Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality is sujective

janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

I fully agree. :)
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:05:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

I fully agree. :)

It took me a while to figure this out.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.
Never fart near dog
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

How do you know God is all knowing?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 7:19:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

I didn't realise that the definition of 'objective' was 'like subjective only from someone who knows more'.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,960
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 8:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
As I see it, if God has designated A to be moral and B to be immoral then the objective facts are not that A is moral and B is immoral but rather that 'God has designated A as moral' and 'God as designated B as immoral'.

If there is nothing more to morality than God's arbitrary choices as to what is moral and what is immoral then that reduces to 'A is moral' and 'B is immoral'. Note - If.

But I think that implies that god could designate theft or rape as morally good, and that would make theft and rape morally good. While some people might think that is the case, to me it is a 'reductio ad absurdum' of the idea that morality is down to god's arbitrary choices.

I don't believe in god, but even if I did I am not sure I would accept that a god could make, say, rape a moral good. (I know all about the OT scriptures - they are human writings and not strictly relevant).

I believe rape (for example) is objectively bad, and it would be remain bad even if a deity wanted us to think otherwise, or even if he made us think otherwise. The idea that objective morality is whatever the whim of a deity happens to be doesn't work for me one bit.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 8:36:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Morality is objective.

If God's disposition and will is necessarily true, as in logically absolute, then God can be the objective basis.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 2:50:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

What did he say and how do you know it wasn't just another guy starting a religion with "prophecies" and "eye witnesses"? Mormons got theirs too BTW.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 2:56:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 8:36:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Morality is objective.

If God's disposition and will is necessarily true, as in logically absolute, then God can be the objective basis.

How do you know that we just don't share the some of the same subjective opinions?

If a lost tribe on a desolate island agree, then that determines what they think is moral. It just so happens that they will probably subjectively agree with you at least 80% of the time. Besides, who do you think told them to act "moral" and in what way was it communicated?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 9:21:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

Response: Rather, it's a matter of opinion on your part about the fact that God exist and morality is objective.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!
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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 4:58:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.

Ok, thank you for letting me pick your brain.
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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 5:07:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 4:58:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.

Ok, thank you for letting me pick your brain.

Hey! While you're in there, please take a stab at anything you see that might be wrong!! I don't get critiqued near enough on this issue! :)
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 5:31:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

The definition of morality (or anything else) is subjective. However, for any given definition, morality is objective. Actions and effects either violate that definition or they do not, regardless of opinion.

Ultimately, this means morality is objective. If I use one definition for morality, whilst you use another, then we are not talking about the same concept. It's the equivocation of two concepts through using one label. Then that equivocation is used to call morality subjective, even though both concepts are objective.
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.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 5:07:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:58:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.

Ok, thank you for letting me pick your brain.

Hey! While you're in there, please take a stab at anything you see that might be wrong!! I don't get critiqued near enough on this issue! :)

Hmm, well, I'll do my best given my ignorance.

I'm not really very clear on the illusion of objectivity you've suggested on moral issues. It seems to me, that reasoning would have implications for anything we call objective...for instance an objective truth, or objective reality. Are those illusions as well?
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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 8:26:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 7:59:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/12/2016 5:07:57 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:58:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.

Ok, thank you for letting me pick your brain.

Hey! While you're in there, please take a stab at anything you see that might be wrong!! I don't get critiqued near enough on this issue! :)

Hmm, well, I'll do my best given my ignorance.

I'm not really very clear on the illusion of objectivity you've suggested on moral issues. It seems to me, that reasoning would have implications for anything we call objective...for instance an objective truth, or objective reality. Are those illusions as well?

Objective truth propositions, such as "this rock exists" or "the earth is round" are true or false regardless of human thought, and can be tested. It doesn't require comparison to personal value like morality does.

Basically, moral judgements made about something are in relation to a goal or ideal (e.g. minimal suffering). This goal or ideal is based on what's collectively held to be valuable, and requires human thought and opinion in order to establish it as such. If such a goal or ideal is recognized as a standard by many people, then comparisons can be made with that established, opinionative standard, objectively. The core opinion is still ultimately subjective, it's just being treated as if it's actually objective.

To put this analogously, say that to all people in the world, pizza is their favorite food (in terms of taste). Although we all know that such a thing is purely subjective, it can be established that pizza is objectively "good" (better than other foods), and that giving someone pizza is likewise, objectively good. I know this is silly, but to these people, the objective standard of pizza being "good" is functional because they share that common ideal. That personal ideal was objectivized.

Did I make it clearer or just muck it up more?
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 9:28:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

For the most part, I agree with this. My only qualm with it is that it describes moral conclusions, rather than morality itself. Relevant personal ideals are used because we can't read each others minds, or feel what they feel. We don't know how an action affects someone else. We do know (or can at least make a reasonable guess) how it would affect ourselves. We then extrapolate from that to determine how it affects them. The problem is, that determination has no bearing on how the action actually affects them. Overall, it either enhances their well-being, or detracts from it, regardless of what anyone thinks it does.


I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

My reply to Jane is addresses this if you'd like to assess it.


I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.
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: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 9:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
If you believe that sentient perception isn't foundational to an actual state of affairs then there is no logical way of believing in a true objective morality.
Skeptical1
Posts: 656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 1:18:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

Objective morality is an invention of people who wish to impose their wills on others.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:14:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:10:09 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

How do you know God is all knowing?

God's definition.
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:16:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

nope. God knows what is REALLY bad or good. not in some compulsion.
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:20:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/11/2016 7:19:34 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

I didn't realise that the definition of 'objective' was 'like subjective only from someone who knows more'.

lol i shouldnt have said that.. forget about the subjective thing to God..
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:21:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 2:50:21 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

What did he say and how do you know it wasn't just another guy starting a religion with "prophecies" and "eye witnesses"? Mormons got theirs too BTW.

its another debate. if u want to know why i believe that my religion is true ask my son
Never fart near dog
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 12:53:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 9:16:52 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

nope. God knows what is REALLY bad or good. not in some compulsion.

Now you're assuming that morality is objective (which is your conclusion) as a premise, so you're falling into circular reasoning; namely, Begging the Question (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...).
Chaosism
Posts: 2,653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 1:31:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:28:36 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

For the most part, I agree with this. My only qualm with it is that it describes moral conclusions, rather than morality itself. Relevant personal ideals are used because we can't read each others minds, or feel what they feel. We don't know how an action affects someone else. We do know (or can at least make a reasonable guess) how it would affect ourselves. We then extrapolate from that to determine how it affects them. The problem is, that determination has no bearing on how the action actually affects them. Overall, it either enhances their well-being, or detracts from it, regardless of what anyone thinks it does.

Right - the existence of morality, in of and itself, in humans is objective; humans obviously possess the capacity and inclination to form judgments about "right and wrong". However, those judgements don't reflect objective values of reality (such as measuring a distance), but are based on one's own personal ideals of what's "right and wrong", which is subjective. The entire foundation of morality is the valuing of well-being, which is simply opinion, is it not? Life possess no objective value; only what intelligent, moral minds assign to it.

I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

My reply to Jane is addresses this if you'd like to assess it.

Yes, I did read that, and I think we're generally in agreement. However, I take things one step further, I feel, and conclude that since the basis of morality is subjective, all moral judgements and values are ultimately subjective, as well, and that we just perceive and treat them as if they were objective. But since our ideals are so similar ('cause we're the same species), this is quite functional to us.

I expanded on this in my reply to Skepticalone, if you care to take a peek. Thank you for replying. :)

I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:58:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 9:14:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:10:09 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

How do you know God is all knowing?

God's definition.

God told you that?
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:56:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:31:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:28:36 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 10/12/2016 4:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/12/2016 3:38:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:16:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/11/2016 7:07:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 10/11/2016 6:50:33 PM, janesix wrote:
Even if it comes from God. After all, it is still a matter of opinion, even if that opinion is God's.

but God all knowing. so what he says is right. so to us its objective. to him is subjective.

If God is all-knowing then He know all that is actual. It doesn't follow that all that He thinks is then actual. You can regard Him as correct as a moral authority, but that doesn't make morality actually objective. Sure, in the form of enforceable rules, it might be to objective relative to you, but it's not ultimately objective, in of and itself.

How do you define objective and subjective morality? Can there be such a thing as objective moral truths if morality is inherently subjective. I hope that makes sense outside of my head!

Morality is the valuation of actions and inclinations in regard to the well-being of living beings that are capable of recognizing suffering and non-suffering, which exists as a judgement in the mind of an individual based on the relevant personal ideals of that individual.

For the most part, I agree with this. My only qualm with it is that it describes moral conclusions, rather than morality itself. Relevant personal ideals are used because we can't read each others minds, or feel what they feel. We don't know how an action affects someone else. We do know (or can at least make a reasonable guess) how it would affect ourselves. We then extrapolate from that to determine how it affects them. The problem is, that determination has no bearing on how the action actually affects them. Overall, it either enhances their well-being, or detracts from it, regardless of what anyone thinks it does.

Right - the existence of morality, in of and itself, in humans is objective; humans obviously possess the capacity and inclination to form judgments about "right and wrong". However, those judgements don't reflect objective values of reality (such as measuring a distance), but are based on one's own personal ideals of what's "right and wrong", which is subjective. The entire foundation of morality is the valuing of well-being, which is simply opinion, is it not? Life possess no objective value; only what intelligent, moral minds assign to it.

I wouldn't agree that the foundation of morality has anything to do with valuing well-being. While it's certainly subjective, I would call it the foundation for ones inclination to behave morally. Morality itself would be based on the fact that ones well-being can be affected by the actions of others. Or, if you prefer, that there's something to be valued in the first place.


I just typed that out in one long thought, but this makes morality inherently subjective, and I can't even see how this is coherent in any objective sense. This can easily be objectivized if a standard is held as common; namely, that life is valuable and that happiness and well-being of said life is "good". This is a ultimately a subjective assessment, though, so this standard is merely treated as though it were objectively true. This functions quite successfully since the vast majority of humans are intrinsically inclined towards this disposition.

My reply to Jane is addresses this if you'd like to assess it.

Yes, I did read that, and I think we're generally in agreement. However, I take things one step further, I feel, and conclude that since the basis of morality is subjective, all moral judgements and values are ultimately subjective, as well, and that we just perceive and treat them as if they were objective. But since our ideals are so similar ('cause we're the same species), this is quite functional to us.

I think your right that we're in general agreement, except that we disagree on the basis of what morality is. The moral judgments we arrive at are subjective, but that's only because our best form of measurement is our own subjective values and feelings.

It's like using a haphazard ruler you made with guesswork. If you're guesses were good/lucky, you might measure an inch and get 15/16ths of an inch. If they weren't, you might measure an inch and a half. Either way, that inch is really an inch.


I expanded on this in my reply to Skepticalone, if you care to take a peek. Thank you for replying. :)

I think I had already read it, and I'd probably agree, if it weren't for the foundational disagreement. I forget exactly how you put it, but I think it did clarify your position, rather than mucking it up. =)


I tried to sum up my thoughts quickly and succinctly, so forgive me if I oversimplified some things. To restate, I can't understand "objective moral truth" in any coherent way aside from what I described, above, which isn't actually objective.
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.