Total Posts:161|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists is there such thing as a good person

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 10:48:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evils are born of individual weakness: a need to be on top of the atrocities. We all know wrong. We know it by ourselves and how we would be treated.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 10:57:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree that we all know right from wrong. Atheists tell me that "good" and "bad" are subjective but act as if it isn't. One VERY common example of this is pointing out how immoral the Judeo-Christian God is for ordering genocide. It's the same thing as saying "there's no best ice cream flavor" then making threads about how shocking it is that the Judeo Christian God ordered people to eat vanilla ice cream. Of course "ice cream flavor" is just people's subjective opinions about morality. Why is it so shocking that someone prefers a different flavor ice cream than you if you say that there isn't a best flavor?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 11:00:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
From my point of view, a person who never harms another is good. A person who helps others with no expectation of reward is good. Good is that which is beneficial to the survival and well being of individuals and society without harm to others. So, to answer your question, yes.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 11:31:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

There is no one that is "better" or "worse" than another. When in a society, we go off of the majority view. You say it is ad populum, then you must say democracy is ad populum. Thing is, it works.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 11:52:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In issues such this, Ad Populum may be all we have. It is important to note that informal fallacies don't show a certain veiwpoint to be invalid; they show an argument that solely relies on them to be invalid.

So, yes, it is all very subjective-- it is the definition of subjective. Frankly, I am growing a bit bored with the argument that "if something isn't 100% positively objectively white, it could be 100% black for all you know." Nonsense...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:11:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 11:52:49 AM, Fly wrote:
In issues such this, Ad Populum may be all we have. It is important to note that informal fallacies don't show a certain veiwpoint to be invalid; they show an argument that solely relies on them to be invalid.

So, yes, it is all very subjective-- it is the definition of subjective. Frankly, I am growing a bit bored with the argument that "if something isn't 100% positively objectively white, it could be 100% black for all you know." Nonsense...

Well there's a dichotomy between subjective/objective. If something is not objective it must be entirely subjective. Are you implying that immoral actions (rape, murder) are nearly 100% wrong?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Why do you keep asking dumb questions like this? I find this insulting, you ask these questions as if we're all amoral sociopaths with no internal sense of right or wrong. You attempt to dehumanize us but it just reveals how ignorant you are of your fellow man.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:13:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:12:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Why do you keep asking dumb questions like this? I find this insulting, you ask these questions as if we're all amoral sociopaths with no internal sense of right or wrong. You attempt to dehumanize us but it just reveals how ignorant you are of your fellow man.

No need to take offense, just asking for an intellectual justification. So what do you say, is there truly such thing as a good person?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:14:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?

I believe I already said that. Everyone lives by their own set of morals, no matter how it came to be. Many of our moral imperatives are shared due to our social nature and the empathy that we are capable of. Collective moral beliefs (e.g. its wrong to steal) are often codified in to law but many are not. That is how societies function.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:21:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:14:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?

I believe I already said that. Everyone lives by their own set of morals, no matter how it came to be. Many of our moral imperatives are shared due to our social nature and the empathy that we are capable of. Collective moral beliefs (e.g. its wrong to steal) are often codified in to law but many are not. That is how societies function.

We've had a discussion on this before but you sided with morality being theoretically objective. You said that all things tend to survive so morality had an objective basis in survival.

I'll ask you the same question: is it definitively true that well-being is good and harm is definitively bad all things held equal?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:26:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:13:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:12:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Why do you keep asking dumb questions like this? I find this insulting, you ask these questions as if we're all amoral sociopaths with no internal sense of right or wrong. You attempt to dehumanize us but it just reveals how ignorant you are of your fellow man.

No need to take offense, just asking for an intellectual justification. So what do you say, is there truly such thing as a good person?

We can never truly know a person's heart. Some loved people have turned out to be monsters, and some hated people have turned out to be saints. What we can do is try to be kind and generous to one another. If someone appears to be good and helps others we can generally agree that that person is "good". Of course there will always be detractors who say that a person isn't good.

Why do you bother asking this question?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:26:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:13:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:12:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Why do you keep asking dumb questions like this? I find this insulting, you ask these questions as if we're all amoral sociopaths with no internal sense of right or wrong. You attempt to dehumanize us but it just reveals how ignorant you are of your fellow man.

No need to take offense, just asking for an intellectual justification. So what do you say, is there truly such thing as a good person?

We can never truly know a person's heart. Some loved people have turned out to be monsters, and some hated people have turned out to be saints. What we can do is try to be kind and generous to one another. If someone appears to be good and helps others we can generally agree that that person is "good". Of course there will always be detractors who say that a person isn't good.

Why do you bother asking this question?

Is "good" only good because it's generally agreed upon?

If it was generally agreed upon that exterminating the Jews was good in Nazi Germany did that make it "good"?

I want you to tell me if you believe that goodness is truly known (kindness, generosity) or is goodness whatever we want it to be? Could killing and raping be good and kindness & generosity be bad (all things equal)?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:31:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:21:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:14:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?

I believe I already said that. Everyone lives by their own set of morals, no matter how it came to be. Many of our moral imperatives are shared due to our social nature and the empathy that we are capable of. Collective moral beliefs (e.g. its wrong to steal) are often codified in to law but many are not. That is how societies function.

We've had a discussion on this before but you sided with morality being theoretically objective. You said that all things tend to survive so morality had an objective basis in survival.

I'll ask you the same question: is it definitively true that well-being is good and harm is definitively bad all things held equal?

I said survival is the basis of morals because we they enhance our survival as a species. And note, I said theoretically objective but that theory is not currently supported. I do not propose to speak for anyone other than myself when I express good versus bad as that is a subjective statement. I also noted that harm must be balanced against benefit so the case is not black and white as you are stating it. Those are general principles that must be applied in a case by case basis.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:39:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:29:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:26:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:13:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:12:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Why do you keep asking dumb questions like this? I find this insulting, you ask these questions as if we're all amoral sociopaths with no internal sense of right or wrong. You attempt to dehumanize us but it just reveals how ignorant you are of your fellow man.

No need to take offense, just asking for an intellectual justification. So what do you say, is there truly such thing as a good person?

We can never truly know a person's heart. Some loved people have turned out to be monsters, and some hated people have turned out to be saints. What we can do is try to be kind and generous to one another. If someone appears to be good and helps others we can generally agree that that person is "good". Of course there will always be detractors who say that a person isn't good.

Why do you bother asking this question?

Is "good" only good because it's generally agreed upon?

There is nothing else to go by. All we have is what we know about the person.

If it was generally agreed upon that exterminating the Jews was good in Nazi Germany did that make it "good"?

Nazi Germany is an example of fervor gone awry. The German people were desperate and thought what they were doing was right. Just as Christians think spreading their religion, hating gays, and posting BS questions on the internet is right. Understand?

I want you to tell me if you believe that goodness is truly known (kindness, generosity) or is goodness whatever we want it to be? Could killing and raping be good and kindness & generosity be bad (all things equal)?

In my opinion, killing can be justified, war, self defense etc. Rape in most cases can not be justified. But there have been instances of extreme cruelty when African warlords have forced child soldiers at gun point to rape. Can we judge the child soldier as wrong/evil?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:42:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:31:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:21:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:14:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?

I believe I already said that. Everyone lives by their own set of morals, no matter how it came to be. Many of our moral imperatives are shared due to our social nature and the empathy that we are capable of. Collective moral beliefs (e.g. its wrong to steal) are often codified in to law but many are not. That is how societies function.

We've had a discussion on this before but you sided with morality being theoretically objective. You said that all things tend to survive so morality had an objective basis in survival.

I'll ask you the same question: is it definitively true that well-being is good and harm is definitively bad all things held equal?

I said survival is the basis of morals because we they enhance our survival as a species. And note, I said theoretically objective but that theory is not currently supported. I do not propose to speak for anyone other than myself when I express good versus bad as that is a subjective statement. I also noted that harm must be balanced against benefit so the case is not black and white as you are stating it. Those are general principles that must be applied in a case by case basis.

Sure it is. Look at an aggregate of all societies and we see a strikingly similar code of ethics. Murder, robbery, rape, etc., are all not allowed. If killing without necessary justification, forcibly taking without permission, and forcible intercourse are subjective moral standards, why does everyone on the planet act as if they aren't subjective? If it's because we are a social species and social cohesion helps with survival, why isn't it objective then? Is it subjective that an innocent person shouldn't be punished? Is it subjective that an infant ought not to be raped? Belief that morality is totally subjective is the minority position by a wide margin. It lends itself into absurdity.

If harm is balanced against benefit, and benefit is greater than harm, is this truly better than if harm outweighed the good?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:48:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

We all mostly agree on what is good and bad based on our evolutionary heritage. We protect our loved ones, and fear the things that go bump in the night because of how our species has evolved. Subjective does not mean arbitrary.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

We can easily identify someone who molests children as bad. I'm sure you have heard the term "sexual predator".

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Yes, a person who plays the role of "predator" is not a good person. A murderer, rapist, child molester, etc. have established they are bad according to our knowledge derived from our shared evolutionary background.

Are there "good people" according to an objective worldview based on a god? No, I don't see how there could be. Morality based on a supreme "good" being would be black and white. For example, if we take the laws of the Christian God, then there is not one person who has ever lived perfectly (excluding god/Jesus himself), and we would all be "bad" people.

Also, if we rely on the opinions of a supreme being instead of the opinions of humans it is still subjective morality. Morality would be subject to that god.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:49:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:39:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:29:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:26:00 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:13:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:12:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Why do you keep asking dumb questions like this? I find this insulting, you ask these questions as if we're all amoral sociopaths with no internal sense of right or wrong. You attempt to dehumanize us but it just reveals how ignorant you are of your fellow man.

No need to take offense, just asking for an intellectual justification. So what do you say, is there truly such thing as a good person?

We can never truly know a person's heart. Some loved people have turned out to be monsters, and some hated people have turned out to be saints. What we can do is try to be kind and generous to one another. If someone appears to be good and helps others we can generally agree that that person is "good". Of course there will always be detractors who say that a person isn't good.

Why do you bother asking this question?

Is "good" only good because it's generally agreed upon?

There is nothing else to go by. All we have is what we know about the person.

What do we know about goodness?

If it was generally agreed upon that exterminating the Jews was good in Nazi Germany did that make it "good"?

Nazi Germany is an example of fervor gone awry. The German people were desperate and thought what they were doing was right. Just as Christians think spreading their religion, hating gays, and posting BS questions on the internet is right. Understand?

But hating gays, spreading religion, and hating other people is not truly wrong, right?

I want you to tell me if you believe that goodness is truly known (kindness, generosity) or is goodness whatever we want it to be? Could killing and raping be good and kindness & generosity be bad (all things equal)?

In my opinion, killing can be justified, war, self defense etc. Rape in most cases can not be justified. But there have been instances of extreme cruelty when African warlords have forced child soldiers at gun point to rape. Can we judge the child soldier as wrong/evil?

killing can be morally permissible. Can killing for no reason be morally permissible?

If rape cannot be justified is it truly wrong?

Forcibly being made to do something isn't the same thing as doing it out of your own free will. We can conclude that the warlords are the ones committing the wrongdoing. Can we conclude that what they did was definitely wrong?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:51:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:42:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:31:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:21:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:14:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?

I believe I already said that. Everyone lives by their own set of morals, no matter how it came to be. Many of our moral imperatives are shared due to our social nature and the empathy that we are capable of. Collective moral beliefs (e.g. its wrong to steal) are often codified in to law but many are not. That is how societies function.

We've had a discussion on this before but you sided with morality being theoretically objective. You said that all things tend to survive so morality had an objective basis in survival.

I'll ask you the same question: is it definitively true that well-being is good and harm is definitively bad all things held equal?

I said survival is the basis of morals because we they enhance our survival as a species. And note, I said theoretically objective but that theory is not currently supported. I do not propose to speak for anyone other than myself when I express good versus bad as that is a subjective statement. I also noted that harm must be balanced against benefit so the case is not black and white as you are stating it. Those are general principles that must be applied in a case by case basis.

Sure it is. Look at an aggregate of all societies and we see a strikingly similar code of ethics. Murder, robbery, rape, etc., are all not allowed. If killing without necessary justification, forcibly taking without permission, and forcible intercourse are subjective moral standards, why does everyone on the planet act as if they aren't subjective? If it's because we are a social species and social cohesion helps with survival, why isn't it objective then? Is it subjective that an innocent person shouldn't be punished? Is it subjective that an infant ought not to be raped? Belief that morality is totally subjective is the minority position by a wide margin. It lends itself into absurdity.

If harm is balanced against benefit, and benefit is greater than harm, is this truly better than if harm outweighed the good?

It's not objective because it is not external to the minds of everyone. It's internal and decided upon by each individual. Is it objective that slavery is wrong? If so, why was it considered right and just not that long ago and still is by some people. Arugmentum ad populum is not valid. Shared, common values aren't necessarily objective because they are shared. I won't debate this definition again since we are unalterably opposed and it would be a waste of our time to do so.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:52:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Are Theists who believe in objective morality allowed? Aw, screw it, I don't care if I'm not.

As it is, a good person is someone who conforms to your ideas of goodness. If you believe a child molester is bad then he is. If he believes that he is good he'll still go to prison, so it doesn't matter. "Moral high ground" means nothing in this context; In order to survive and live comfortably, humans must prevent themselves and others from being harmed. A child molester harms children. Therefore, he must be stopped.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:59:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

You know I do not agree with objective morality. His position could be his own subjective view, but I do not see it as an objective view.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:03:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:49:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:39:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

There is nothing else to go by. All we have is what we know about the person.

What do we know about goodness?

What is goodness in the first place? If I ask you this question you'll respond with "God". And I'll respond with my own opinion. We can disagree and yet nothing changes.

If it was generally agreed upon that exterminating the Jews was good in Nazi Germany did that make it "good"?

Nazi Germany is an example of fervor gone awry. The German people were desperate and thought what they were doing was right. Just as Christians think spreading their religion, hating gays, and posting BS questions on the internet is right. Understand?

But hating gays, spreading religion, and hating other people is not truly wrong, right?

In my opinion it is wrong. In their opinion it is not wrong. It's 2 diff subjective perspectives. Again you ask me this as if I have no morals. "Truly" is an unnecessary qualifier in your attempt to bait me into saying something is objective. There is nothing outside of ourselves. I say it's wrong they say it's right, the world keeps spinning.

But through dialogue I believe we can, eventually, come to a consensus and agree to how a society should operate, what is and isn't allowed. Again, there will always be people who disagree for one reason or another, and as a society we must discuss how to incorporate these people in a fair manner to all.

I want you to tell me if you believe that goodness is truly known (kindness, generosity) or is goodness whatever we want it to be? Could killing and raping be good and kindness & generosity be bad (all things equal)?

In my opinion, killing can be justified, war, self defense etc. Rape in most cases can not be justified. But there have been instances of extreme cruelty when African warlords have forced child soldiers at gun point to rape. Can we judge the child soldier as wrong/evil?

killing can be morally permissible. Can killing for no reason be morally permissible?

The act in itself is either permissible in all instances or no instances. That's what objective means. You just admitted killing is a morally subjective act.

If rape cannot be justified is it truly wrong?

I think the loaded question you meant to ask was "If rape can be justified is it wrong?"

Forcibly being made to do something isn't the same thing as doing it out of your own free will. We can conclude that the warlords are the ones committing the wrongdoing. Can we conclude that what they did was definitely wrong?

You didn't answer my question. So I will not answer yours. You are not interested in dialogue, merely spouting loaded questions with an agenda.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:07:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with Bennett. This is just a nonsensical loaded question that implies just because one doesn"t believe in Ben"s idea of a Christian god that he/she must not have the moral compass to decipher between good and bad. This is pure piffle and, as Bennett suggests, demonstrates Ben"s ignorance on the matter of human evolution and development in forming foundational guides as to how to form solidarity with one another in creating a just and moral civilization.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:12:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

What might make someone a "good person" is determined by their intent and actions, and we can't really ever know someone's intent, so I don't think it's possible to know whether someone is a good person or not.

As to your question about the pedophile, we all have to accept some things as true in order to function. I personally accept that doing physical or emotional harm to myself and others is objectively wrong. So the child molester is objectively bad because he is doing physical and emotional harm to someone.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:15:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:51:50 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:42:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:31:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:21:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:14:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:11:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:07:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 11:40:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
SNP1 do you agree or disagree with dhardage? If so, why?

It seems like anything that harms another is objectively bad while anything that enhances well-being is good - all things held equal.

At no point did I declare anything objective. Let's get that straight.

Is morality entirely subjective then?

I believe I already said that. Everyone lives by their own set of morals, no matter how it came to be. Many of our moral imperatives are shared due to our social nature and the empathy that we are capable of. Collective moral beliefs (e.g. its wrong to steal) are often codified in to law but many are not. That is how societies function.

We've had a discussion on this before but you sided with morality being theoretically objective. You said that all things tend to survive so morality had an objective basis in survival.

I'll ask you the same question: is it definitively true that well-being is good and harm is definitively bad all things held equal?

I said survival is the basis of morals because we they enhance our survival as a species. And note, I said theoretically objective but that theory is not currently supported. I do not propose to speak for anyone other than myself when I express good versus bad as that is a subjective statement. I also noted that harm must be balanced against benefit so the case is not black and white as you are stating it. Those are general principles that must be applied in a case by case basis.

Sure it is. Look at an aggregate of all societies and we see a strikingly similar code of ethics. Murder, robbery, rape, etc., are all not allowed. If killing without necessary justification, forcibly taking without permission, and forcible intercourse are subjective moral standards, why does everyone on the planet act as if they aren't subjective? If it's because we are a social species and social cohesion helps with survival, why isn't it objective then? Is it subjective that an innocent person shouldn't be punished? Is it subjective that an infant ought not to be raped? Belief that morality is totally subjective is the minority position by a wide margin. It lends itself into absurdity.

If harm is balanced against benefit, and benefit is greater than harm, is this truly better than if harm outweighed the good?

It's not objective because it is not external to the minds of everyone. It's internal and decided upon by each individual. Is it objective that slavery is wrong? If so, why was it considered right and just not that long ago and still is by some people. Arugmentum ad populum is not valid. Shared, common values aren't necessarily objective because they are shared. I won't debate this definition again since we are unalterably opposed and it would be a waste of our time to do so.

So whatever exists in the mind cannot be objective, right?

If people disregard their objective awareness of immoral actions this doesn't mean that they didn't have objective moral awareness. People cheat on their significant others all the time despite knowing that it was wrong. This doesn't mean that since they disregarded their conscience that it is therefore subjectively wrong.
mrsatan
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:21:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 10:45:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whatever makes a "good person" is subject to your opinion. If your opinion has no objective basis, anyone that has a different opinion than you has just as much merit.

If a child molester believes that molesting kids is good, but you believe that it is bad, how would you claim the moral high ground? If you appeal to laws or societal consensus you'd just be making an appeal Ad Populum fallacy. It wouldn't be morally superior to claim that molesting children is bad, it would just be *different* or merely *unconventional*.

So, I ask you, is there really such thing as a "good person"?

Morality is not subjective in the sense that whatever someone thinks is moral actually is moral. At it's most basic, morality is the distinction between helping and harming others.

To help others is moral, and to hurt others is immoral. That IS the objective basis of morality.

The subjectivity isn't found in what we think is or isn't moral. Any action has definitive effects that are one of the following: helpful (moral), harmful (immoral), neither (amoral), or both.

The last of those is a moral gray area. Deciding whether or not an actions helpful effects outweigh its harmful effects is highly dependant on perspective, and in such cases, there likely isn't a definitive answer.

The other three do have definitive answers, but there is still a subjective aspect. The subjectivity in these cases is in whether or not the effects are actual helpful or harmful. An action that would harm one person wouldn't necessarily harm someone else.

For example, a doctor prescribing anxiety medicine to a person who suffers from anxiety would be a moral action. A doctor prescribing anxiety medicine to a person who doesn't suffer from anxiety would (likely) be an immoral action.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:28:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 1:03:15 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:49:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:39:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

There is nothing else to go by. All we have is what we know about the person.

What do we know about goodness?

What is goodness in the first place? If I ask you this question you'll respond with "God". And I'll respond with my own opinion. We can disagree and yet nothing changes.

Is love, humility, kindness, generosity, and patience examples of goodness?

If it was generally agreed upon that exterminating the Jews was good in Nazi Germany did that make it "good"?

Nazi Germany is an example of fervor gone awry. The German people were desperate and thought what they were doing was right. Just as Christians think spreading their religion, hating gays, and posting BS questions on the internet is right. Understand?

But hating gays, spreading religion, and hating other people is not truly wrong, right?

In my opinion it is wrong. In their opinion it is not wrong. It's 2 diff subjective perspectives. Again you ask me this as if I have no morals. "Truly" is an unnecessary qualifier in your attempt to bait me into saying something is objective. There is nothing outside of ourselves. I say it's wrong they say it's right, the world keeps spinning.

I'm questioning the credibility of your moral compass. If it has no credibility, your moral compass is no better or worse than that of a serial child rapists. Whatever is based on meritless opinion has no credibility.

But through dialogue I believe we can, eventually, come to a consensus and agree to how a society should operate, what is and isn't allowed. Again, there will always be people who disagree for one reason or another, and as a society we must discuss how to incorporate these people in a fair manner to all.

So if society tended towards a consensus on condoning racism would this be true of how society ought to act?

I want you to tell me if you believe that goodness is truly known (kindness, generosity) or is goodness whatever we want it to be? Could killing and raping be good and kindness & generosity be bad (all things equal)?

In my opinion, killing can be justified, war, self defense etc. Rape in most cases can not be justified. But there have been instances of extreme cruelty when African warlords have forced child soldiers at gun point to rape. Can we judge the child soldier as wrong/evil?

killing can be morally permissible. Can killing for no reason be morally permissible?

The act in itself is either permissible in all instances or no instances. That's what objective means. You just admitted killing is a morally subjective act.

I've never said that killing is always wrong - that would be a moral absolutist position. My position has always been that killing without necessary justification is wrong. This is an objective moral truth. Whatever fulfills the criteria of "necessary justification" is subjective to a certain degree. You're confusing moral absolutism with objective morality.

If rape cannot be justified is it truly wrong?

I think the loaded question you meant to ask was "If rape can be justified is it wrong?"

No, that's not the question I meant to ask. I asked you if rape cannot be justified, is it truly wrong?

Forcibly being made to do something isn't the same thing as doing it out of your own free will. We can conclude that the warlords are the ones committing the wrongdoing. Can we conclude that what they did was definitely wrong?

You didn't answer my question. So I will not answer yours. You are not interested in dialogue, merely spouting loaded questions with an agenda.

I wasn't avoiding your question on purpose. People are held morally accountable based on the situation. It's not a one size fits all. If a child is held at gunpoint to do immoral things, he is less morally accountable than if he did it out of his own free will. Don't you agree?

I don't have an agenda. I'm merely aligning a subjective morality worldview with reality and asking questions.