Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Skepticalone about Objective morality

POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 12:31:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
u asked "AWSM0055" that is murder is wrong... well this is a perfect example of David Hume..

"Take any action allow"d to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but "tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it. Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compar"d to sounds, colours, heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind."

isnt?
Never fart near dog
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...
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
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.
Never fart near dog
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.
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
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:48:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?

objective = fact/cant change. the idea that 1+1=2 is objective. no matter what. subjective is relative, based on perception of the individual/not fact/opinion/u can change it anytime. like if u see snow as white u cant say its "inherently" white maybe others see it in a different color. its your point of view.
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.
Never fart near dog
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:49:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 9:48:53 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?

objective = fact/cant change. the idea that 1+1=2 is objective. no matter what.

The temperature outside your home is independently measurable, yet it can change. Is it objective or subjective?

Also, could you please define morality?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:06:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:49:15 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:48:53 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?

objective = fact/cant change. the idea that 1+1=2 is objective. no matter what.

The temperature outside your home is independently measurable, yet it can change. Is it objective or subjective?

meaningless question... to be a human objective or subjective?


Also, could you please define morality?

why dont u define it? i doubt your stupidity. bwt define also what is objective.
Never fart near dog
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 12:30:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 11:06:00 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:49:15 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:48:53 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?

objective = fact/cant change. the idea that 1+1=2 is objective. no matter what.

The temperature outside your home is independently measurable, yet it can change. Is it objective or subjective?

meaningless question... to be a human objective or subjective?


Also, could you please define morality?

why dont u define it? i doubt your stupidity. bwt define also what is objective.

Popoo, I think you may have been talking about absolute morality -- that is a sense of good and bad that is knowable, objective and unchanging.

For objective, I think for our purposes it can mean 'independently observable'. Note that this doesn't mean observable by anyone, any way they want. Rather it means observable by some accurate, best-practice repeatable procedure.

For morality, I have my own views about what it ought to mean. However, advancing them might distract from the conversation between you and Skepticalone, so let me ask: what did you understand Skep to mean by morality?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.
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
1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.
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
1/14/2016 6:35:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.

There's a difference between knowledge of something and the reality of something. In philosophy, the study of what can be known is referred to as epistemology and the study of reality or "what is" is referred to as ontology. When you say that logic or rationality is the basis for objective moral discernment you're referring to how we know that certain things are objectively moral or immoral. It's an epistemic claim because it's referring to epistemology or how we know that things are certain way. Moral realism and objective morality are claims regarding ontology or what actually is. I'm arguing that there is no way that atheism is compatible with moral realism as an ontology.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 6:42:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

this
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 7:16:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 12:30:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 11:06:00 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:49:15 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:48:53 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?

objective = fact/cant change. the idea that 1+1=2 is objective. no matter what.

The temperature outside your home is independently measurable, yet it can change. Is it objective or subjective?

meaningless question... to be a human objective or subjective?


Also, could you please define morality?

why dont u define it? i doubt your stupidity. bwt define also what is objective.

Popoo, I think you may have been talking about absolute morality -- that is a sense of good and bad that is knowable, objective and unchanging.

For objective, I think for our purposes it can mean 'independently observable'. Note that this doesn't mean observable by anyone, any way they want. Rather it means observable by some accurate, best-practice repeatable procedure.

before getting into the detail things u have to define simply what is objective/sub. but think for a moment if God doesnt exist we r just matter it has no value at all u give to yourself a value and all u think about morality is just in your brain. its an idea there is no reference point to confirm its "true/wrong" regardless of other opinions its not related to answer that way.


For morality, I have my own views about what it ought to mean. However, advancing them might distract from the conversation between you and Skepticalone, so let me ask: what did you understand Skep to mean by morality?

he gave what he means by morality and he listed some "virtues" which r relative anyway.
Never fart near dog
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 7:26:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 6:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.

There's a difference between knowledge of something and the reality of something. In philosophy, the study of what can be known is referred to as epistemology and the study of reality or "what is" is referred to as ontology. When you say that logic or rationality is the basis for objective moral discernment you're referring to how we know that certain things are objectively moral or immoral. It's an epistemic claim because it's referring to epistemology or how we know that things are certain way. Moral realism and objective morality are claims regarding ontology or what actually is. I'm arguing that there is no way that atheism is compatible with moral realism as an ontology.

How does the unsubstantiated claim of diety help theists with ontology or make moral realism more reasonable than without? I mean, really- I'm not trying to be snide.
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
1/14/2016 7:48:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:26:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.

There's a difference between knowledge of something and the reality of something. In philosophy, the study of what can be known is referred to as epistemology and the study of reality or "what is" is referred to as ontology. When you say that logic or rationality is the basis for objective moral discernment you're referring to how we know that certain things are objectively moral or immoral. It's an epistemic claim because it's referring to epistemology or how we know that things are certain way. Moral realism and objective morality are claims regarding ontology or what actually is. I'm arguing that there is no way that atheism is compatible with moral realism as an ontology.

How does the unsubstantiated claim of diety help theists with ontology or make moral realism more reasonable than without? I mean, really- I'm not trying to be snide.

Under theism reality is of the mind . Under atheism reality not of the mind. Moral propositions, which are of the mind, are about reality. Therefore under atheism moral proposition can't express features of reality but theism can. Sorry my explanarion is short I gotta go
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 8:58:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:48:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:26:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.

There's a difference between knowledge of something and the reality of something. In philosophy, the study of what can be known is referred to as epistemology and the study of reality or "what is" is referred to as ontology. When you say that logic or rationality is the basis for objective moral discernment you're referring to how we know that certain things are objectively moral or immoral. It's an epistemic claim because it's referring to epistemology or how we know that things are certain way. Moral realism and objective morality are claims regarding ontology or what actually is. I'm arguing that there is no way that atheism is compatible with moral realism as an ontology.

How does the unsubstantiated claim of diety help theists with ontology or make moral realism more reasonable than without? I mean, really- I'm not trying to be snide.

Under theism reality is of the mind . Under atheism reality not of the mind. Moral propositions, which are of the mind, are about reality. Therefore under atheism moral proposition can't express features of reality but theism can. Sorry my explanarion is short I gotta go

Why does theism equate to reality being of the mind?
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
1/14/2016 9:07:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 8:58:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:48:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:26:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.

There's a difference between knowledge of something and the reality of something. In philosophy, the study of what can be known is referred to as epistemology and the study of reality or "what is" is referred to as ontology. When you say that logic or rationality is the basis for objective moral discernment you're referring to how we know that certain things are objectively moral or immoral. It's an epistemic claim because it's referring to epistemology or how we know that things are certain way. Moral realism and objective morality are claims regarding ontology or what actually is. I'm arguing that there is no way that atheism is compatible with moral realism as an ontology.

How does the unsubstantiated claim of diety help theists with ontology or make moral realism more reasonable than without? I mean, really- I'm not trying to be snide.

Under theism reality is of the mind . Under atheism reality not of the mind. Moral propositions, which are of the mind, are about reality. Therefore under atheism moral proposition can't express features of reality but theism can. Sorry my explanarion is short I gotta go

Why does theism equate to reality being of the mind?

Because reality is derivative from a necessary mind
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:50:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:16:19 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 12:30:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 11:06:00 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:49:15 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:48:53 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:20:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

Could you define 'objective' please, Popoo? How would you know if an idea were objective? How could someone prove to you that it is, or that it isn't?

Please also define morality. What do you mean by it?

objective = fact/cant change. the idea that 1+1=2 is objective. no matter what.

The temperature outside your home is independently measurable, yet it can change. Is it objective or subjective?

meaningless question... to be a human objective or subjective?


Also, could you please define morality?

why dont u define it? i doubt your stupidity. bwt define also what is objective.

Popoo, I think you may have been talking about absolute morality -- that is a sense of good and bad that is knowable, objective and unchanging.

For objective, I think for our purposes it can mean 'independently observable'. Note that this doesn't mean observable by anyone, any way they want. Rather it means observable by some accurate, best-practice repeatable procedure.

before getting into the detail things u have to define simply what is objective/sub.
Yes, I've done that. I've accepted the common philosophical definition that the objective exists outside the mind, and my recognition for that is that it's independently observable. By contrast, the subjective exists as a product of mind, and a recognition for that is that the mind's perceptions and apprehensions are refuted by independent observation.

but think for a moment if God doesnt exist we r just matter it has no value at all u give to yourself a value and all u think about morality is just in your brain.
You're stating a position that's irrelevant to topic (you're asking Skep about his views), that's invalid until you define morality (you've avoided doing so), and that needs to be demonstrated through reason and observation once you've defined morality (you haven't done that.)

its an idea there is no reference point to confirm its "true/wrong" regardless of other opinions its not related to answer that way.
Yes, it's a common idea based on what I believe is a theological abuse of David Hume's is/ought fallacy. But it's a fallacious abuse, because the individuals doing the thinking -- humans -- aren't simply creatures of arbitrary thought. We're creatures whose very existence is grounded in mutual suffering, which we apprehend and share, and which it's therefore natural to understand and address together. I sketched an argument for this recently in another thread: [http://www.debate.org...]; it'd be off-topic and needless to pursue it here again, but you're welcome to comment or ask questions in the other thread.

For morality, I have my own views about what it ought to mean. However, advancing them might distract from the conversation between you and Skepticalone, so let me ask: what did you understand Skep to mean by morality?
he gave what he means by morality and he listed some "virtues" which r relative anyway.

I haven't seen you or Skep quote a definition in this thread, Popoo. Since you've challenged Skep on the objectivity of morality, I think it's important that you state what you understand to be his definition, and state explicitly whether you accept it but contest objectivity, or contest it and objectivity too. Otherwise you're just being vague.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:24:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 9:07:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 8:58:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:48:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:26:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 6:26:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:58:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:00:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:58:57 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:59:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:34:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:51:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 12:31:37 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
is murder wrong** lol

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.


http://aynrandlexicon.com...

lol now u trying to clarify what is morality all about according to u & what is needed or how to "live in the right way" in your perception. "My morality, the morality of reason" who's reason? yours.. everybody have some "reason" to justify his actions. just subjective and will change if we apply it to other people, the "virtues" r relative... there is no objective morality.

reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The ability to think logically is a tool available to all of us.

so when a sadistic person inflict pain on others he lives it by reason and logic. not your logic. his. morality is just bunch of ideas invented my humans for certain motives. it doesnt exist.

It's not my logic, Pop. Logic is the same for all of us. If it is applied to moral questions then we can determine the best course of action. I would suggest someone who inflicts pain on others needlessly is not using logic.

There's a difference between *knowing* that something is wrong vs. there *actually being* something wrong. Atheism is not compatible with moral objectivism in the sense that there are *actually* things that are objectively moral and immoral. Any *rational* person is a moral objectivist because rationality is our objective basis for moral discernment. This only addresses what is known - not what actually is. If mind and reality are distinct from one another (which it necessarily is *if a necessary mind doesn't exist* (AKA atheism)) then moral propositions, which only exist within cognition, and only address features of reality, would have no connection to reality. If moral propositions have no connection to reality then moral objectivism is not possibly true.

It's not clear to me what you are trying to say, Ben. I'm willing to bet we are defining things differently.

There's a difference between knowledge of something and the reality of something. In philosophy, the study of what can be known is referred to as epistemology and the study of reality or "what is" is referred to as ontology. When you say that logic or rationality is the basis for objective moral discernment you're referring to how we know that certain things are objectively moral or immoral. It's an epistemic claim because it's referring to epistemology or how we know that things are certain way. Moral realism and objective morality are claims regarding ontology or what actually is. I'm arguing that there is no way that atheism is compatible with moral realism as an ontology.

How does the unsubstantiated claim of diety help theists with ontology or make moral realism more reasonable than without? I mean, really- I'm not trying to be snide.

Under theism reality is of the mind . Under atheism reality not of the mind. Moral propositions, which are of the mind, are about reality. Therefore under atheism moral proposition can't express features of reality but theism can. Sorry my explanarion is short I gotta go

Why does theism equate to reality being of the mind?

Because reality is derivative from a necessary mind

Assuming a mind (which is merely argued for not established to be true), it takes a leap to get from there to theism.
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