'Givin sufficiently specified standards of morality it will be an objective issue how well any particular specimen measures up to those standards.'
of course the choice of standards won't be objective but nether will it be completley arbitrary because what we value isn't completley random but highly influenced by what kind of creature we are.
Sadly, if you think so, this is an indication that you could benefit from taking an introductory course in philosophy or argumentation theory. That all human judgments about morality are inherently subjective is an empirical fact. This is what provides Turek his argument 1. This means that humans can never know if 2 is true.(So the moral argument fails) 3. Just makes his position unfalsifiable. It's an excuse not to engage counter arguments.
@919evilkiller919 However, the absurdity of Turek's position becomes really obvious when you push him on the defensive and demand that he explain why a range of atrocities in "holy" books are morally good. It will then be clear that humans can't possibly possess any mechanism that would ever identify "good" with any precision at all, because it's clearly unrelated to human well being, given events such as the flood etc.
@919evilkiller919 Morality is inherently rooted in subjective value judgments, but also bounded by objective logical requirements you get from the constraint of wanting to maintain cooperation/positive relationships with other humans. If you don't value interaction with others, you're amoral. Morality is meaningless until you have a need to manage/maintain a peaceful relationship with at least one other agent with interests and desires.
When you don't know morals are subjective you are in denial. Anyone looking for a reason for morality other than a moral reason will not find it. Why is sin bad? Is sin bad because it is morally wrong or is sin bad because God says it is bad?
@1aaronaaron1 Wait a second, if morals are subjective than your statement on morality only applies to you. therefore what your saying has no meaning to anyone else but you, so whats your point?
@1aaronaaron1 Truth as in objective moral truth, not as in a preference like your favorite book or color, which is a respecter of you. Moral fidelity to an original or to a standard.
@RefinersFire298 I think his point is that every holy book is also subjective morality that was made up by those who made up those books.
All morality is subjective and even people within a religion never really agree on morality.
Religious morality has been twisted to anything. The Nazi party thought it was doing what the Christian bible wanted. The Spanish Inquisition was done within the Christian code of morality at the time.
@Silentsam7532 It is important that you do not confuse morality with religion. Morality is objective. Religion is subjective. Religions should reflect morality, just like justice systems should reflect morality. I have heard and agree that every religion reflect a varying amount of morality. Even though Christians are forgiven of sin through Christ Jesus, this does not mean we should not practice what is moral. Example, Romans 6:1-11. And by the way, Christianity is not a religion.
@RefinersFire298 Im not confusing anything, but I think your confusing the definition of subjective and objective.
Morality is subjective, not objective. A particular religion can be said to be objective, but the religious beliefs people have are subjective.
Because morality is subjective religions fracture as different groups change the religion to reflect their particular views on morality. Also their morality changes due to the subjective nature of religious beliefs.
@Silentsam7532 This is an example of how we KNOW morality is objective (meaning no matter what I say or do, I cannot change morality). If I was part of a religion called Zuzu, and Zuzu says murder of the innocent is ok because we all die someday (so watch your back), would that be morally wrong or right? Say I left the Zuzu religion and now believe murder of the innocent is wrong, would that be morally wrong or right?
@RefinersFire298 If your society considered killing to be moral under certain rules, then it would be moral.
When he left and changed his mind he started to see it as immoral. This shows how it changed because of his beliefs.
Your example shows the subjective nature of morality. As outside observers whenever you ask if somehing was moral I have to use my own subjective reasoning to answer you.
Morality is an abstract concept created by intelligent thought. Its not a universal fact.
@Silentsam7532 Thanks for the reply. I would argue that his subjective view changed on objective morality. So if society decides what is moral, then it was wrong for the Allies to fight against the Axis of evil in the 2nd world war. I mean, If society decides what is moral, then we would be wrong to impose our beliefs about human life on the Nazis and their sort. Is that what your implying? correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that is where your logic is alluding to.
@RefinersFire298 And you could not possibly say that the Zuzu's first view of morality was a morally right one. Just imagine an innocent man being butchered by an oppressing Zuzu, and you looking on thinking, "well their societies rules, so I'll watch". Even if you disagree with the Zuzu, your abstinence would reflect that you support the immoral actions taken by the Zuzu.
@RefinersFire298 People decide right and wrong for themselves, and society tends to accept an average of these morals.
In the case of WW2, what the Nazi's did was, within their own culture, moral. It was not moral to western culture and many others. Because of the radical differences it led to war. if someone is doing something against your morals there is nothing saying you can't disagree with or try to stop them.
Who is right can be determined different ways, many of which few see as moral.
@Silentsam7532 People decide the ethics they subscribe to for themselves, whether or not that reflects morality is what we are talking about. This is what Im getting at, if morality is decided by society, then no society has the justification to tell another that they are wrong. If morality is left up to the individual, then no individual has the justification to tell a society, or another individual, that they are wrong. So who is right? According to your statements no one is, am I right?
@RefinersFire298 Well, those ethics always reflect their own morality, there is no universal morality to reflect.
What I am getting at is that there is no universal justification for telling others they are wrong. This doesn't make it wrong to tell others what you think is wrong though, since deciding that doing so is wrong is another subjective judgement.
When it comes to an abstract concept like moral issues, no one is right except in their own minds. There is no universal right.
@Silentsam7532 "There is no universal right." How do you know that's right? You're going to have to do some mental gymnastics to explain this one. By saying "There is no universal right" would be to claim a universal right and therefore be false. Something cannot be false if there is no truth to compare it to. I would have no Idea what a crooked line is, unless I knew what a straight line is. I would have no Idea what wrong is without an OBJECTIVE moral standard. It can be known.
@RefinersFire298 Can you demonstrate an objective moral standard that is not created in the mind?
Something is, or is not. This does not really apply to truth and non truth. Truth is an abstract concept and not all concepts need a negative to be true. Trying to claim nothing can be false without an objective truth is a fallacy. You must seperate objective and subjective truth and non truth. Objective truth exists only for objective things.
@Silentsam7532 You have a headache. You feel it and nobody else does so you say its subjective. Look at the other notions that go with that. if its subjective its just your opinion. But opinions have no standing so why should the doctor believe you when you say you have a headache? The doctor doesnt feel your headache its your opinion and you might find yourself agreeing that you cant be objective about it. Since your headache isn't objective it isnt REAL at all! The headache is in your mind.
@RefinersFire298 The headache is objective though, not subjective. The headache has physical properties. If it is a synus headache its due to pressure etc.
Just because something is subjective does not mean it is not real. Morals are sunjective, and yet they are real. They are an abstract concept, but they are a real concept.
Morality has to be subjective because if there was no life in the universe to create morals then there would be no morals. Man created the concept of morality.
@RefinersFire298 Any attepmt to show an objective moral standard is always quickly revealed to be subjective.
Also the false idea that there must be an authority other than the self for morality is based on nothing but subjective reasoning. Things like morals, rights, justice, do not exist outside the mind. There is only is and is not in the objective universe. You can not get an is from an ought.
@RefinersFire298 If I grew up in a small tribe that was cannibalistic I am sure they would hunt people and kill them and eat them. To them it would not be wrong.
This is an extreme case and the first one I could come up with. I think its pretty much agreed by everyone that murder is wrong.
If you go back in history it was ok to murder if you the people where heretics and from distant lands. There is many times when murder has been justified in the minds of those who did it.
@Silentsam7532 It is quite the extreme case and is still wrong. I can say its wrong because morals are not subject to humans, even if someone says its right , it doesn't make it right. Even if I was raised to believe rape is wrong, and conclude it is right because it brings me pleasure, it is still wrong, even if the majority of society says its right. Based on your view of morality, anything goes, and there is no point in justice if I can make something right just by saying it is.
@RefinersFire298 I don't understand where the idea that anything goes comes from. Laws and morals are two different things.
Your example about rape doesn't quite work. Deciding it brings you pleasure doesn't lead to it being right, but if a person does it, others punish him because they think it is wrong. At the end of your statement you declare it is still wrong, your getting that from your subjective reasoning.
Morals are not hpysical. Is any abstract concept objectively real?
@Silentsam7532 "deciding it brings you pleasure doesn't lead to it being right" So how do we know right from wrong? Is it always right for someone to punish another if they think it is right to do so? If a group of people want something to be right and make it acceptable in their society does it make it right? No, this is why laws and morals are different, in that laws define which objective morals people ACCEPT as right and wrong. Love is abstract and is manifest through actions as do morals.
@RefinersFire298 I must correct myself. Not all laws are derived from the objective moral standard. For example, driving on the right side of the road, that is a relative convention, although if I were to break that law and drive on the left side of the road I would be putting my life and others lives at risk, and therefore obeying the convention becomes objective because it is there for the preservation of life.
@Silentsam7532 If the laws of logic are not objective then why are we talking? How do we know if quantum physics can actually be known or is true? Are you saying we cant' know anything for sure?
@RefinersFire298 Anyone who understands philosophy will tell you that you can never know anything for sure.
When it comes to quantum physics yes it is known. We actually have people working on quantum processors and other things so small that they behave using the laws of quantum mechanics.
The laws for lgoic seem to wrok, but that doesn't mean somone wont create a better set of logic later. It is kind of how science works, admitting that we dont know everything, and what we know may change
@Silentsam7532 "Anyone who understands philosophy will tell you that you can never know anything for sure." How do you know that for sure?
"When it comes to quantum physics yes it is known." You just said we cant know anything for sure, so how do we know quantum physics is known for sure?
You're selecting evidence. You say on one hand "you can't know ANYTHING" and on the other "this you can know". You have broken the law of Contradiction. Philosophers adhere to the laws of logic.
@RefinersFire298 I did not break the law of contradiction, I am just bound to use to few words here. We can not know quantum physics for sure, but we know it is a close working model that may be imporved one day. We know it is not wrong, at least in any tested way so far. To reject quantum theory would be foolish.
Talking to enough philosiphy majors and listening to enough philosiphers you just understand that knowing anything absolutely requires an absolute mind.
@Silentsam7532 "Most disagreement is really willful denial birthed from our evil desires". - Philosopher Dr. Frank Turek (the guy speaking in the video above). Always examine the motives and resultsfor the things which you believe. All great and honest historians and philosophers have done this.
@RefinersFire298 Oh, I do. The guy above is making some mistakes and assumptions. It is hard for him to see reality because he wants reality to fit into his world view. This is always a problem with people who believe in a god of some form. They want the universe to agree with that god, instead of making their god agree with the universe.
Of course there are many atheists who also believe in some form of objective morality, but they are often found to have spiritual beliefs with the same flaws.
@RefinersFire298 The idea that our desires are evil is itself an immoral idea. Just as the Christian ideas of after life are very immoral.
I personally think that the greatest wrong done by Christians and Muslims is teaching people that there is a chance for eternal punishment. Also just the idea of an after life hurts proper development of the mind and makes life less important.
The god in the bible is a very small minded immoral creature that only deserves scorn and ridicule, not worship.
This has been flagged as spam show
'Givin sufficiently specified standards of morality it will be an objective issue how well any particular specimen measures up to those standards.'
of course the choice of standards won't be objective but nether will it be completley arbitrary because what we value isn't completley random but highly influenced by what kind of creature we are.
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
this is not funny. it is bad bad bad!
illusionstateofmind 2 months ago
"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" lol wow ignorant award of the year
gotitans999 6 months ago
WOW
I don't have enough faith to be atheist!!!
^_^
I swear this is Great!
919evilkiller919 9 months ago
@919evilkiller919 "I swear this is Great!"
Sadly, if you think so, this is an indication that you could benefit from taking an introductory course in philosophy or argumentation theory. That all human judgments about morality are inherently subjective is an empirical fact. This is what provides Turek his argument 1. This means that humans can never know if 2 is true.(So the moral argument fails) 3. Just makes his position unfalsifiable. It's an excuse not to engage counter arguments.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@919evilkiller919 However, the absurdity of Turek's position becomes really obvious when you push him on the defensive and demand that he explain why a range of atrocities in "holy" books are morally good. It will then be clear that humans can't possibly possess any mechanism that would ever identify "good" with any precision at all, because it's clearly unrelated to human well being, given events such as the flood etc.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@919evilkiller919 Morality is inherently rooted in subjective value judgments, but also bounded by objective logical requirements you get from the constraint of wanting to maintain cooperation/positive relationships with other humans. If you don't value interaction with others, you're amoral. Morality is meaningless until you have a need to manage/maintain a peaceful relationship with at least one other agent with interests and desires.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Ha, I can't believe that he says that Christianity is irrelevant and false unless morality is objective.
Considering its not objective, but completely subjective, that is funny.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
When you don't know morals are subjective you are in denial. Anyone looking for a reason for morality other than a moral reason will not find it. Why is sin bad? Is sin bad because it is morally wrong or is sin bad because God says it is bad?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Wait a second, if morals are subjective than your statement on morality only applies to you. therefore what your saying has no meaning to anyone else but you, so whats your point?
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 No it doesn't, what I said wasn't even a moral claim.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Let me ask you something. Is truth objective?
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 Explain what you mean by truth.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Truth as in objective moral truth, not as in a preference like your favorite book or color, which is a respecter of you. Moral fidelity to an original or to a standard.
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 No I don't think so.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1aaronaaron1 Why is murder a wrong and not a right?
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 I think his point is that every holy book is also subjective morality that was made up by those who made up those books.
All morality is subjective and even people within a religion never really agree on morality.
Religious morality has been twisted to anything. The Nazi party thought it was doing what the Christian bible wanted. The Spanish Inquisition was done within the Christian code of morality at the time.
Morality is always changing and never absolute.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
Comment removed
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 It is important that you do not confuse morality with religion. Morality is objective. Religion is subjective. Religions should reflect morality, just like justice systems should reflect morality. I have heard and agree that every religion reflect a varying amount of morality. Even though Christians are forgiven of sin through Christ Jesus, this does not mean we should not practice what is moral. Example, Romans 6:1-11. And by the way, Christianity is not a religion.
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 Im not confusing anything, but I think your confusing the definition of subjective and objective.
Morality is subjective, not objective. A particular religion can be said to be objective, but the religious beliefs people have are subjective.
Because morality is subjective religions fracture as different groups change the religion to reflect their particular views on morality. Also their morality changes due to the subjective nature of religious beliefs.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 This is an example of how we KNOW morality is objective (meaning no matter what I say or do, I cannot change morality). If I was part of a religion called Zuzu, and Zuzu says murder of the innocent is ok because we all die someday (so watch your back), would that be morally wrong or right? Say I left the Zuzu religion and now believe murder of the innocent is wrong, would that be morally wrong or right?
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 If your society considered killing to be moral under certain rules, then it would be moral.
When he left and changed his mind he started to see it as immoral. This shows how it changed because of his beliefs.
Your example shows the subjective nature of morality. As outside observers whenever you ask if somehing was moral I have to use my own subjective reasoning to answer you.
Morality is an abstract concept created by intelligent thought. Its not a universal fact.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 Thanks for the reply. I would argue that his subjective view changed on objective morality. So if society decides what is moral, then it was wrong for the Allies to fight against the Axis of evil in the 2nd world war. I mean, If society decides what is moral, then we would be wrong to impose our beliefs about human life on the Nazis and their sort. Is that what your implying? correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that is where your logic is alluding to.
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 And you could not possibly say that the Zuzu's first view of morality was a morally right one. Just imagine an innocent man being butchered by an oppressing Zuzu, and you looking on thinking, "well their societies rules, so I'll watch". Even if you disagree with the Zuzu, your abstinence would reflect that you support the immoral actions taken by the Zuzu.
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 People decide right and wrong for themselves, and society tends to accept an average of these morals.
In the case of WW2, what the Nazi's did was, within their own culture, moral. It was not moral to western culture and many others. Because of the radical differences it led to war. if someone is doing something against your morals there is nothing saying you can't disagree with or try to stop them.
Who is right can be determined different ways, many of which few see as moral.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
Comment removed
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 People decide the ethics they subscribe to for themselves, whether or not that reflects morality is what we are talking about. This is what Im getting at, if morality is decided by society, then no society has the justification to tell another that they are wrong. If morality is left up to the individual, then no individual has the justification to tell a society, or another individual, that they are wrong. So who is right? According to your statements no one is, am I right?
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 Well, those ethics always reflect their own morality, there is no universal morality to reflect.
What I am getting at is that there is no universal justification for telling others they are wrong. This doesn't make it wrong to tell others what you think is wrong though, since deciding that doing so is wrong is another subjective judgement.
When it comes to an abstract concept like moral issues, no one is right except in their own minds. There is no universal right.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 "There is no universal right." How do you know that's right? You're going to have to do some mental gymnastics to explain this one. By saying "There is no universal right" would be to claim a universal right and therefore be false. Something cannot be false if there is no truth to compare it to. I would have no Idea what a crooked line is, unless I knew what a straight line is. I would have no Idea what wrong is without an OBJECTIVE moral standard. It can be known.
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 Can you demonstrate an objective moral standard that is not created in the mind?
Something is, or is not. This does not really apply to truth and non truth. Truth is an abstract concept and not all concepts need a negative to be true. Trying to claim nothing can be false without an objective truth is a fallacy. You must seperate objective and subjective truth and non truth. Objective truth exists only for objective things.
Something can be subjectively false.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 You have a headache. You feel it and nobody else does so you say its subjective. Look at the other notions that go with that. if its subjective its just your opinion. But opinions have no standing so why should the doctor believe you when you say you have a headache? The doctor doesnt feel your headache its your opinion and you might find yourself agreeing that you cant be objective about it. Since your headache isn't objective it isnt REAL at all! The headache is in your mind.
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
Comment removed
RefinersFire298 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 The headache is objective though, not subjective. The headache has physical properties. If it is a synus headache its due to pressure etc.
Just because something is subjective does not mean it is not real. Morals are sunjective, and yet they are real. They are an abstract concept, but they are a real concept.
Morality has to be subjective because if there was no life in the universe to create morals then there would be no morals. Man created the concept of morality.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@RefinersFire298 Any attepmt to show an objective moral standard is always quickly revealed to be subjective.
Also the false idea that there must be an authority other than the self for morality is based on nothing but subjective reasoning. Things like morals, rights, justice, do not exist outside the mind. There is only is and is not in the objective universe. You can not get an is from an ought.
Silentsam7532 1 year ago
@Silentsam7532 Demonstrate how murder is NOT wrong for all people?
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 If I grew up in a small tribe that was cannibalistic I am sure they would hunt people and kill them and eat them. To them it would not be wrong.
This is an extreme case and the first one I could come up with. I think its pretty much agreed by everyone that murder is wrong.
If you go back in history it was ok to murder if you the people where heretics and from distant lands. There is many times when murder has been justified in the minds of those who did it.
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
@Silentsam7532 It is quite the extreme case and is still wrong. I can say its wrong because morals are not subject to humans, even if someone says its right , it doesn't make it right. Even if I was raised to believe rape is wrong, and conclude it is right because it brings me pleasure, it is still wrong, even if the majority of society says its right. Based on your view of morality, anything goes, and there is no point in justice if I can make something right just by saying it is.
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 I don't understand where the idea that anything goes comes from. Laws and morals are two different things.
Your example about rape doesn't quite work. Deciding it brings you pleasure doesn't lead to it being right, but if a person does it, others punish him because they think it is wrong. At the end of your statement you declare it is still wrong, your getting that from your subjective reasoning.
Morals are not hpysical. Is any abstract concept objectively real?
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
@Silentsam7532 "deciding it brings you pleasure doesn't lead to it being right" So how do we know right from wrong? Is it always right for someone to punish another if they think it is right to do so? If a group of people want something to be right and make it acceptable in their society does it make it right? No, this is why laws and morals are different, in that laws define which objective morals people ACCEPT as right and wrong. Love is abstract and is manifest through actions as do morals.
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 I must correct myself. Not all laws are derived from the objective moral standard. For example, driving on the right side of the road, that is a relative convention, although if I were to break that law and drive on the left side of the road I would be putting my life and others lives at risk, and therefore obeying the convention becomes objective because it is there for the preservation of life.
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@Silentsam7532 another example of abstract concept that is objectively real are the laws of logic.
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 The laws of logic are not objectively real. We actually have to rethink the laws of logic thanks to quantum physics.
Love is abstract, its also kind of a grey area. there are physical chemical reactions going on in the brain.
We try and decide right from wrong, we sometimes change our mind because we never really knew, we just decide. morals have changed through out time.
Groups of people have changed morality in the past, its subjective to say that is wrong.
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
@Silentsam7532 If the laws of logic are not objective then why are we talking? How do we know if quantum physics can actually be known or is true? Are you saying we cant' know anything for sure?
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 Anyone who understands philosophy will tell you that you can never know anything for sure.
When it comes to quantum physics yes it is known. We actually have people working on quantum processors and other things so small that they behave using the laws of quantum mechanics.
The laws for lgoic seem to wrok, but that doesn't mean somone wont create a better set of logic later. It is kind of how science works, admitting that we dont know everything, and what we know may change
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
@Silentsam7532 "Anyone who understands philosophy will tell you that you can never know anything for sure." How do you know that for sure?
"When it comes to quantum physics yes it is known." You just said we cant know anything for sure, so how do we know quantum physics is known for sure?
You're selecting evidence. You say on one hand "you can't know ANYTHING" and on the other "this you can know". You have broken the law of Contradiction. Philosophers adhere to the laws of logic.
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 I did not break the law of contradiction, I am just bound to use to few words here. We can not know quantum physics for sure, but we know it is a close working model that may be imporved one day. We know it is not wrong, at least in any tested way so far. To reject quantum theory would be foolish.
Talking to enough philosiphy majors and listening to enough philosiphers you just understand that knowing anything absolutely requires an absolute mind.
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
@Silentsam7532 "Most disagreement is really willful denial birthed from our evil desires". - Philosopher Dr. Frank Turek (the guy speaking in the video above). Always examine the motives and resultsfor the things which you believe. All great and honest historians and philosophers have done this.
RefinersFire298 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 Oh, I do. The guy above is making some mistakes and assumptions. It is hard for him to see reality because he wants reality to fit into his world view. This is always a problem with people who believe in a god of some form. They want the universe to agree with that god, instead of making their god agree with the universe.
Of course there are many atheists who also believe in some form of objective morality, but they are often found to have spiritual beliefs with the same flaws.
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
@RefinersFire298 The idea that our desires are evil is itself an immoral idea. Just as the Christian ideas of after life are very immoral.
I personally think that the greatest wrong done by Christians and Muslims is teaching people that there is a chance for eternal punishment. Also just the idea of an after life hurts proper development of the mind and makes life less important.
The god in the bible is a very small minded immoral creature that only deserves scorn and ridicule, not worship.
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
Comment removed
RefinersFire298 1 year ago