest time and effort into creating a multicultural society that might always suffer internal tensions, or you could make every else happy by gassing them. Problem solved.

If I abuse a child am I violating the principles of survival and well being? The human race is not threatend and my well being increases as the childs decreases. This is surely a morally neutral act under your system.

What if the child has down syndrome, what if I never get caught? The child has no social utility and society never suffered as the result of my crime.

To be honest I am not expecting a sensible reply to any of this, but other people will enjoy your emotive, illogical, self righteous explosion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:14:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 2:51:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
specifically for Cerebral narcissists.

We have actual morality and our moral systems they are not the same.

Actual morality is based on what benefits human suvival and well being. Our moral systems are peoples best understandings of what benefits our survival and well being. Retard keeps confusing the moral systems with the objective morality. There are things that are better for human well being then others. Certains things do benefit human well being and survival and others do not. If this idiot would attempt to learn this and stop translating it to something his brain can comprehend, we could put this stupid topic to bed.

Again, objective morality is based on what is beneficail.

Moral systems are based on what we believe to be beneficial to us.


You have determined objective morality the same as what leads too human well being and survival.

There is a way to attack that on the grounds that what is beneficial, what leads to human well being and what is morally right is not always one and the same. This was a point of argument in the Sam Harris vs William Craig debate.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:15:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:34:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Is it objectively moral to kill one person to save multiple people?

not sure, not enough information.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:16:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:14:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/4/2011 2:51:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
specifically for Cerebral narcissists.

We have actual morality and our moral systems they are not the same.

Actual morality is based on what benefits human suvival and well being. Our moral systems are peoples best understandings of what benefits our survival and well being. Retard keeps confusing the moral systems with the objective morality. There are things that are better for human well being then others. Certains things do benefit human well being and survival and others do not. If this idiot would attempt to learn this and stop translating it to something his brain can comprehend, we could put this stupid topic to bed.

Again, objective morality is based on what is beneficail.

Moral systems are based on what we believe to be beneficial to us.


You have determined objective morality the same as what leads too human well being and survival.

There is a way to attack that on the grounds that what is beneficial, what leads to human well being and what is morally right is not always one and the same. This was a point of argument in the Sam Harris vs William Craig debate.

have not seen this debate to comment, may watch it sometime.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:19:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 3:15:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 2:51:50 PM, izbo10 wrote:
specifically for Cerebral narcissists.

If this is specifically for me (or should that be us) might I be permitted to ask questions or attempt to refute what you are saying.

Though this has been done to death and you never acknowledged pages and pages of such discussion.


We have actual morality and our moral systems they are not the same.

That is a necessary belief if you are a moral objectivist yes.

Actual morality is based on what benefits human suvival and well being.

According to you yes, you have to show how this statement is true and objective however. At the moment we have "I believe that actual objective morality is real and is based on human survival and well being". You have to show that this is real and true.

Our moral systems are peoples best understandings of what benefits our survival and well being.

But they are demonstrably not.

For instance... "ooh that tart at number 57 has already shacked up with a new man, and her husband only died last year" is a moral statement. It is based in no way on a consideration of survival or well being unsconcious or otherwise. Indeed it seems to go contrary to both virtues.

Retard keeps confusing the moral systems with the objective morality.

Retard does not accept the existence of objective morality.

There are things that are better for human well being then others. Certains things do benefit human well being and survival and others do not. If this idiot would attempt to learn this and stop translating it to something his brain can comprehend, we could put this stupid topic to bed.

I fully understand that, I have never questioned this, challenged this or quibbled over this in any way shape or form. I have pointed this out to you. I asked you to repeat what my objections were to your moral system and you could not awnser me.

That is the problem, you take a rational statement or question and it passes through the sh1t you call a brain, it comes out sh1t. Discussion with you is very hard.

My issue is this, yes there are things that are better or worse for human survival and well being than others. However this does not correlate to a moral system, morality being arbitary and emotive. Neither does it equate to an objective moral system because there is no objective reason to define survival and well being as objective moral virtues. Unfortunately you don't get what objective means.


Again, objective morality is based on what is beneficail.

Moral systems are based on what we believe to be beneficial to us.


It is also quite possible that this idiot doesn't realize that just because we have labeled something morality does not make it subjective. It can be objective inspite of a subjective decision to label it as morality.

Again you are replying to a fake point I never raised. Something is objectively true irrespective of labels or recognition.

Why this idiot concistently fails to grasp this and says I am saying objective has anything to do with what a large number of people believe is beyond me. The idiocy in him is strong.

It's a direct quote plucked from months of trying to teach you what objective means.

Do you no longer believe your former statements?

There needs not be an objective reason for this being morals, that is irrelevant. The mere fact that we have attempted to figure out the set of things that benefit us and labeled them moral and the set of things that don't benefit us and labeled them immoral is good enough.

As for your example about the tart in apartment 57, do you think doing that could potentially be good or bad for survival? If it does effect that there is a right answer to that moral situation, we just may not have enough information to make the correct moral judgement on that.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:21:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:34:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Is it objectively moral to kill one person to save multiple people?

not sure, not enough information.

LOL, that was the point of my question. Your answer is essentially that you refuse to make an objective decision. So you deny objective morality.

An objective morality system like the Categorical Imperative would give a straight yes or no answer.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:23:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:21:41 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:34:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Is it objectively moral to kill one person to save multiple people?

not sure, not enough information.

LOL, that was the point of my question. Your answer is essentially that you refuse to make an objective decision. So you deny objective morality.

An objective morality system like the Categorical Imperative would give a straight yes or no answer.

you are conflating lack of knowledge of a right or wrong answer to a moral question, with there being an actual right or wrong answer to the question. Would you really be that stupid in any other subject? You seem embarrassingly unaware of how many factors go into human well being and survival.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:27:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol, so to you, objective morality is made up of a bunch of subjective judgments?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:28:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
or are you a moral nihilist? "there are no right answers" to moral questions
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:30:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:27:19 PM, bluesteel wrote:
lol, so to you, objective morality is made up of a bunch of subjective judgments?

NO NO NO NO NO, objective facts about societal benefit. It is just hard to determine all the actual facts. That is what moral systems are about trying to make judgements on that, that is why we get different answers, because actual truths about human well being and survival are complex to come by
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:36:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no such thing as an "objective fact" about societal benefits.

Thought experiment:

You throw out objective morality. I tell you that you can kill one 50-year old to save two children.

Each person you ask will differ on which outcome benefits society more. They will say it depends who the 50 year old is, etc.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:39:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here, would you kill this person http://daddybstrong.blogspot.com... to save these three triplets http://today.msnbc.msn.com....

What do your objective facts say to do?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:39:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:19:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:

There needs not be an objective reason for this being morals, that is irrelevant.

I think it is entirely relevant. An objective morality implies an objective source and foundation for morality.

The mere fact that we have attempted to figure out the set of things that benefit us and labeled them moral and the set of things that don't benefit us and labeled them immoral is good enough.

Well it is a minor point, it seems now after hours and hours of whining you finally at least understand it.


As for your example about the tart in apartment 57, do you think doing that could potentially be good or bad for survival? If it does effect that there is a right answer to that moral situation, we just may not have enough information to make the correct moral judgement on that.

Yes,
By acquiring a new partner she may breed again, and by acquiring a new partner they both increase their well being.

But the point is I have shown you a moral statement that makes no reference and is indeed contrary to both the principles of survival and well being.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:47:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo10, do you feel it is necessary to create another thread on the same topic?

What is morality?
What is life?
What is death?
Where is the door?
Where is the city?
Where is the office?
Where is your little potty pot?
Where is your manhood?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:52:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Bluesteel, you're confusing knowledge about facts with facts themselves. There are objectively true answers to the question "What should we do to maximise human well-being?". Just because we don't know the answer doesn't make the enterprise subjective - it's a question about knowledge, not about the actual facts of the situation.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 4:53:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:23:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:21:41 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:15:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/4/2011 3:34:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Is it objectively moral to kill one person to save multiple people?

not sure, not enough information.

LOL, that was the point of my question. Your answer is essentially that you refuse to make an objective decision. So you deny objective morality.

An objective morality system like the Categorical Imperative would give a straight yes or no answer.


you are conflating lack of knowledge of a right or wrong answer to a moral question, with there being an actual right or wrong answer to the question. Would you really be that stupid in any other subject? You seem embarrassingly unaware of how many factors go into human well being and survival.

I see how this works out:
Morality concerns with the well-being of man.

So, professor Izbo10, should I kill my friend or not? Is objective morality subjective or objective, because your statements so far, my friend...?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:05:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:52:51 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Bluesteel, you're confusing knowledge about facts with facts themselves. There are objectively true answers to the question "What should we do to maximise human well-being?". Just because we don't know the answer doesn't make the enterprise subjective - it's a question about knowledge, not about the actual facts of the situation.

If an act does some good and some harm, it's subjective, based on personal utility calculations, which we give more relative weight to.

I asked izbo in the context of killing one person to save multiple people, and he responded that he needed to know objective facts. Are you telling me objective morality relies on unknowable objective facts?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:12:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 5:05:55 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:52:51 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Bluesteel, you're confusing knowledge about facts with facts themselves. There are objectively true answers to the question "What should we do to maximise human well-being?". Just because we don't know the answer doesn't make the enterprise subjective - it's a question about knowledge, not about the actual facts of the situation.

If an act does some good and some harm, it's subjective, based on personal utility calculations, which we give more relative weight to.

I asked izbo in the context of killing one person to save multiple people, and he responded that he needed to know objective facts. Are you telling me objective morality relies on unknowable objective facts?

Objective morality would have to rely on objective facts, it is possible that these facts would not be known. (Not defending Izbionic morality because ultimately it is riddled with flaws).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 5:44:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo, if morals are subjective, then who or what grants the power to make it so? You're literally the world's worst atheist... your arguments are completely self-defeating and any apologist with a half-assed argument would bury you.

Think for two seconds on why a subjective morality is an indefensible position for an avowed atheist, you f*cking hack.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:11:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 4:36:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
There is no such thing as an "objective fact" about societal benefits.

Thought experiment:

You throw out objective morality. I tell you that you can kill one 50-year old to save two children.

Each person you ask will differ on which outcome benefits society more. They will say it depends who the 50 year old is, etc.

I'll tell you what. I tell you that all you must do is accept objective morality, and God will not send you to Hell for all eternity.

Each person you ask will differ on whether or not they decide to go to Hell or Heaven with you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:13:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:11:15 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:36:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
There is no such thing as an "objective fact" about societal benefits.

Thought experiment:

You throw out objective morality. I tell you that you can kill one 50-year old to save two children.

Each person you ask will differ on which outcome benefits society more. They will say it depends who the 50 year old is, etc.

I'll tell you what. I tell you that all you must do is accept objective morality, and God will not send you to Hell for all eternity.

Each person you ask will differ on whether or not they decide to go to Hell or Heaven with you.

Is this meant to be a serious contribution?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:16:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:13:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:11:15 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:36:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
There is no such thing as an "objective fact" about societal benefits.

Thought experiment:

You throw out objective morality. I tell you that you can kill one 50-year old to save two children.

Each person you ask will differ on which outcome benefits society more. They will say it depends who the 50 year old is, etc.

I'll tell you what. I tell you that all you must do is accept objective morality, and God will not send you to Hell for all eternity.

Each person you ask will differ on whether or not they decide to go to Hell or Heaven with you.

Is this meant to be a serious contribution?

Yes. I consider it an equally absurd supposition.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:33:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:16:50 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:13:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:11:15 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:36:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
There is no such thing as an "objective fact" about societal benefits.

Thought experiment:

You throw out objective morality. I tell you that you can kill one 50-year old to save two children.

Each person you ask will differ on which outcome benefits society more. They will say it depends who the 50 year old is, etc.

I'll tell you what. I tell you that all you must do is accept objective morality, and God will not send you to Hell for all eternity.

Each person you ask will differ on whether or not they decide to go to Hell or Heaven with you.

Is this meant to be a serious contribution?

Yes. I consider it an equally absurd supposition.

Oh now I understand.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 8:53:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:33:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:16:50 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:13:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:11:15 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 4:36:24 PM, bluesteel wrote:
There is no such thing as an "objective fact" about societal benefits.

Thought experiment:

You throw out objective morality. I tell you that you can kill one 50-year old to save two children.

Each person you ask will differ on which outcome benefits society more. They will say it depends who the 50 year old is, etc.

I'll tell you what. I tell you that all you must do is accept objective morality, and God will not send you to Hell for all eternity.

Each person you ask will differ on whether or not they decide to go to Hell or Heaven with you.

Is this meant to be a serious contribution?

Yes. I consider it an equally absurd supposition.

Oh now I understand.

And again this is intentionally missing the point, yes 2 people could have different opinions, much like people have different opinions on whether god exists, but that doesn't change the fact that one decision is more beneficial to society outside of anyones opinion and that is what moral judgments are.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.