• Objective

  • Subjective

37% 13 votes
63% 22 votes
  • Real morality can only be Objective.

  • Personal decisions are also objective really. In truth morality has to be objective, seemingly subjective only because you cannot comprehend all of the interactions happening to you all at once that make you think it'd be moral to do something one way or the other. Its only subjective to those who do not have the capacity to know where your morality really derives from.

  • I believe everything is objective. Even subjectivity is objective

  • The central tenants of Subjective morality (how most thinkers define subjective morality. For instance, subjective moralist Silverman) is that there is: 1. No absolute morality 2. All Morality is subjective by society and time. (some put it to the individual person) Thus, if asked if the Holocaust was (I apologize for jumping to that much-used extreme, but it is the first thing to my mind.) good or bad, the subjective moralist would say from the German's perspective, the Holocaust was a good thing and from the Allies perspective, it was horribly bad. While this lovely way of looking at morality is extremely defensible (i.e. Well that's just YOUR morality!) subjective morality fails on its own tenants. Subjective morality claims that there is no objective truth, but asking a few questions will reveal that subjective morality itself is based upon a few absolute morals that were chosen somewhat willy-nilly. (for lack of a better word at this moment) I can ask the moral subjectivist if it is morally correct to use one's own society and time period to decide their morals. For example: Is it morally right, for me to justify owning a slave in America, 2017 by pointing to Ancient Rome and claiming their morality? Can I point to a Mexican cult that cuts chicken's heads off to justify doing it in America? Can I be morally correct to kill people in England by pointing to the 7 years war (If I was French or some other country at war with Britain at the time.) and using the morality of killing one's country's enemy in wartime despite actually being in peace? Once again: Can I be morally correct by pointing to another society or time's morals and thus justify actions that would otherwise be considered wrong in my society/time? Naturally, every human being will look at the above and immediately say no! (For good reason!) the subjective moralist might say, "Of course, you can't own a slave in 2017 by pointing to another society! That wouldn't make it right! Because It isn't your society!" Exactly my point. (And if you said yes to the above question, then that means anybody could effectively justify nearly ANY action no matter where they live or when they live via pointing to a different society.) (If you say neither yes nor no, then people are still able to abuse morality like that) I agree wholeheartedly. (to the 'no' crowd of my question) of course, it is ridiculous to try and do that. However, in saying no to the question, the subjective moralist just became an absolutist. If the subjective moralist said no, then subjective moralism suddenly has some absolutes! 1. It is ALWAYS wrong to use another society/time's morals to justify actions one's own society/time would deem wrong. And somewhat by extension . . . 2. It is ALWAYS right to use one's own society and time for moral guidance rather than another. Those are two absolutes (see the word, 'always'?) But moral subjectivism claims there are no absolute truths! Of course, the subjective moralist can effectively defend by amending those two 'ALWAYS' to 'sometimes' However, this only delays the problem. How would you decide when those sometimes are right or wrong? Subjectively? Then that only continues the original problem. Any other method of determining the 'sometimes' will lead to either more problems, moral absolutism, or simply being arbitrary. (Another may argue that they believe subjective morality with the individual and not the society. In this case, my question still applies albeit with small modifications: Is it morally correct/ok to point to another person's morality to justify your own? The answer is still no. And the problems still persist.) Because of what I have shown, Subjective morality fails on its own tenant of no absolute morality. Because it cannot lean on itself and stand tall, it is not a logically sound position to stand on.

  • Even Sam Harris defines objective morality as "That which improves life on earth". That's subjective and good from a human or intelligent animals perspective is also subjective. For religious people who think they have objective morals. Your interpretation of a text is also subjective.

  • While some people may be influenced by others, or religion, to form their own morals, it is a complete personal decision.

  • Human morality is for humans and is subjective therefore. Objective morality would be one that was more inclusive, one would think.

  • It should be objective, but it isn't yet.

  • I reason that morality is not one characteristically identifiable subjective perspective or objective reaction of perception. To define morality as only subjective or objective is to give injustice to the beautiful poetic nature that surrounds the true nature of this characteristically insightful conceptualization. Respectfully i can only reason that there are two kinds of morality. "ultimate morality" or what i call Base Line Morality and relative taught morality. Ultimate morality stems directly from understanding. I would reason that there are two kinds of culture that make up our morality. First is survival culture, and second is Insight or Understanding culture. These two kinds of culture are polar opposing dependents of each other. When you have survival culture you will have no base line morality because base line morality is directly associated with understanding a concept i call sentient habitual reaction. When you lose survival culture and gain the common culture you will see a gravitation towards base line morality that stems from understanding that is psychologically associated with the absence of the consistent "survival instinct" you find in survival culture. This is because "survival" by nature is about keeping your own and only your own will being. It is this personal individual ideologically naive idea of well being or "self preservation" that causes us to become conceptually ignorant to the well being of others. Ive been writing long enough... Please question my concept. Scrutinize it. Objectively think. And write. I will answer. Peace to all

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Berend says2015-08-28T09:03:53.0278038Z
What happened to the other one?
ramm55 says2015-08-28T15:05:09.7730315Z
One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-28T18:15:07.9344433Z
This one always interested me because subjective morality believers label objective morality believers to be the religious types, when in reality, to think you could have free thought at all would invoke a religious belief in humans and their being special or mutually exclusive in regards to nature and every other living thing in the universe. You'd have to be pretty religious to believe in subjective morality ... Somewhat religious to believe in objective morality (if you then thought that object was god). Objective morality is the only one of the two that has an alternative for people who are not religious.
Preston says2015-08-28T18:26:12.3163550Z
@Teaparty, this is a subjective view as well, lol
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-28T18:35:14.3601765Z
I think all other outside data supports the claim that our decisions are not our own, ergo nothing can be subjective really. Subjective can only happen if you are ignorant to all the things outside and how they affected your decision making.
ramm55 says2015-08-29T23:41:25.9894459Z
Freedom that is a broad assumption on your behalf of what someone who says something about subjectivism may or may not infer.
ramm55 says2015-08-29T23:42:11.4334111Z
For one do not "label" anyone like you did in your respoonse
ramm55 says2015-08-29T23:46:44.4716119Z
A broad assumption to make about someone who mention subjectivism. I for one did not "label" anyone or compartmentalize as you seem to feel the need to. I am an atheist so your assumption was completely off base. It depends on your philosophy. I can be a two pronged approach as the earlier philosophers struggled with, ie Hume.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T17:42:31.3004241Z
And that would mean you also then have no explanation for what makes a human different from any other animal out there. If you can tell me a non-spiritual way that could be possible that doesnt in turn support the idea of evolution and our origination from nothing particularly special, then it might make sense. Playing in the middle somewhere between god and no god by saying humans are unique beings in a creator-less world is more muddled and senseless than either of the other two theories.
Preston says2015-08-31T18:47:28.8652859Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality so what your saying is your not founding morals on religion? Objective is Observation of measurable facts, subjective is Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs. Overall its ridiculous to attribute a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do, based on fact rather then personal assumptions, or opinions. You honestly just are antagonizing people while supporting a side you aren't even in support of. Honestly ridiculous. Honestly though, humans and animals are innately equal, regardless of a creator. Its subjective to assert otherwise, unless god himself tells you that you are special, or you can draw back to a revelation made in your faith then its contrary to think your god values you more then other creations.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T19:18:36.5607743Z
Ive always said that morals derived from religion are just reflections of objective morality. Ive never said or stated that morality starts at religion. I just dont believe it to be necessarily bad to get things from a second hand account, since it has managed to affect many more people than straight natural law has been able to. Apparently when you scare someone with spiritual consequences you get better results than just the consequences nature dishes out. Which makes sense, since everyone out there thinks in a subjective manner about things ... Of course theyd derive the consequences theyre experiencing from ridiculous places. Religion identifies closely with them and the way they think. But it also links them to whats real, by proxy.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T19:22:59.9267271Z
"Overall its ridiculous to attribute a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do, based on fact rather then personal assumptions, or opinions." Fact should be those things (the assumptions you make or the conclusions/opinions you come to). When they arent in line with fact ... You get punished for them. It's a natural process. Its not ridiculous to trust in fact for morality ... Its ridiculous to do otherwise really. Unless you just don't value your life very much.
Preston says2015-08-31T19:24:08.8812157Z
@Freedom, lol, you just admitted its not objective
Preston says2015-08-31T19:25:07.3347904Z
Also name one belief, or moral ambiguity that is objective
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:14:29.9291559Z
It is objective ... Has objective roots.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:14:51.4109067Z
It is objective ... Has objective roots.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:17:37.2119579Z
No it isnt, faith is grounded in a belief in something that cant be factually proven, belief is faith. Knowing is knowledge of a fact. Its roots are subjective, at its core, morality differs based on personal bias, thus it is subjective. You and i have differing senses of morality thus its subjective. You dont even believe that its objective. Name one moral sense that makes morality unified in objectivity.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:18:31.7665567Z
Thou shalt not kill ... In its subjective way maybe seems like a 'nice' thing to do. Objectively people are naturally repulsed and threatened by killers out of their own innate survival instinct and will exact punishment or revenge to prevent killing, as it might come to affect them. Thats a wholly natural consequence to having murderers running around. If religion wants to rope that into being some kind of eternal spiritually punished thing also ... If thats what it takes to get it out to people that its not a smart thing to do ... Then so be it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:21:01.3587923Z
Im not saying you cant have a differing view ... Im just saying nature will show you that youre wrong and you might even die for having that view. If that happens it would be entirely your fault. Natural consequences to actions are objective. Natural justice is objective.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:21:23.4177579Z
Im not saying you cant have a differing view ... Im just saying nature will show you that youre wrong and you might even die for having that view. If that happens it would be entirely your fault. Natural consequences to actions are objective. Natural justice is objective.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:22:37.6444611Z
"Thou shalt not kill" ---- This is subjective, not all moral coumpasses are based arround this belief. Nazi's Spartains, ect. Butchered people regardless of threat, they didnt match your version of morality, thus its subjective.---- ... In its subjective way maybe seems like a 'nice' thing to do. Objectively people are naturally repulsed and threatened by killers out of their own innate survival instinct and will exact punishment or revenge to prevent killing, as it might come to affect them.----So fearing murderers? That is what makes you morally united? What about those who partook in the murders?---- Thats a wholly natural consequence to having murderers running around. If religion wants to rope that into being some kind of eternal spiritually punished thing also ... If thats what it takes to get it out to people that its not a smart thing to do ... Then so be it. ---- Once again this is subjective not objective
Preston says2015-08-31T20:23:56.0676719Z
I am saying you dont have the view you are portraying, and logic dictates that it can only be 1 answer, unless you are so short sited that you dont think cultures differ.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:25:12.6188347Z
If they were wrong for doing it they were punished for it. Reference again Nazis and Spartans.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:25:34.6778003Z
If they were wrong for doing it they were punished for it. Reference again Nazis and Spartans.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:25:42.3063959Z
And justice <> Morality, i dont care if you think nature will use karma to get you back. Morality differs, its why laws differ, and its why secular <> religion.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:26:52.3989931Z
They can differ ... But they cannot exist eternally if they are wrong about it. They cannot differ eternally, no.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:26:56.7265684Z
Really, so the spartains that killed weak children were punished under their own sense of morality? BAM, you lose that point. And the Nazi's punished each other while they were incinerating jews? BAM AGAIN
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:27:13.9587459Z
They can differ ... But they cannot exist eternally if they are wrong about it. They cannot differ eternally, no.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:27:47.9728969Z
IF THEY DIFFER THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE, facts are irrefutable, thus objectivity is universal and doesnt change. Subjectivity is what allows morals to be based on religious views.
Preston says2015-08-31T20:28:59.8737578Z
You are just agreeing with me now, if they differ then they are subjective.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:35:40.0045211Z
The one that differs is subjective and fails. The other that is based on objectivity will always work. Thats morality for you.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:36:02.0166855Z
The one that differs is subjective and fails. The other that is based on objectivity will always work. Thats morality for you.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:39:57.6919283Z
I think calling someones views solely subjective in their root is really just an attack at their authenticity. It's expected of someone who would try to undermine those morals and try to impress their own.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-31T20:40:19.6884923Z
I think calling someones views solely subjective in their root is really just an attack at their authenticity. It's expected of someone who would try to undermine those morals and try to impress their own.
Preston says2015-09-01T15:27:06.0276523Z
OOC:Your double posting, im not sure if you realised.//Once again you are asserting that somehow letting people assimilate there own morals makes them lesser somehow. But it doesnt matter because morals are not congruent, thus they are subjective, this isnt even a debate so much as it is a misinterpretation of what subjective and objective means. If morals were objective then EVERYONE would have the same morals. No differentiation. Also attacking me because i say they are subjective is quite unintelligent of you. You have still not shown how they are objective, i have shown they are subjective. Also differing morals dont fail at all, assimilation occurs and forces morals on others, its why currently we shouldn't have restrictions in the government that are moral driven. People develop their own sense of morality and buy into what they believe in, obviously we have different senses of morality thus it is subjective, or we would think the same.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T15:43:54.7495163Z
"If morals were objective then EVERYONE would have the same morals." How is that? Not all of your mistakes would necessarily result in death. If you arent fully removed for a mistake you made ... Ofcourse you will live on and perpetuate it. It doesnt mean it isnt still a mistake. Some of these mistakes take a long long time to come to fruition. Saying that we would all have the same morality because everyone that was wrong would be gone is just short sighted. Looking for instant gratification in what you think is morally right leads to that type of thinking. Why would we think the same? You can still be wrong even if things are objectively governed in the universe (which they are).
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T15:48:50.5955019Z
Maybe because you arent immediately striken from existence when you make a mistake is why you think theres this gray area you can dance in and say that alternate moralities exist in? That is shortsighted though, is all. Following any single one of those to their end would eventually result in the realization that it is wrong. I think for people to get this concept theyd have to look at how your morality and responsibility to others changes based on our longevity. If we lived to be 400 years old ... We would do things in a much different manner. Instead people die relatively early and dont think much farther past their own death to justify what they do today.
Preston says2015-09-01T15:49:05.0829808Z
Objectivity is based on facts, facts dont flux. 1+1=2 because it does, thus we objectively know that 1+1=2 in a decimal system. Morals are not the same, Nothing you just said prooves your point, in fact it supports subjectivity because you personally feel that "Looking for instant gratification in what you think is morally right leads to that type of thinking. Why would we think the same? You can still be wrong even if things are objectively governed in the universe (which they are)." Ultimately what you are saying is that the universe is objective by nature, morals are not governed by nature though, outcome may be, but morals are governed by the individual. If the individual doesn't want to adhere to a set of morals then they dont, making morals subjective.
Preston says2015-09-01T15:52:20.1756828Z
FreedomBeforeEquality is saying that freedom is limited? Thats odd. Honestly though, Aztecs killed to please their gods, they were morally adherent under their morals. Nazis killed jews and were adherent to their morals. Jews killed Babylonian babies and they were morally adherant. You would deny someone of equality of life so that you may discriminate against them, if you think its moral then you again are subjective in selecting your morality. Thus you agree it is subjective.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T15:59:42.0214047Z
"Ultimately what you are saying is that the universe is objective by nature, morals are not governed by nature though, outcome may be, but morals are governed by the individual. If the individual doesn't want to adhere to a set of morals then they dont, making morals subjective." Yes you are right here. There is one set of morally right morals (the ones based on objectivity) and the others are only morals by definition that they are a set of beliefs to convey truths ... BUT they don't in fact convey truths if they arent in line with objectivity. They are therefore false moral codes. False morality. Im not denying that you can go about and create whatever moral code you wish. It will not necessarily be right or convey truth unless it follows those morals set in stone by objectivity.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:00:04.0335691Z
"Ultimately what you are saying is that the universe is objective by nature, morals are not governed by nature though, outcome may be, but morals are governed by the individual. If the individual doesn't want to adhere to a set of morals then they dont, making morals subjective." Yes you are right here. There is one set of morally right morals (the ones based on objectivity) and the others are only morals by definition that they are a set of beliefs to convey truths ... BUT they don't in fact convey truths if they arent in line with objectivity. They are therefore false moral codes. False morality. Im not denying that you can go about and create whatever moral code you wish. It will not necessarily be right or convey truth unless it follows those morals set in stone by objectivity.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:02:58.4928423Z
Woa woa woa, you think people have false senses of morality? So you are saying my morals are incorrect because they dont match yours. This mindset is obviously fodder though, it only proves more that morality is subjective.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:04:48.1480539Z
Also morals arent objective so they shouldn't convey truths, you have yet to show how morals are objective, thus saying that those that arent are false is simply bigoted and incorrect. You have lost this debate sir. Quit wasting both our times by posting things that dont apply and/or support me rather then you.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:04:49.7704955Z
All of your examples above were peoples who were out lasted by some other morally upright group. Note that none of them are prevailing today. They adhered to morals that brought about their downfall. Some even within the course of less than a generation. Notice that the newer age ones you mentioned were only able to perpetuate moral wrongs for much shorter periods than the older examples you put. There is a trend there, and a reason for that trend.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:05:11.7982603Z
All of your examples above were peoples who were out lasted by some other morally upright group. Note that none of them are prevailing today. They adhered to morals that brought about their downfall. Some even within the course of less than a generation. Notice that the newer age ones you mentioned were only able to perpetuate moral wrongs for much shorter periods than the older examples you put. There is a trend there, and a reason for that trend.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:08:25.5864291Z
"Also morals arent objective so they shouldn't convey truths, you have yet to show how morals are objective, thus saying that those that arent are false is simply bigoted and incorrect." So you think then that morality does not need to convey truth? Is that it? I wonder then who would follow such types of moralities? Probably groups like religious ones, as ive stated above!
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:08:47.1461819Z
"Also morals arent objective so they shouldn't convey truths, you have yet to show how morals are objective, thus saying that those that arent are false is simply bigoted and incorrect." So you think then that morality does not need to convey truth? Is that it? I wonder then who would follow such types of moralities? Probably groups like religious ones, as ive stated above!
Preston says2015-09-01T16:09:30.8117015Z
You realise that some were just naturally accumulated, regardless of morals, us killing them because we think they are different doesnt make us moraly right and them right. Morality doesnt make you a better warmonger, sparta was assimilated by rome, The nazi's were butchered by us, here want a modern example. The USA passed executive order 44, allowing for the extermination of mormons, your people did this, your people still exist, and you support this over equality. Your morals allow for murder but your faith says murder is wrong. Modern example of your people killing and thinking its ok. Another example is the USA and the japanese, the USA hurricane katrina and what happened in the mega dome, the USA and native americans, but the USA still lives on.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:10:44.2583847Z
And the fact you agree that religious groups dont follow objective morals shows its subjective, why are you still posting, you agreed.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:12:49.7168015Z
Morally better ... Not morally right. And in case you havent noticed the US isnt very discriminatory over letting morally wrong people into their fold as of yet. So to have the country be full of those types is to be expected.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:13:11.7601667Z
Morally better ... Not morally right. And in case you havent noticed the US isnt very discriminatory over letting morally wrong people into their fold as of yet. So to have the country be full of those types is to be expected.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:15:17.4213887Z
Subjective morals is a contradiction because no one subject has the capacity to know all truth, let alone convey perfect truth in any moral code they might make up. All of them are attempts to do whats right. Just because you change your code to fit suit does not suddenly make the thing youre doing right.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:19:00.0055199Z
Ok first off, please get a dictionary, look up subjective, ive posted the definition for heavens sake! Subjective means based on personal belief, morals are based on personal belief, not truth, but belief. If you think that morality differs then its morally subjective. Regardless of what you see right, morality is morality, and it differs, thus making it subjective.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:22:29.3028623Z
Let me ask you this ... Do you think anyone would come up with a different moral code if they had already happened on the one that worked out perfectly for them? The only reason there are so many is that no one has hit the right one yet. All of them are illegitimate because of the fact that they dont encompass everything in an objective manner. And they will always seem to change and migrate around until they do, because they are wrong. Theyre steering down a corridor and continuously hitting the walls on the way down it. Always having to make corrections because their course was wrong from the start.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:24:23.9190011Z
Maybe you need to look up the definition of moral and note that the word belief is not in it anywhere.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:24:45.9779667Z
Maybe you need to look up the definition of moral and note that the word belief is not in it anywhere.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:25:06.8886717Z
"Let me ask you this ... Do you think anyone would come up with a different moral code if they had already happened on the one that worked out perfectly for them?" No, the same way religious practice varries, the same will always exist with morals. "The only reason there are so many is that no one has hit the right one yet."Nirvana Fallacy.... "All of them are illegitimate because of the fact that they dont encompass everything in an objective manner. And they will always seem to change and migrate around until they do, because they are wrong. Theyre steering down a corridor and continuously hitting the walls on the way down it. Always having to make corrections because their course was wrong from the start." Speculation, morals are subjective, you can hypothesize that people will conform in due time but we know that people differ.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:26:57.1189783Z
Moral - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. -- -- I am saying peoples sense of morals are subjective and based off of belief of right and wrong. Ex: abortion, human rights, animal rights, government involvement, self defense, ect.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:27:07.7856027Z
Of course subjective involves belief. Thats what that side represents Subjective=belief. Belief morals. Objective is not based on belief. Or non-belief morals.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:27:31.3422067Z
Of course subjective involves belief. Thats what that side represents Subjective=belief. Belief morals. Objective is not based on belief. Or non-belief morals.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:28:07.6158302Z
What you personally believe is what your morals are founded on. Thats it, end of discussion. I think you are mixing ethics up with morals
Preston says2015-09-01T16:29:25.1171270Z
Look, if you believe freedom is more important then equality then you have based your sense of morality around your beliefs, thus it is subjective.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:32:51.9460271Z
Nirvana Fallacy! If you dont think that the rules of matter are perfect in their design then you could claim this ... Nature is perfect in its design, it is absolute. There is no Nirvana fallacy about this when we are talking about objectively based things here.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:33:13.8645891Z
Nirvana Fallacy! If you dont think that the rules of matter are perfect in their design then you could claim this ... Nature is perfect in its design, it is absolute. There is no Nirvana fallacy about this when we are talking about objectively based things here.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:35:14.5492835Z
WE ARENT THOUGH, we are disagreeing, you are committing a nirvana fallacy, in your perfect world everyone will agree and allign morals, but guess what, right now its not, and it never will be. You literally are just throwing the word objective arround like you know what it means, please answer this, are your morals different from mine?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:37:28.1511091Z
All us disagreeing means is that at least one of us is wrong. It does not say anything about the nature of objective morality. It just says something about our two positions in relation to it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:37:50.3036771Z
All us disagreeing means is that at least one of us is wrong. It does not say anything about the nature of objective morality. It just says something about our two positions in relation to it.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:41:09.6332431Z
No it doesnt, it means it is subjective. If it has more then 1 variation, then that means people are basing it off beliefs and not facts. You lose, stop reposting the same thing, its not objective, quit assering it is, it is fallicious, i have proven its subjective, you are reposting that its objective, but you havent shown its objective so you cant assert it.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:46:28.9389751Z
You havent proven that morality is based off of subjectivity because you cant detatch the fact that people are driven by objective interactions. Do that, then you can say whatever you want about it being subjective.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:46:51.0759427Z
You havent proven that morality is based off of subjectivity because you cant detatch the fact that people are driven by objective interactions. Do that, then you can say whatever you want about it being subjective.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:49:59.4906396Z
My god, you are kidding me, I have shown that it varies, facts dont vary , thus its not objective because objectivity is based on facts. Interactions are subjective as well, people act differently, if their actions were purely objective then everything they say/fell/do is and can be mimicked. Which isnt true. You lost this dude, stop seriously. You also failed to prove your point. Gg
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:52:06.8592395Z
"Interactions are subjective as well, people act differently, if their actions were purely objective then everything they say/fell/do is and can be mimicked." They arent experiencing the same thing at the same time.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:52:28.4969943Z
"Interactions are subjective as well, people act differently, if their actions were purely objective then everything they say/fell/do is and can be mimicked." They arent experiencing the same thing at the same time.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:52:36.4120455Z
Then its subjective, end
Preston says2015-09-01T16:53:26.6443675Z
Your just trying to have the last word... Wow, you would post and repost things that dont support you... Just to have the last post...
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:54:20.8354747Z
Them not being ever detached from objective type interactions proves my point entirely. It means that anything we do must have it at its base.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T16:54:42.9412415Z
Them not being ever detached from objective type interactions proves my point entirely. It means that anything we do must have it at its base.
Preston says2015-09-01T16:59:40.2979627Z
I brand you as an idiot, false evidence, you just love fallacies dont you. Ive shown its subjective, you havent shown its objective, thus its not. Gg checkmate endgame
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T17:09:12.3359331Z
Congratulations on your self-proclaimed victory in a contest that doesnt exist. What do you plan to do now? Go to Disney World?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-01T17:09:37.7957859Z
Congratulations on your self-proclaimed victory in a contest that doesnt exist. What do you plan to do now? Go to Disney World?
Preston says2015-09-01T17:11:44.7042063Z
Yea maybe, probably get some mac'n cheese, i can get you some whine if you would like, but it sounds like you have some.
Furyan5 says2015-09-08T09:12:16.8402215Z
Morality is neither subjective, nor objective. It is an imaginary human construct resulting from the misconception that free will exists.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-08T14:49:38.7183162Z
It is indeed a human construct ... But is directly based on what humans are capable of experiencing. All those factors that lead to its creation as a human idea are objective in nature and the subsequent morality that comes from it must also be objective. It could only be subjective IF free will did truly exist ... Which youve admitted it does not. Its a misconception.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.