What people think is moral has no implications for what is moral. You're right, consensus about morality doesn't make it objective, so why talk about that consensus? What would make morality objective is if you could make predictions based on moral categories. For instance rape is evil, therefore if someone rapes he's someone likely to do evil things, therefore he is likely to go back on agreements, murder etc. And you can and you do. So what's your problem with objective morality?
@newperve Just because YOU don't think rape is immoral doesn't make it a universal law for everyone. Some people think rape is moral, in some countries it's regulated in laws as a punishment for a family. The punished woman doesn't have to be in any fault, other than being related to the family. And if you look at history you will see the moral codes always changes. Just look at the bible and slavery. Your reasoning about moral "categories?" are just vague when it comes to reality.
@laserbuddha Umm... I do think rape is immoral. Ok, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Proving that what people believe about morality changed doesn't show that morality changed. I'm not being vague at all, I'm spelling it out. If someone rapes they're likely to do other bad stuff. How much clearer do you want it? Learn to read for meaning before you respond.
@newperve Then explain to me what the source and focus of this objective moral system is. Not to mention explaining why we even have moral questions at all? I mean if there is a true objective morality then wouldn't there be perfect simple answers to most questions that didn't cause quandaries? Not to mention the bigger question of how we would define true objective morality, since it would have to remain constant regardless of circumstances, wouldn't it?
@Darkstar1484 The source of objective morality is non-contradiction and objectivity. True objective morality does provide fairly simple answers but if it didn't that would not disprove it, any more than it would disprove quantum physics which doesn't. We can define true objective morality as following rules which do not cause contradiction e.g. "Murder is OK" causes contradiction because it must be simltainously applied and not applied, because if you're murdered you can't murder.
@newperve Well, your logic already has problems. A person who is robbed can steal. A person who is raped could rape. However suicide would be 'wrong' regardless of circumstance. Part of my point is this too, morality would have to factor in circumstance which creates problems to the idea of objective moral systems. And your moral comparison still doesn't work anyhow, it makes theft alright but makes killing in war bad. It makes hoarding during scarcity fine.
@Darkstar1484 But you can't simultainously rob someone of his wallet and have him rob you of it can you? Robbing someone of their wallet is saying that possessing the wallet is right, because otherwise why would you steal it? But simultainously you're saying not possesing the wallet is right. You're applying different standards to youself and others. Rape is acting on the principle that controlling someone else's body is good, the victim clearly isn't controlling the rapists body.
I strongly suggest you goto "GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum" and read the "objective morality" threads. If you don't understand then ask questions.
The reason being that the faith is more about repentance for sins and being saved in Christ; this kind of relationship with God--following a SET rule and every other aspect of the Bible is second to that, and noone would chastise you for not practicing the latter unless you were being extremely hypocritcal, ie. a Stalin-like attitude, which doesn't mix well with what Jesus taught.
The objective morals values you refer to are(or should be) the inherent values within all of us that generally coincide. They are not set laws of the OT that dictate actions
But I want to comment on the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments, or any of the 100s of others, are not a core Xtian belief; they are archaic Jewish. Jesus stressed to uphold the law and Xtians are told to emulate him, YES, but the commandments should not be looked at as a long strict guideline like Hammurabi
Dawkins and many other atheists make a mistake by saying the LAWS are the source of morality in the theistic argument. NO, the argument is moral values that people detect within themselves gives meaning to life.
@dprjones Well Jones We could try doing a logical, rational argument.. But religious believers don’t tend to like those arguments. So when A believer says to me: “If God does not exist objective morals do not exist, and since objective morals exist God must” I simply say: “Actually Buddhist holds belief in objective morality, but do not believe in God” -- They don’t quite know how to respond to that
@NightHawkBomber001 Not to mention Ayn Rand, who wrote about objective morality for decades. One of the things her objective morality showed was that the garden of Eden story was horrifically immoral.
Since atheists don't believe in God, they don't care about morality. All atheists are moral relativists. Given the chance, they would rape and murder every member of your (or their own) family, simply because they can.
The thing is though, the bible doesn't give 'objective' moral laws. Quite frankly this is all obita dicta when it comes to deciding whether there is a God or not. The main Christian faiths are reliant on Jesus rising from the dead after three days. After which we are to pursue a life of 'good morals' as Jesus did, not so that we can obey the law, but more so that we can become closer to him.
ALL degrees of morality (kindness, goodness...) has to be taught. It isn't an intrinsic ability in humans. For some rare individuals the ability to be taught moral values isn't even neurologically possible. To me that is the most obvious proof that objective morality can't exist and is an obvious trait of evolution of the human species/society. (Have worked some in a juvenile correctional facility, with the treatment of criminally insane/criminal children.)
@laserbuddha Kindness, goodness, etc., to varying subjective degrees, is an intrinsic value inherent in evolutionary humans. However it is the natural duty of parents or relevent authorities to REINFORCE these attributes while correcting or sublimating the negative ones. Otherwise your observations are spot on. Morality and ethics is subjective. Even if there was an objective morality, it is subjectively derived.
@FaganRoberts Not sure what you mean. Are you referring to a study/research or is this your own private hypothesis? Because what I wrote is based on a study made at a juvenile detention, where I worked. Have not studied psychology, so I can be way off here. But I think it was pretty clearly stated: kindness, goodness etc. has to be taught. (In some cases not really possible.)
@laserbuddha Based on being a parent and teacher. Kindness and goodness doesn't HAVE TO be taught. It occurs naturally in the human condition to varying degrees in each individual. Reinforcing these naturally occuring traits is also inherent in the human condition. I just don't think kids are born evil or amoral necessarliy and absent a teaching regime they become that. It just needs to be cultivated to varying levels. That's all I'm saying.
@FaganRoberts Ok? Not really sure I understand your reasoning or if we are talking about same subject.
I think the concept of good/evil is a practical convention of language, not a "real" property and it becomes evident when talking about infants. Saying an infant is good/evil is nonsensical to me. E g they have limited understanding of their actions and so on. I also very much doubt infants understanding of morality and goodness.
To clarify my position I wrote a couple of examples:
@laserbuddha I agree with you on the infant analogy, being new borns and all. All I am saying is that morality and ethics, to varying degrees, are naturally inherent in all human beings and they don't necessarily have to be taught to individuals. Good or bad morality, which is of course subjectively determined, can be reinforced, but the sense of an ethical system is already there. That's how we survived as a species to this point. That's all.
1) If you look at cases where children have been isolated from humans (from early birth) such as Kasper Hauser or children brought up by animals. Although physically healthy they lack many basic social concepts/abilities, and in most cases not able to learn. Basic abilities such as the ability to learn human language.
To me it is evident that their ability to understand concepts of morality (on any level) is very unlikely. They are in the same situations as the infants, calling them and their actions good/bad is pointless.
2) There is also people who are not able to "understand" the concept of morality because of neurological/psychological issues (such as antisocial personal disorder etc).
3) And as I mentioned previous I've seen the conclusion in a psychological project, where I worked. The main focus of the project was to train children in empathy, which backfired.
I think this clearly proves my point: all degrees of morality has to be taught, it is NOT AN intrinsic property of humans.
@laserbuddha Oh, I agree. Psychopathic antisocial personalities are clearly unable to empathise and/or sympathise with others. It's just not there, as unlike most other people. It is not inherent in them nor is it teachable. They merely mimick morality in order to get by. I think most people are born with at least rudimentary sense of ethics or morality. We can see this even in lower animals.
@laserbuddha So then logically since Newtonian physics has to be taught and cannot be taught to some then there is no objective Neutonian physics. In any case it is pretty debatable whether all morality has to be taught.
@newperve Your Newtonian analogy is just strange. It makes some sense if you believe in a deity that is some kind of authority on what's moral. But then you get other problems.
Have you got anything that support that it's "debatable", other than your speculation? I think it's pretty obvious if you look at cases like Kaspar Hauser or infants that morality isn't really something intrisic in humans.
@laserbuddha You argued that since some people can't be taught something it can't be objective. My Newtonian analogy simply showed this as false. Objective morality doesn't need a diety and indeed a diety would not affect it at all. Chimps aren't taught morality, yet they display understanding or moral concepts like fairness. Infants actually understand the difference between moral and practical rules as early as 2 years, according to "The Philosophical Baby" by Dr Alison Gopnik.
There is no objective morality because our moral codes are based on how things ought to be, not something that is. Altruism isn't a "good" act because an "evil" person can show it. Hitler showed altruism for Germany, not saying he was good, based on my moral views, far from it. Some think he was a moral man. But if altruism was a kind act, he shouldn't have been able to show it. Altruism is needed for survival, but that doesn't mean altruism ought to be shown.
objective morality is yet another proof against god, an error on god's ethics book which was inevitable to occur, coz the book was supposed to give some morality and it did, but morality changes although god made it so it cant change... so it couldnt have been done by god or any eternally righteous being... (not to mention bible's ethics are extremely wrong to begin with) i like the logic of that
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that Craig didn't even present a valid argument. How can a such a seasoned debater make such a ridiculous elementary error? Especially when he specifically puts his syllogism in its most basic form.
P1: If A does not exist, B does not exist
P2: B exists
C: Therefore, A exists.
His conclusion does not follow from his premises. In fact, this syllogism only allows for the negation of god if we reject, or disprove, objective morality. Idiotic mistake.
@Memeticemetic Those are exactly the kind of logical fallacies people resort to to try and "prove" their god. And unfortunately, the idiots of their congregations and people on the internet soak it up like sponges.
It's worth noting that virtually every commandment that actually deals with human relations - not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, not committing adultery - all of them were forbidden in the code of Ur-Nammu, the oldest existing inscribed code of law that we've got - centuries older that the Code of Hammurabi, which predates Moses by a thousand years.
If humanity already had most of those laws it sort of makes the whole "handing down from the mountain" thing a bit redundant.
I don't understand how this shows that science is failing. This shows that the scientific process is *working* by challenging old ideas with new evidence.
There is no good or evil, anyone who believes in this concepts is an idiot. There is just the stronger and the weaker. The lord and the workers. Who possesses power create the concept to the dominated.
I'm sure that this point has been covered several times, but are you aware that this video has been blocked by Channel 4 in the UK, for allegedly containing too much of their content? Is this being put to right, as I'm sure it's costing you viewing figures!!
Moreover, I hope you publicise the event on YouTube, should anybody take you up on your BlogTV challenge. I look forward to watching that!
I turn your argument to another subject. See if you support this:
Newton claims that there is no such thing as "absolute stillness". Observers can only claim move 'relative' to others. There is no "absolute" point of reference.
Your counter argument is this:
>> Do you realise that by stating: "there is no such thing as absolute stillness" you're making an absolute claim, not a relative one? Relative motion therefore falls into a paradox right at the beginning...
Well it's now clear that I've been attacking your arguments as though you didn't believe that there are absolute truths to be known. I realize it's not the case. We only seem to part ways on the issue of morality. Now consider what I already said, if you assume a relative morality...well it doesn't just stop there. A set of principles most follow like: "What's moral is what most people think is moral in a given culture at a given time" This again is an absolute claim. There's no way around it.
If you want to take it to that level of silliness, then I could counter by saying that your quoted sentence is NOT absolute, since it is built of words which lack absoluteness (they are defined differently in each dictionary).
But by now you will have noticed that we are not discussing morality. It's about the definition of "absolute"...
Yeah but you just totally ignored what I just said. If what you're trying to convey is that there are no absolute claims about morality, you cannot enunciate this by means of an absolute moral claim. I'm really having a hard time figuring out how you fail to notice the conspicuous contradiction.// Furthermore, you also decided to disregard the central claim of my last reply, Do you think rape is absolutely wrong or just culturally contingent?
I certainly did not ignore any comments about rape. My browser's Ctrl-F function says you never mentioned the word!
The problem with answering such questions directly is that it gives you (a false) scope to attack me personally as being 'pro-rape'. I trust you won't go that low.
And before you accuse me of dodging the question, the answer is yes. Rape is culturally contingent. Bible stories for example, suggest that it was fairly standard practice once, practised by reasonably good people.
This is exactly where I accuse you of using word games. If I say
"Morality is defined by society"
this is NOT an absolute moral claim. You could argue that it is a claim about the nature of morality, but that's different.
A moral claim identifies the good or bad in a situation. "You shouldn't kill" is a moral claim, because you can call someone 'bad' if they do or 'good' if they don't.
"Morality is defined by society"
How are you trying to divide good from bad according to this sentence?
Yes, the case about rape was just an example of what happens when u believe morality is defined by a prevalent culture. I'm certainly not gonna accuse u of being pro-rape but I wanna take your assumption to its logical conclusions with a hypothetical question. You're saying rape was right back during the iron age. If there was an island somewhere in the world today where little girls were routinely flogged and raped and as part of their common practices, would u condemn or condone such travesty
For me, to condone or condemn would be rather pointless. The point would be to establish some kind of dialogue (depending on their ability to use language!), learn from them, and try to educate them.
I actually think there's a more interesting question in this situation for you. Assuming that you would condemn their actions, what would you belay upon them as a punishment? Would you feel right in enforcing a punishment upon them? Which country's laws would you try them under?
But the point is that you're saying that the crime is absolute (i.e. objective). Does an absolute crime not warrant an absolute punishment? What is the point of morality if it bares no punishment?
You see your contradiction I hope. You claim these crimes (these morals) to be absolute, but yet you are willing to treat them differently in this hypothetical civilisation than in ours.
You seem to be saying that there is a distinction between "absolute morality" and "objective morality".
I have been using the words "absolute" and "objective" interchangeably in this debate up until now. Please correct my error by explain the difference between the two phrases/words in the context of this discussion.
So you wouldn't interfere even in the teeth of such blatant display of human perversion. In some parts of Africa, people are still burned alive upon accusations of witchcraft. You're saying, if you had the power you would turn a blind eye to the desperate cries of those in immolation. I take it female genital mutilation is one more thing you're indifferent to.. If you had had the power to prevent the holocaust, you wouldn't have, after all, that was their cultural meme at the time.
LOL. I knew you were waiting for the moment to jump and accuse me of being pro-rape (pro-crime).
The Q you posed was explicitly a hypothetical one about rape. You may not now move the goalposts and base the question on an actual tribe in Africa, simultaneously introducing a number of new crimes that you never mentioned originally.
How we interact with different cultures is too big a Q for this forum. Suffice to say that it has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality.
We've quite a few things during the last 500 years, I think all developed countries could reach a common consensus on the folly and repugnance of many of these practices. Before we educate them-like you said- we need to impede further gratuitous misery.
All one needs to dismiss moral relativism is to aknowledge that there are better and worse ways to make this world a better place.
What moves you to fight starvation in the world? (or at least to deem it a problem worth dealing with?
I know it's in your heart to fight starvation, but that's not my question. HAVE you actually been moved to do something about it? Have you gone to Africa to give hungry people food? HAVE you given money to buy food on their behalf? (Haiti doesn't count here, that being an earth quake, not a famine!)
No I haven't done much to fight starvation, but that's why I made sure follow that sentence with (or at least deem it a problem worth dealing with), If I had the power I would certainly do it. What about you? If you think starvation is a problem, on what grounds do you believe that? What makes it wrong? Or maybe u dont even think it's wrong given your relativist standpoint. And yes I concur, religion is one of the most lethal poisons in this wolrd, has been so for millenia.
"All one needs to dismiss moral relativism... a better place."
I disagree, but I see your argument. You're worried about how we define something to be "better" or "worse" if we have no morality ruler to measure against.
But if there really was an absolute points-basis to morality, wouldn't you be able to list the following charities in order of "goodness"? Both would make the world better, but which would make it best?
We both agree that there are ways of making the world better/worse. Can we also agree that morality can be represented as a line between two dots labelled "bad" and "good" acts?
You say that no matter how closely we study a given act, it is still possible to "objectively" place a pin on a decisive point along this line to represent its good/badness.
I say that the closer you scrutinise said act, the more fuzzy this point becomes.
Is this a fair assessment of our relative viewpoints?
I couldn't have stated it better myself. Although I wouldn't venture so much as to suggest that we can "place a pin". Morality doesn't have to be that precise. Like I said, morality can be a lot like food. There is no such thing as 'one right food', but we can distinguish between food and poison. Morality is not necessarily zero-sum. There can b general principles to follow that admit of circumstantial exceptions. We both agree that there are better n worse ways to proceed, that's moral realism
funny how a comandment about rape was not mentioned in the 10 commandments yet among not killing is often considered one of the most important moral standpoints of most cultured civilizations. if the ten commandments were truly the backbone of civilization it would have been included.
have you read the old testament? where the punishment for rape means having the rapist forcfully marry the woman he rape and pay the father some silver coins all the while the woman has no say in the matter as this is the law decreed by god who spoke to some prophet? have you read that passage? ill help you find the page number if you havent.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
....Get a KJV bible. If a young guy and his girlfriend have consensual sex it is not considered rape in the bible. Due to copywrite, modern speach bibles are inaccurate.
There is nothing in the KJV that states that the sex in consensual. In fact, nowhere is it suggested that women have any say in who they have sex with unless they are adulterers or prostitutes and both of these acts are punishable by death.
...Go ahead and play stupid...if it makes you feel better. lol If it was adultery they would have been executed....instead they they had to pay a fee...and get married.
if you reread what I just wrote you'll find that I didn't say that the couple in Deut. 22:28 committed adultery. I said that the sex wasn't described as consensual.
And if you thought about it a little (something that you have a hard time doing) you'd realize that, if they were having consensual sex out of wedlock (like you say they were) then they'd be guilty of adultery and she'd be put to death.
except it wasn't conceptual, it clearly says rape, if it wasnt rape, then they would be pt to death as you say so yourself. so what, do people edit out the bad parts to make the bible look nice? and you worship this book, why exactly? and again, religion is public domain so you are going to have to show me proof on how, due to copyrights(that shouldn't exist) can alter the bible inaccurately. what would jesus think about you lying in his defense?
.....Here is a good book for you to read " New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.....very informative on how bibles are made. It's about 15 bucks...well worth it.
i know about this book. one question: on this book you suggested, have you actually checked her sources (if she gave any)? also about the copyright issue i was looking for something more along the lines of a legal source. either way, if whatever "correctly translated" version of the bible you follow does not include the rape section i mentioned then my earlier comment wasn't directed at you, but rather on those who claim their bible is the ultimate moral law without reading the bloody thing.
@adafuns ...Her book is heavily footnoted. She began reading classic literature at age 11, and by 18 was teaching English to Greek immigrants. She is now in her 60s. The word rape...is not in the KJV. Sexual sins were dealt with by stoning and are called adultery. I highly reccomend her books, New Age bible Versions is about $15, and when your finished you'll know more about bibles than 90% of most pastors. lol
alright, if YOUR bible doesn't say rape then nothing that i have said actually applies to you. but not all christians follow the KJV. im commenting on those who believe the bible is the word of god without actually reading whats in it. and other bibles say rape, maybe not the word, but its description can only imply rape. as for Gail, i have my reasons for not liking her, im just stressing the importance of checking sources.
@adafuns ...Rape falls under the catagory of adultery, adulterers were stoned to death. There is a huge difference between modern speech bibles and the KJV. The NIV for example has 58,000 less words in it. The KJV is a Majority Text type bible....all the rest are translations of the minority texts. Gail goes into detail in the books she has written with appropriate footnotes. Her collation work is spot on. Well worth the $15 bucks.
i just found the KJV quote, and its less explicit than the other bible versions but still:
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; "
do me a favor and explain why the words "..and lay hold on her," are necessary and what they actually mean. i would think it meant to fuck her, but then the e mediate words "..and lie with her," would not be necessary at all. nevertheless consent was never acknowledged either way.
i got that already, but it still doesn't answer my question on what would be the point of adding "...and lay hold to her" when every other passage in that section is clear on what entails, this is the only passage that brings some nondescript action being taken on the virgin in question. either way isn't a shotgun wedding immoral? to make someone be with someone they do not want to be with.
@adafuns ....Your looking for something that is'nt there. Next thing you know ...you'll be trying to convince me there is nothing morally wrong with fucking your cat. But in your no moral world....anything goes...right?
@vachief did i ever said that i have no morals? no morals doesnt come from your book it comes from society. your putting words into my mouth to distract fromt eh issue. im reading the king james bible right now and im asking you what is the meaning of this text " If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, AND LAY HOLD TO HER, and lie with her, and they be found; " what is the point of the bold when imediatly after he says lie with her. its redundant. cont...
@vachief ...continue from last....every other passage is clear and doesn't contain this. why here why there? it is clear to me that you believe that the king James is the only true bible. when you can ask any biblical historian that the king James version was censored as well, and many books that were also considered holy and part of the bible didn't make it into the final phase of the king James. you also didn't answer whether you think a shot gun wedding is immoral or not.
@adafuns ..Yeah ...it did mean to fuck her....so what? Don't you like girls? lol The Isrealites did not punish thier people with death just because they were having sex. Forceable rape is a different story. In the future try reading several chapters to see the big picture.
so the passage if relayed on modern day usage means"to fuck her, to fuck her..." because according to you it says it twice for no reason. man he must have REALLY wanted to fuck her then :P btw you confuse yet again that i have not read this book. its contradictions are the main reason why i don't worship it as literal.
@60m2n ...The new translations are a joke, the NIV for example has 58,000 less words than a KJV. Some of the readings are directly opposite from the KJV. Every time a "new" bible is produced, by law they are required to use a different word due to copywrite infringement. What you end up with is junk. The KJV has no such infringment laws, that is why they all match, no matter what year they were produced.
I dunno how much of a joke the new translations are. I'll take your word for it. My point, I guess, would be that relying on a bible verse like "there is nothing new...under the sun" is logically unsound no matter how comforting it sounds.
religion has no copyright laws (non that i am aware, if so cite a source please). its all considered public domain. also using a bible quote is not evidence of anything because now you have to show evidence of the evidence. now show me why and how through experiments and testing that "there is nothing new...under the sun" is true.
oh ik n i guess does r supposed 2 b universal which if dey r dat would justify da existence of god right? so if morality is open 2 opinion dat would mean u really can't prove da existence of god using dat argument?
Actually racism can have a logical basis. If you're at war with another ethnicity for a long, long time then you're going to be racist towards them. Whenever we have war we become racist. "Japs, krauts,' etc. We discriminate, have prejudice against them. That is indeed a form of racism.
Racism can have a reason mate, and usually it does in the form of a very long grudge. Even if the reason is false or downright stupid, very few racists are racist for the sake of it as far as I know.
You can't condemn them anyway while the war is on, as you attack them just as they attack you. Hypocrisy is not moral, therefore racism is not moral. If you don't like whats happening to you in the war, raise the white flag.
The 10 C's are about what I'd expect a bronze age tribal group of goatherders to come up with. Probably worked for them and their culture.
What moral foundation does the Bible provide for the question of, say, surrogate mothering? Is it moral for a woman to provide her womb for a non-related embryo? Can she morally offer her services out to the highest bidder? Can she later claim custodial parental rights? If the Bible can guide us here, please cite chapter and verse.
You are partly correct. However, objective in this sense is not meant to mean unbiased. Objective morality is created by an observer who exempts himself from the set of morals it creates. Etched in stone morals that are intended to transcend time and the expansion of knowledge are flawed in their own certainty. Think the Constitution and the amendments. No perfect law would need amendments. If there is no observer, there are no objective morals. Morals are subjective to knowledge.
@TheSullivanInk ..Not to the God hater crowd..I'll give you that. Why do you think they hung the 10 Commandments on the wall of every court house in America? Maybe they thought it was a nice decoration. lol
@adolthitler ..Yes....the phony Rapture crowd does have an agenda...they want to turn America into a theocracy. When people grow tired of the Democrats...you can count on Sarah, to step up to the plate. Fascism wrapped up in a flag....carrying a cross.
I do not think that with objective morality you are going to get a list of do and donts. It is my view that an objective moral value of an action (or non action)can only be found in the measurable meaningful consequences.
It was Adoft that said you can build a standard by adding morals.
How can you possibly know all of the consequences of a given act before you take it? Or even after you take it? And how do you measure these consequences objectively?
The child who's life you save today could grow up to be a mass murderer.
Wouldn't you have to be omniscient in order to fully measure the value of any moral act?
If you truly do not know the consequence then you would be acting in ignorance. It would not make your action moral. As for the child you would have to demonstrate to me the act of saving the child is what turned him into a mass murder. Be careful not to fall in to the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (after that, therefore on account of that). It is a very easy one to fall into as I have done it several times myself.
Alright then, how do you decide which consequences need to be considered in the equation and which ones don't?
You started with measurable moral values then switched to measurable harm and now its measurable consequences, but you've yet to demonstrate how you would measure any of these things. What I've been trying to point out is that, if these things cannot be measured objectively then the only value they have is conceptual and therefore subjective.
One can measure harm in several ways. First and foremost for me is the violation of an individuals rights. For example take the act of assault. Assault as defined as an unjustified physical attack on an individual. I would argue that this act is objectively wrong and therefore immoral. I would argue a persons right to bodily integrity was violated. This violation can be observed. It is the violation of rights that causes harm and makes it immoral.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't think that an assault is a moral act. I'm saying that your conclusion is based on your own subjective moral values. Simply claiming that you're being objective doesn't make it so.
You say it can be measured in several ways which suggests there is no one objective way.
You defined assault as an unjustified attack but who decides if its justified or not?
You are arguing for an objective standard but you're still defining it in relative terms.
Yes I agree there are all types of harm, Physical harm, emotional harm ect. What I am defining is harm from an objective moral point of view. I am saying that harm is occurring at the point you violate someones rights. The assault example may result in physical harm or it may not. One thing is for certain, a persons right to bodily integrity has been violated or it has not. It does not matter that the perpetrator thought they had permission or that is was ok.
"What I am defining is harm from an objective moral point of view." And I'm saying your viewpoint isn't objective.
"I am saying that harm is occurring at the point you violate someones rights." But to do this you must define what rights are AND show they exist independent of any mind and are not the product of any man made authority.
Where does your "right to bodily integrity" come from?
If you tried the thought experiment I asked you to.
You might have realised you have no rights over others, and you cannot logically find a way to assert a moral right over them, except self defense and defense of others. Therefore everyone has a right of bodily integrity. Objectively too.
Bodily integrity doesn't cover self defense? How about accidents, does it cover that? If I accidentally slug you in the face have I violated your rights with my fist or have you violated mine with your nose?
If I violate your right to bodily integrity what are you going to do about? Cry that I'm immoral?
You know what, you just go on pretending that your opinion matters.
No I will defend myself and beat you down as hard as is needed, depending on the assault you start. Moral is as moral does.
I don't know why you think you can pose your immoral behaviour and then whine if I object to it. Just because you can choose to be a douche does not make me subjective. Objectively choosing to be a douche is not your best option. But by all means choose it, see where it gets you.
If I'm attacked and swing at my attacker in self defense but miss him and hit you instead, wouldn't that be an accident?
But, as usual, you just can't see things from anybody's point of view except your own. Like the self righteous bigot that you are, you would appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner and leave to bleed without ever considering that I might not be to blame.
No I will defend myself and beat you down as hard as is needed, depending on the assault you start"
Now what did you mean by this? Did you consider my statement rationally or just jump to conclusions? Would you consider your statements to be unbiased?
I never said that you said I was immoral, nor did I call you a lynch mob (I said you are as unbiased as a lynch mob).
"If you fire a gun..." It depends, did I fire the gun intentioaly or accidentally?
If you fell out a window and killed a pedestrian would you be morally responsible? Are we accountable for things we have no control over just because we happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
More importantly, though, can you show that my position has no validity? Can you show that there must be one and only one right answer and not just claim that there is?
If each aspect of a moral question has competing values it can be calculated that there can be only one answer.
Falling out the window, moral responsiblity, would come down to how you came to fall. I can't see any reasonable person falling out the window., and so they'd be guilty. A workman working on the outside of the building, should have a harness so should be guilty unless its faulty.
Its not being unreasonable that makes them immoral. Its taking a risk that cost someone else, you can risk your own life dancing on the window ledge, but when you kill some one else when you fall you are responsible for their death. The person on the window ledge may be moral, or not, but the action is immoral.
You are the one caught up with people being immoral when they disagree with you.
Oh, your not saying that we can actually measure moral values now, just that, theoretically it is within realm of possibility that moral values could be measured.
Its like, if we had some special ability, like, say omniscience or something, you know, something that we don't have and probably never will, then we could measure it.
Well even short of omniscience we do have the ability to measure a lot. But the problem is even if you do it for one situation, and have worked out the objective answer. You have to remeasure every time a similar situation arises to find if it is the same situation and then the same moral applies. Measurement and calculation would halt all activity.
You can only apply the morals that are based on pure logic. They are possible to calculate and always apply.
How do you measure morals? What unit of measurement do you use? Wouldn't you be able to compare morals to determine which was more moral than the other?
You've already said that this is practically impossible except in some circumstances. Well, what are those circumstances and how are those morals measured?
You are deliberately avoiding the question. Is a person morally responsible for things they have no control over? Rewriting the scenario (dancing on a ledge instead of falling out of a window) so as to manufacture a greater sense of risk doesn't cut it.
People who are very safe and don't take any risks at all can still have accidents.
And what about the pedestrian in your example? Wouldn't he be taking a risk walking around below somebody who's dancing on the ledge above?
Do you remember about a week ago we were talking about how you are, in fact, a biased person? Well you've just proven that you are.
"But who falls out a window without taking some stupid risk?" This is a biased statement showing that you would be prejudiced against anybody who actually did fall out of a window do to no fault of their own.
As much as you might want to be objective you are not.
These are good and Fair questions. Thank for them I will attempt to answer them.
When I say rights I am talking about universal human rights. The right to life, the right to bodily integrity the right to self determination, the right to free speech, private property rights. These are the type of rights I am talking about. They exist valid and true in our universe. They exist independent of our minds. Much like, if not exactly like, the laws of logic.
You can show that they exist because if you violate someones universal human rights you will cause unnecessary harm most notably in the form of oppression. You will always limit a persons ability to thrive. If you doubt this you only need to look at present day Iran or North Korea. These people are suffering because their universal human rights have been and continue to be violated.
It is you the moral relativist that must rely on forcing a point of view on humanity. What you are saying is the actions of the Iranian and North Korean governments are wrong simply as a matter of convention. As long as no minds recognize what they are doing is wrong it is OK. I am saying what they are doing is objectively immoral throughout time and space.
"It is you the moral relativist that must rely on forcing a point of view on humanity" - i just debunked your position that morals are objective.
however now i am interested, according to your definition what would they be like if they were subjective, hwo would they be any different to they are now?
This is a very good question types10000. I thank you for it. I am going to need time to think about this one. Keep in mind that I do reject you claim that you have debunked objective morality. As per my comment below.
I have thought about your question and I keep coming back to the fact that if morals are only subjective at a personal level and not rationally binding as objective values then we would have to accept that murder is wrong only as a social convention. We may just be fortunate to live in a time and place were such practices are condemned by the overwhelming majority, but if that were to change there would be no rational justification to reject murder.
You decree that what those people do is "objectively immoral throughout time and space" and have the gall to tell me I'm forcing a point of view on anybody? Who do you think you are that you can dictate to other people what they should or should not think?
You're only investing in arrogant, self righteous rationalizing of your own biased and bigoted beliefs.
I do not believe I am forcing this idea on you in any way. I am saying that if you are a moral relativist you cannot claim that what Hitler did was immoral because it was just the social convention of the time. You are left in the position to force your subjective values on others. I am claiming objective moral laws. That means that means I can claim that what Hitler did was immoral no matter what the social conventions were at the time.
I can so claim that that what Hitler did was immoral. I've done it many times in fact and I've believed it to be true every time. What I cannot do is claim that everyone else on the planet must also believe that what Hitler did was immoral. Furthermore, I cannot hold that the people living in Germany at that time should have believed that what Hitler was doing was immoral. I can't do this because I recognize that their points of view are as valid as mine.
Triggster you said "What I cannot do is claim that everyone else on the planet must also believe that what Hitler did was immoral."
If you cant by you own words falsify the belief that what Hitler did was moral then how do you know that your belief that what Hitler did was immoral is the correct view?
Correct to who? The only person whose opinion matters to me is mine. If I think that he was wrong then that's the correct answer. That's why I can't speak for anyone but myself - that's why my opinion is subjective.
It's like asking what's the correct answer to "what is funny?' or "what is pretty?' or "what is big?"
I don't believe there is a Correct answer that is independent of all points of view because these sorts of questions are all subjective in nature.
What people think is moral has no implications for what is moral. You're right, consensus about morality doesn't make it objective, so why talk about that consensus? What would make morality objective is if you could make predictions based on moral categories. For instance rape is evil, therefore if someone rapes he's someone likely to do evil things, therefore he is likely to go back on agreements, murder etc. And you can and you do. So what's your problem with objective morality?
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve Just because YOU don't think rape is immoral doesn't make it a universal law for everyone. Some people think rape is moral, in some countries it's regulated in laws as a punishment for a family. The punished woman doesn't have to be in any fault, other than being related to the family. And if you look at history you will see the moral codes always changes. Just look at the bible and slavery. Your reasoning about moral "categories?" are just vague when it comes to reality.
laserbuddha 7 months ago
@laserbuddha Umm... I do think rape is immoral. Ok, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Proving that what people believe about morality changed doesn't show that morality changed. I'm not being vague at all, I'm spelling it out. If someone rapes they're likely to do other bad stuff. How much clearer do you want it? Learn to read for meaning before you respond.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve Then explain to me what the source and focus of this objective moral system is. Not to mention explaining why we even have moral questions at all? I mean if there is a true objective morality then wouldn't there be perfect simple answers to most questions that didn't cause quandaries? Not to mention the bigger question of how we would define true objective morality, since it would have to remain constant regardless of circumstances, wouldn't it?
Darkstar1484 4 months ago in playlist Skepticism and Freethought
@Darkstar1484 The source of objective morality is non-contradiction and objectivity. True objective morality does provide fairly simple answers but if it didn't that would not disprove it, any more than it would disprove quantum physics which doesn't. We can define true objective morality as following rules which do not cause contradiction e.g. "Murder is OK" causes contradiction because it must be simltainously applied and not applied, because if you're murdered you can't murder.
newperve 4 months ago
@newperve Well, your logic already has problems. A person who is robbed can steal. A person who is raped could rape. However suicide would be 'wrong' regardless of circumstance. Part of my point is this too, morality would have to factor in circumstance which creates problems to the idea of objective moral systems. And your moral comparison still doesn't work anyhow, it makes theft alright but makes killing in war bad. It makes hoarding during scarcity fine.
Darkstar1484 4 months ago in playlist Skepticism and Freethought
@Darkstar1484 But you can't simultainously rob someone of his wallet and have him rob you of it can you? Robbing someone of their wallet is saying that possessing the wallet is right, because otherwise why would you steal it? But simultainously you're saying not possesing the wallet is right. You're applying different standards to youself and others. Rape is acting on the principle that controlling someone else's body is good, the victim clearly isn't controlling the rapists body.
newperve 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I strongly suggest you goto "GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum" and read the "objective morality" threads. If you don't understand then ask questions.
GoodScienceForYou 8 months ago
@dprjones
The reason being that the faith is more about repentance for sins and being saved in Christ; this kind of relationship with God--following a SET rule and every other aspect of the Bible is second to that, and noone would chastise you for not practicing the latter unless you were being extremely hypocritcal, ie. a Stalin-like attitude, which doesn't mix well with what Jesus taught.
Just wanted to make that clear.
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
@dprjones
The objective morals values you refer to are(or should be) the inherent values within all of us that generally coincide. They are not set laws of the OT that dictate actions
But I want to comment on the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments, or any of the 100s of others, are not a core Xtian belief; they are archaic Jewish. Jesus stressed to uphold the law and Xtians are told to emulate him, YES, but the commandments should not be looked at as a long strict guideline like Hammurabi
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
Dawkins and many other atheists make a mistake by saying the LAWS are the source of morality in the theistic argument. NO, the argument is moral values that people detect within themselves gives meaning to life.
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
@dprjones Well Jones We could try doing a logical, rational argument.. But religious believers don’t tend to like those arguments. So when A believer says to me: “If God does not exist objective morals do not exist, and since objective morals exist God must” I simply say: “Actually Buddhist holds belief in objective morality, but do not believe in God” -- They don’t quite know how to respond to that
NightHawkBomber001 10 months ago
@NightHawkBomber001 Not to mention Ayn Rand, who wrote about objective morality for decades. One of the things her objective morality showed was that the garden of Eden story was horrifically immoral.
newperve 7 months ago
Yeah, his accent may be cool, but Mister UK drives on the LEFT side of the road, and as everyone knows, that is MORALLY WRONG!!!
xcellken1 1 year ago
Atheistantidote or Atheist anecdote? I found his short clip to be humorous.
strikenetter 1 year ago
Oh dear.
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago 2
Lol, good vid Mr. UK with the cool accent :DD
xXxScarletBloodxXx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Utilitarianism is just another religion passing the collection plate at gunpoint for the gods of communism.
-
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Most men believe their weenies come from heaven, so this (in their minds) gives them a sanctified excuse to play "god."
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since atheists don't believe in God, they don't care about morality. All atheists are moral relativists. Given the chance, they would rape and murder every member of your (or their own) family, simply because they can.
Woting14 1 year ago
The thing is though, the bible doesn't give 'objective' moral laws. Quite frankly this is all obita dicta when it comes to deciding whether there is a God or not. The main Christian faiths are reliant on Jesus rising from the dead after three days. After which we are to pursue a life of 'good morals' as Jesus did, not so that we can obey the law, but more so that we can become closer to him.
Cerybros 1 year ago
@dprjones Right but not quite.
ALL degrees of morality (kindness, goodness...) has to be taught. It isn't an intrinsic ability in humans. For some rare individuals the ability to be taught moral values isn't even neurologically possible. To me that is the most obvious proof that objective morality can't exist and is an obvious trait of evolution of the human species/society. (Have worked some in a juvenile correctional facility, with the treatment of criminally insane/criminal children.)
laserbuddha 1 year ago 7
@laserbuddha Kindness, goodness, etc., to varying subjective degrees, is an intrinsic value inherent in evolutionary humans. However it is the natural duty of parents or relevent authorities to REINFORCE these attributes while correcting or sublimating the negative ones. Otherwise your observations are spot on. Morality and ethics is subjective. Even if there was an objective morality, it is subjectively derived.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts Not sure what you mean. Are you referring to a study/research or is this your own private hypothesis? Because what I wrote is based on a study made at a juvenile detention, where I worked. Have not studied psychology, so I can be way off here. But I think it was pretty clearly stated: kindness, goodness etc. has to be taught. (In some cases not really possible.)
laserbuddha 1 year ago
@laserbuddha Based on being a parent and teacher. Kindness and goodness doesn't HAVE TO be taught. It occurs naturally in the human condition to varying degrees in each individual. Reinforcing these naturally occuring traits is also inherent in the human condition. I just don't think kids are born evil or amoral necessarliy and absent a teaching regime they become that. It just needs to be cultivated to varying levels. That's all I'm saying.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts Ok? Not really sure I understand your reasoning or if we are talking about same subject.
I think the concept of good/evil is a practical convention of language, not a "real" property and it becomes evident when talking about infants. Saying an infant is good/evil is nonsensical to me. E g they have limited understanding of their actions and so on. I also very much doubt infants understanding of morality and goodness.
To clarify my position I wrote a couple of examples:
laserbuddha 1 year ago
@laserbuddha I agree with you on the infant analogy, being new borns and all. All I am saying is that morality and ethics, to varying degrees, are naturally inherent in all human beings and they don't necessarily have to be taught to individuals. Good or bad morality, which is of course subjectively determined, can be reinforced, but the sense of an ethical system is already there. That's how we survived as a species to this point. That's all.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts cont.
1) If you look at cases where children have been isolated from humans (from early birth) such as Kasper Hauser or children brought up by animals. Although physically healthy they lack many basic social concepts/abilities, and in most cases not able to learn. Basic abilities such as the ability to learn human language.
cont.
laserbuddha 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts cont.
To me it is evident that their ability to understand concepts of morality (on any level) is very unlikely. They are in the same situations as the infants, calling them and their actions good/bad is pointless.
cont.
laserbuddha 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts cont.
2) There is also people who are not able to "understand" the concept of morality because of neurological/psychological issues (such as antisocial personal disorder etc).
3) And as I mentioned previous I've seen the conclusion in a psychological project, where I worked. The main focus of the project was to train children in empathy, which backfired.
I think this clearly proves my point: all degrees of morality has to be taught, it is NOT AN intrinsic property of humans.
laserbuddha 1 year ago
@laserbuddha Oh, I agree. Psychopathic antisocial personalities are clearly unable to empathise and/or sympathise with others. It's just not there, as unlike most other people. It is not inherent in them nor is it teachable. They merely mimick morality in order to get by. I think most people are born with at least rudimentary sense of ethics or morality. We can see this even in lower animals.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@laserbuddha So then logically since Newtonian physics has to be taught and cannot be taught to some then there is no objective Neutonian physics. In any case it is pretty debatable whether all morality has to be taught.
newperve 7 months ago
@newperve Your Newtonian analogy is just strange. It makes some sense if you believe in a deity that is some kind of authority on what's moral. But then you get other problems.
Have you got anything that support that it's "debatable", other than your speculation? I think it's pretty obvious if you look at cases like Kaspar Hauser or infants that morality isn't really something intrisic in humans.
laserbuddha 7 months ago
@laserbuddha You argued that since some people can't be taught something it can't be objective. My Newtonian analogy simply showed this as false. Objective morality doesn't need a diety and indeed a diety would not affect it at all. Chimps aren't taught morality, yet they display understanding or moral concepts like fairness. Infants actually understand the difference between moral and practical rules as early as 2 years, according to "The Philosophical Baby" by Dr Alison Gopnik.
newperve 7 months ago
There is no objective morality because our moral codes are based on how things ought to be, not something that is. Altruism isn't a "good" act because an "evil" person can show it. Hitler showed altruism for Germany, not saying he was good, based on my moral views, far from it. Some think he was a moral man. But if altruism was a kind act, he shouldn't have been able to show it. Altruism is needed for survival, but that doesn't mean altruism ought to be shown.
HybridD91 1 year ago
objective morality is yet another proof against god, an error on god's ethics book which was inevitable to occur, coz the book was supposed to give some morality and it did, but morality changes although god made it so it cant change... so it couldnt have been done by god or any eternally righteous being... (not to mention bible's ethics are extremely wrong to begin with) i like the logic of that
EternallyExistent 1 year ago 8
commanments 6-9 are the only ones that are any good
johnnythesailorman 1 year ago
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that Craig didn't even present a valid argument. How can a such a seasoned debater make such a ridiculous elementary error? Especially when he specifically puts his syllogism in its most basic form.
P1: If A does not exist, B does not exist
P2: B exists
C: Therefore, A exists.
His conclusion does not follow from his premises. In fact, this syllogism only allows for the negation of god if we reject, or disprove, objective morality. Idiotic mistake.
Memeticemetic 1 year ago
Yes, I did notice this, actually... it's stunning that the logic fails at even this basic level.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@Memeticemetic Those are exactly the kind of logical fallacies people resort to to try and "prove" their god. And unfortunately, the idiots of their congregations and people on the internet soak it up like sponges.
bonanzaguy04 1 year ago
It's worth noting that virtually every commandment that actually deals with human relations - not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, not committing adultery - all of them were forbidden in the code of Ur-Nammu, the oldest existing inscribed code of law that we've got - centuries older that the Code of Hammurabi, which predates Moses by a thousand years.
If humanity already had most of those laws it sort of makes the whole "handing down from the mountain" thing a bit redundant.
prodprod 1 year ago
Excellent 5-star series--just made a playlist of it, and subbed.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I don't understand how this shows that science is failing. This shows that the scientific process is *working* by challenging old ideas with new evidence.
gorgonous 1 year ago
There is no good or evil, anyone who believes in this concepts is an idiot. There is just the stronger and the weaker. The lord and the workers. Who possesses power create the concept to the dominated.
vls174 1 year ago
Nietzsche FTW. However, I think self-deception and mental slought enters into it more.
NichtDieseTone 1 year ago
@vls174 ..Yeah.....that's what the occultists teach. No wonder why our society is so full of murderers and thieves.
vachief 1 year ago
1:24
How can an adult stand behind such a professional-looking podium with such a professional-looking goatee and spout such utter crap?
Daruqe 1 year ago
You fucking mindless Randroid.
Arkad26 1 year ago
Dear Mr DPRJones:
I'm sure that this point has been covered several times, but are you aware that this video has been blocked by Channel 4 in the UK, for allegedly containing too much of their content? Is this being put to right, as I'm sure it's costing you viewing figures!!
Moreover, I hope you publicise the event on YouTube, should anybody take you up on your BlogTV challenge. I look forward to watching that!
Many thanks,
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
@stanleygarden (original post)
I turn your argument to another subject. See if you support this:
Newton claims that there is no such thing as "absolute stillness". Observers can only claim move 'relative' to others. There is no "absolute" point of reference.
Your counter argument is this:
>> Do you realise that by stating: "there is no such thing as absolute stillness" you're making an absolute claim, not a relative one? Relative motion therefore falls into a paradox right at the beginning...
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
Well it's now clear that I've been attacking your arguments as though you didn't believe that there are absolute truths to be known. I realize it's not the case. We only seem to part ways on the issue of morality. Now consider what I already said, if you assume a relative morality...well it doesn't just stop there. A set of principles most follow like: "What's moral is what most people think is moral in a given culture at a given time" This again is an absolute claim. There's no way around it.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
If you want to take it to that level of silliness, then I could counter by saying that your quoted sentence is NOT absolute, since it is built of words which lack absoluteness (they are defined differently in each dictionary).
But by now you will have noticed that we are not discussing morality. It's about the definition of "absolute"...
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
Yeah but you just totally ignored what I just said. If what you're trying to convey is that there are no absolute claims about morality, you cannot enunciate this by means of an absolute moral claim. I'm really having a hard time figuring out how you fail to notice the conspicuous contradiction.// Furthermore, you also decided to disregard the central claim of my last reply, Do you think rape is absolutely wrong or just culturally contingent?
stanleygarden 1 year ago
I certainly did not ignore any comments about rape. My browser's Ctrl-F function says you never mentioned the word!
The problem with answering such questions directly is that it gives you (a false) scope to attack me personally as being 'pro-rape'. I trust you won't go that low.
And before you accuse me of dodging the question, the answer is yes. Rape is culturally contingent. Bible stories for example, suggest that it was fairly standard practice once, practised by reasonably good people.
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
This is exactly where I accuse you of using word games. If I say
"Morality is defined by society"
this is NOT an absolute moral claim. You could argue that it is a claim about the nature of morality, but that's different.
A moral claim identifies the good or bad in a situation. "You shouldn't kill" is a moral claim, because you can call someone 'bad' if they do or 'good' if they don't.
"Morality is defined by society"
How are you trying to divide good from bad according to this sentence?
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
Yes, the case about rape was just an example of what happens when u believe morality is defined by a prevalent culture. I'm certainly not gonna accuse u of being pro-rape but I wanna take your assumption to its logical conclusions with a hypothetical question. You're saying rape was right back during the iron age. If there was an island somewhere in the world today where little girls were routinely flogged and raped and as part of their common practices, would u condemn or condone such travesty
stanleygarden 1 year ago
For me, to condone or condemn would be rather pointless. The point would be to establish some kind of dialogue (depending on their ability to use language!), learn from them, and try to educate them.
I actually think there's a more interesting question in this situation for you. Assuming that you would condemn their actions, what would you belay upon them as a punishment? Would you feel right in enforcing a punishment upon them? Which country's laws would you try them under?
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
@cartbeforehorse
Its not a question of law, its a question of morals.
Morally the rape is wrong, legally on that island its legal. You can't punish anyone there for rape.
So you have to convince them that it is wrong, and to institute a law then punishment is a question.
adolthitler 1 year ago
That's what I said. It's a question of education!
But the point is that you're saying that the crime is absolute (i.e. objective). Does an absolute crime not warrant an absolute punishment? What is the point of morality if it bares no punishment?
You see your contradiction I hope. You claim these crimes (these morals) to be absolute, but yet you are willing to treat them differently in this hypothetical civilisation than in ours.
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
@cartbeforehorse
Its hard to go from, an actions morality to its justified punishment or reward.
Use of the word absolute there is incorrect.
Try if an objective crime, is it worthy of an objective punishment? Hell yes.
But if you want to play with meanings and replace words, how about...
If a crime is evil how about an evil punishment?
Your example is just wrong.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler
You seem to be saying that there is a distinction between "absolute morality" and "objective morality".
I have been using the words "absolute" and "objective" interchangeably in this debate up until now. Please correct my error by explain the difference between the two phrases/words in the context of this discussion.
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
@cartbeforehorse
Absolute morality - I don't know, but I assume its religious morality backed by god.
Objective morality - a morality based on logic with an attempt to remove all bias. I believe its posible others don't.
adolthitler 1 year ago
So you wouldn't interfere even in the teeth of such blatant display of human perversion. In some parts of Africa, people are still burned alive upon accusations of witchcraft. You're saying, if you had the power you would turn a blind eye to the desperate cries of those in immolation. I take it female genital mutilation is one more thing you're indifferent to.. If you had had the power to prevent the holocaust, you wouldn't have, after all, that was their cultural meme at the time.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
@stanleygarden
LOL. I knew you were waiting for the moment to jump and accuse me of being pro-rape (pro-crime).
The Q you posed was explicitly a hypothetical one about rape. You may not now move the goalposts and base the question on an actual tribe in Africa, simultaneously introducing a number of new crimes that you never mentioned originally.
How we interact with different cultures is too big a Q for this forum. Suffice to say that it has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality.
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
And by the way, many of the crimes you mention are motivated by religious beliefs (in fact, specifically Christian).
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
We've quite a few things during the last 500 years, I think all developed countries could reach a common consensus on the folly and repugnance of many of these practices. Before we educate them-like you said- we need to impede further gratuitous misery.
All one needs to dismiss moral relativism is to aknowledge that there are better and worse ways to make this world a better place.
What moves you to fight starvation in the world? (or at least to deem it a problem worth dealing with?
stanleygarden 1 year ago
@stanleygarden
Let me ask you this:
ARE you moved to fight starvation in the world?
I know it's in your heart to fight starvation, but that's not my question. HAVE you actually been moved to do something about it? Have you gone to Africa to give hungry people food? HAVE you given money to buy food on their behalf? (Haiti doesn't count here, that being an earth quake, not a famine!)
Be honest in your answer. Please.
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
No I haven't done much to fight starvation, but that's why I made sure follow that sentence with (or at least deem it a problem worth dealing with), If I had the power I would certainly do it. What about you? If you think starvation is a problem, on what grounds do you believe that? What makes it wrong? Or maybe u dont even think it's wrong given your relativist standpoint. And yes I concur, religion is one of the most lethal poisons in this wolrd, has been so for millenia.
stanleygarden 1 year ago
@stanleygarden:
"All one needs to dismiss moral relativism... a better place."
I disagree, but I see your argument. You're worried about how we define something to be "better" or "worse" if we have no morality ruler to measure against.
But if there really was an absolute points-basis to morality, wouldn't you be able to list the following charities in order of "goodness"? Both would make the world better, but which would make it best?
a) feed a starving man
b) cure a cancer victim
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
We both agree that there are ways of making the world better/worse. Can we also agree that morality can be represented as a line between two dots labelled "bad" and "good" acts?
You say that no matter how closely we study a given act, it is still possible to "objectively" place a pin on a decisive point along this line to represent its good/badness.
I say that the closer you scrutinise said act, the more fuzzy this point becomes.
Is this a fair assessment of our relative viewpoints?
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
I couldn't have stated it better myself. Although I wouldn't venture so much as to suggest that we can "place a pin". Morality doesn't have to be that precise. Like I said, morality can be a lot like food. There is no such thing as 'one right food', but we can distinguish between food and poison. Morality is not necessarily zero-sum. There can b general principles to follow that admit of circumstantial exceptions. We both agree that there are better n worse ways to proceed, that's moral realism
stanleygarden 1 year ago
...
What I'm trying to say is that whether or not a sentence is absolute bares no weight to the point that the sentence is trying to convey.
cartbeforehorse 1 year ago
funny how a comandment about rape was not mentioned in the 10 commandments yet among not killing is often considered one of the most important moral standpoints of most cultured civilizations. if the ten commandments were truly the backbone of civilization it would have been included.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ...Are you really that bent....to think that the God who created us condones rape?
vachief 1 year ago
have you read the old testament? where the punishment for rape means having the rapist forcfully marry the woman he rape and pay the father some silver coins all the while the woman has no say in the matter as this is the law decreed by god who spoke to some prophet? have you read that passage? ill help you find the page number if you havent.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ..Yeah....If your making a claim....back it up with scripture..I'll wait.
vachief 1 year ago
Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
adafuns 1 year ago
....Get a KJV bible. If a young guy and his girlfriend have consensual sex it is not considered rape in the bible. Due to copywrite, modern speach bibles are inaccurate.
vachief 1 year ago
There is nothing in the KJV that states that the sex in consensual. In fact, nowhere is it suggested that women have any say in who they have sex with unless they are adulterers or prostitutes and both of these acts are punishable by death.
tiggster13 1 year ago
...Go ahead and play stupid...if it makes you feel better. lol If it was adultery they would have been executed....instead they they had to pay a fee...and get married.
vachief 1 year ago
I'd rather play stupid than be stupid.
if you reread what I just wrote you'll find that I didn't say that the couple in Deut. 22:28 committed adultery. I said that the sex wasn't described as consensual.
And if you thought about it a little (something that you have a hard time doing) you'd realize that, if they were having consensual sex out of wedlock (like you say they were) then they'd be guilty of adultery and she'd be put to death.
You lying, fraudulent hypocrite.
tiggster13 1 year ago
....When you get tired of being wrong....let me know. lol It is painfully obvious...that you don't get it.
vachief 1 year ago
except it wasn't conceptual, it clearly says rape, if it wasnt rape, then they would be pt to death as you say so yourself. so what, do people edit out the bad parts to make the bible look nice? and you worship this book, why exactly? and again, religion is public domain so you are going to have to show me proof on how, due to copyrights(that shouldn't exist) can alter the bible inaccurately. what would jesus think about you lying in his defense?
adafuns 1 year ago
.....Here is a good book for you to read " New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.....very informative on how bibles are made. It's about 15 bucks...well worth it.
vachief 1 year ago
i know about this book. one question: on this book you suggested, have you actually checked her sources (if she gave any)? also about the copyright issue i was looking for something more along the lines of a legal source. either way, if whatever "correctly translated" version of the bible you follow does not include the rape section i mentioned then my earlier comment wasn't directed at you, but rather on those who claim their bible is the ultimate moral law without reading the bloody thing.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ...Her book is heavily footnoted. She began reading classic literature at age 11, and by 18 was teaching English to Greek immigrants. She is now in her 60s. The word rape...is not in the KJV. Sexual sins were dealt with by stoning and are called adultery. I highly reccomend her books, New Age bible Versions is about $15, and when your finished you'll know more about bibles than 90% of most pastors. lol
vachief 1 year ago
alright, if YOUR bible doesn't say rape then nothing that i have said actually applies to you. but not all christians follow the KJV. im commenting on those who believe the bible is the word of god without actually reading whats in it. and other bibles say rape, maybe not the word, but its description can only imply rape. as for Gail, i have my reasons for not liking her, im just stressing the importance of checking sources.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ...Rape falls under the catagory of adultery, adulterers were stoned to death. There is a huge difference between modern speech bibles and the KJV. The NIV for example has 58,000 less words in it. The KJV is a Majority Text type bible....all the rest are translations of the minority texts. Gail goes into detail in the books she has written with appropriate footnotes. Her collation work is spot on. Well worth the $15 bucks.
vachief 1 year ago
i just found the KJV quote, and its less explicit than the other bible versions but still:
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; "
do me a favor and explain why the words "..and lay hold on her," are necessary and what they actually mean. i would think it meant to fuck her, but then the e mediate words "..and lie with her," would not be necessary at all. nevertheless consent was never acknowledged either way.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ...It is the ancient version of a shotgun wedding....if it became known that they were having sex.
vachief 1 year ago
i got that already, but it still doesn't answer my question on what would be the point of adding "...and lay hold to her" when every other passage in that section is clear on what entails, this is the only passage that brings some nondescript action being taken on the virgin in question. either way isn't a shotgun wedding immoral? to make someone be with someone they do not want to be with.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ....Your looking for something that is'nt there. Next thing you know ...you'll be trying to convince me there is nothing morally wrong with fucking your cat. But in your no moral world....anything goes...right?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief did i ever said that i have no morals? no morals doesnt come from your book it comes from society. your putting words into my mouth to distract fromt eh issue. im reading the king james bible right now and im asking you what is the meaning of this text " If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, AND LAY HOLD TO HER, and lie with her, and they be found; " what is the point of the bold when imediatly after he says lie with her. its redundant. cont...
adafuns 1 year ago
@vachief ...continue from last....every other passage is clear and doesn't contain this. why here why there? it is clear to me that you believe that the king James is the only true bible. when you can ask any biblical historian that the king James version was censored as well, and many books that were also considered holy and part of the bible didn't make it into the final phase of the king James. you also didn't answer whether you think a shot gun wedding is immoral or not.
adafuns 1 year ago
@adafuns ..Yeah ...it did mean to fuck her....so what? Don't you like girls? lol The Isrealites did not punish thier people with death just because they were having sex. Forceable rape is a different story. In the future try reading several chapters to see the big picture.
vachief 1 year ago
so the passage if relayed on modern day usage means"to fuck her, to fuck her..." because according to you it says it twice for no reason. man he must have REALLY wanted to fuck her then :P btw you confuse yet again that i have not read this book. its contradictions are the main reason why i don't worship it as literal.
adafuns 1 year ago
and this disproves evolution.....how exactly?
adafuns 1 year ago
the bile...funny
60m2n 1 year ago
@60m2n ..When you get tired of being wrong ....let me know.
vachief 1 year ago
tired of being wrong?
I was just chuckling over your mistype of bible to bile
nothing new under the sun?
That can't be right, there're new translations of the bible all the time.
60m2n 1 year ago
@60m2n ...The new translations are a joke, the NIV for example has 58,000 less words than a KJV. Some of the readings are directly opposite from the KJV. Every time a "new" bible is produced, by law they are required to use a different word due to copywrite infringement. What you end up with is junk. The KJV has no such infringment laws, that is why they all match, no matter what year they were produced.
vachief 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I dunno how much of a joke the new translations are. I'll take your word for it. My point, I guess, would be that relying on a bible verse like "there is nothing new...under the sun" is logically unsound no matter how comforting it sounds.
60m2n 1 year ago
religion has no copyright laws (non that i am aware, if so cite a source please). its all considered public domain. also using a bible quote is not evidence of anything because now you have to show evidence of the evidence. now show me why and how through experiments and testing that "there is nothing new...under the sun" is true.
adafuns 1 year ago
Its starting with no morals and adding only those morals you can justify logically.
There are not that many really, because most of what people call moral actions, are really just prejudices.
adolthitler 1 year ago
oh ik n i guess does r supposed 2 b universal which if dey r dat would justify da existence of god right? so if morality is open 2 opinion dat would mean u really can't prove da existence of god using dat argument?
josethegreat100 1 year ago
@josethegreat100
No gods existence is not justified. Logic is part of the universe, not part of god. Objective morals use logic, not god.
There is no justification for presuming god.
adolthitler 1 year ago
He also mentioned biblical genocides.
Thats aplicable to all christian denominations, and bible god himself.
You were checkmated in his first comment.
adolthitler 1 year ago
...Micheal J. Fox....to light the torch.
vachief 1 year ago
Actually racism can have a logical basis. If you're at war with another ethnicity for a long, long time then you're going to be racist towards them. Whenever we have war we become racist. "Japs, krauts,' etc. We discriminate, have prejudice against them. That is indeed a form of racism.
Racism can have a reason mate, and usually it does in the form of a very long grudge. Even if the reason is false or downright stupid, very few racists are racist for the sake of it as far as I know.
Ctserber 1 year ago
Racism due to war, is purely emotional.
Nobody hates the germans or japanese anymore.
It was never objective.
You can't condemn them anyway while the war is on, as you attack them just as they attack you. Hypocrisy is not moral, therefore racism is not moral. If you don't like whats happening to you in the war, raise the white flag.
adolthitler 1 year ago
The 10 C's are about what I'd expect a bronze age tribal group of goatherders to come up with. Probably worked for them and their culture.
What moral foundation does the Bible provide for the question of, say, surrogate mothering? Is it moral for a woman to provide her womb for a non-related embryo? Can she morally offer her services out to the highest bidder? Can she later claim custodial parental rights? If the Bible can guide us here, please cite chapter and verse.
60m2n 1 year ago
You how morals get applied universally?
Its called a dictatorship.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@vachief
Show us a creator and then we can talk obedience.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler ..You have never seen the ...wind either.
vachief 1 year ago
Throw a handful of sand into the air. I cannot see the wind, but I can observe its effects.
TheSullivanInk 1 year ago
@TheSullivanInk ..Likewise we see the calming effect on society....when they adhere to the law. A lawless society is anarchy.
vachief 1 year ago
I have seen the wind.
Show me the creator.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@TheSullivanInk
Well god can't be exempt or then they are not objective he must obey his own moral laws or they are a sham.
adolthitler 1 year ago
You are partly correct. However, objective in this sense is not meant to mean unbiased. Objective morality is created by an observer who exempts himself from the set of morals it creates. Etched in stone morals that are intended to transcend time and the expansion of knowledge are flawed in their own certainty. Think the Constitution and the amendments. No perfect law would need amendments. If there is no observer, there are no objective morals. Morals are subjective to knowledge.
TheSullivanInk 1 year ago
@TheSullivanInk ..Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
vachief 1 year ago
That makes no sense. Quiet yourself.
TheSullivanInk 1 year ago
@TheSullivanInk ..Not to the God hater crowd..I'll give you that. Why do you think they hung the 10 Commandments on the wall of every court house in America? Maybe they thought it was a nice decoration. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief
Maybe the religious are violating the separation of church and state, to further their religious aganda.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler ..Yes....the phony Rapture crowd does have an agenda...they want to turn America into a theocracy. When people grow tired of the Democrats...you can count on Sarah, to step up to the plate. Fascism wrapped up in a flag....carrying a cross.
vachief 1 year ago
+Objective morality is created by an observer who exempts himself from the set of morals it creates.+
Rubbish thats subjective. Objective applies to all including god. End of story.
adolthitler 1 year ago
Oh really?
Ok then, let's hear what these core morals that can run society smoothly without trampling on anyone's rights or liberties are?
tiggster13 1 year ago
I do not think that with objective morality you are going to get a list of do and donts. It is my view that an objective moral value of an action (or non action)can only be found in the measurable meaningful consequences.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
It was Adoft that said you can build a standard by adding morals.
How can you possibly know all of the consequences of a given act before you take it? Or even after you take it? And how do you measure these consequences objectively?
The child who's life you save today could grow up to be a mass murderer.
Wouldn't you have to be omniscient in order to fully measure the value of any moral act?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
Saving a childs life is the moral act at the time.
What that child does later is not your moral problem.
You lack a sense of proportion.
adolthitler 1 year ago
If you truly do not know the consequence then you would be acting in ignorance. It would not make your action moral. As for the child you would have to demonstrate to me the act of saving the child is what turned him into a mass murder. Be careful not to fall in to the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (after that, therefore on account of that). It is a very easy one to fall into as I have done it several times myself.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
Alright then, how do you decide which consequences need to be considered in the equation and which ones don't?
You started with measurable moral values then switched to measurable harm and now its measurable consequences, but you've yet to demonstrate how you would measure any of these things. What I've been trying to point out is that, if these things cannot be measured objectively then the only value they have is conceptual and therefore subjective.
tiggster13 1 year ago
One can measure harm in several ways. First and foremost for me is the violation of an individuals rights. For example take the act of assault. Assault as defined as an unjustified physical attack on an individual. I would argue that this act is objectively wrong and therefore immoral. I would argue a persons right to bodily integrity was violated. This violation can be observed. It is the violation of rights that causes harm and makes it immoral.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
I'm not saying that you shouldn't think that an assault is a moral act. I'm saying that your conclusion is based on your own subjective moral values. Simply claiming that you're being objective doesn't make it so.
You say it can be measured in several ways which suggests there is no one objective way.
You defined assault as an unjustified attack but who decides if its justified or not?
You are arguing for an objective standard but you're still defining it in relative terms.
tiggster13 1 year ago
Yes I agree there are all types of harm, Physical harm, emotional harm ect. What I am defining is harm from an objective moral point of view. I am saying that harm is occurring at the point you violate someones rights. The assault example may result in physical harm or it may not. One thing is for certain, a persons right to bodily integrity has been violated or it has not. It does not matter that the perpetrator thought they had permission or that is was ok.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
"What I am defining is harm from an objective moral point of view." And I'm saying your viewpoint isn't objective.
"I am saying that harm is occurring at the point you violate someones rights." But to do this you must define what rights are AND show they exist independent of any mind and are not the product of any man made authority.
Where does your "right to bodily integrity" come from?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
If you tried the thought experiment I asked you to.
You might have realised you have no rights over others, and you cannot logically find a way to assert a moral right over them, except self defense and defense of others. Therefore everyone has a right of bodily integrity. Objectively too.
adolthitler 1 year ago
Bodily integrity doesn't cover self defense? How about accidents, does it cover that? If I accidentally slug you in the face have I violated your rights with my fist or have you violated mine with your nose?
If I violate your right to bodily integrity what are you going to do about? Cry that I'm immoral?
You know what, you just go on pretending that your opinion matters.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 .....You Sir...speak as if you were born yesterday. lol
vachief 1 year ago
And you speak as though you were hatched this morning.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 ..Now your stealing again...maybe we should tar and feather you. lol
vachief 1 year ago
Tar and feather? Weren't you the one who said such things were done by false christians and the lunatic fringe?
You are a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite.
tiggster13 1 year ago
Accidentally punching me?
How will you pull that off?
No I will defend myself and beat you down as hard as is needed, depending on the assault you start. Moral is as moral does.
I don't know why you think you can pose your immoral behaviour and then whine if I object to it. Just because you can choose to be a douche does not make me subjective. Objectively choosing to be a douche is not your best option. But by all means choose it, see where it gets you.
adolthitler 1 year ago
Are you now denying that accidents happen?
If I'm attacked and swing at my attacker in self defense but miss him and hit you instead, wouldn't that be an accident?
But, as usual, you just can't see things from anybody's point of view except your own. Like the self righteous bigot that you are, you would appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner and leave to bleed without ever considering that I might not be to blame.
You're about as unbiased as a lynch mob.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
+If I'm attacked and swing at my attacker in self defense but miss him and hit you instead, wouldn't that be an accident?+
Well why do you call me a lynch mob?
Where have I said you are immoral for this?
You as usual just straw man my position, with your ad hominems.
adolthitler 1 year ago
You said "Accidentally punching me?
How will you pull that off?
No I will defend myself and beat you down as hard as is needed, depending on the assault you start"
Now what did you mean by this? Did you consider my statement rationally or just jump to conclusions? Would you consider your statements to be unbiased?
I never said that you said I was immoral, nor did I call you a lynch mob (I said you are as unbiased as a lynch mob).
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
What I meant was I support self defense 100%. Any attack would be met with defense.
Accidentally punching someone may in fact be immoral throwing your fists around in a crowd with no care.
Being in a fight and hitting someone trying to break it up, you are not immoral just pathetic.
Show my bias, please.
adolthitler 1 year ago
Your bias was in thinking that, if I punched you in the face, it must have been done on purpose even tho I described it as an accident.
Note your statement "How will you pull that off?" Clearly you don't believe it possible for me to hit you accidentally.
And thus, instead of first ascertaining and evaluating the facts logically, as an unbiased person would, you immediately retaliated violently.
And I never said you were trying to break it up. Don't assume facts not in evidence.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
If you fire a gun in a crowded place, who you hit is random, but you are still morally responsible.
Evaluate what?
Did you really fire your fist or not?
Are you morally responsible for throwing your fists around with your eyes closed? Answer is yes. You are guilty.
adolthitler 1 year ago
"If you fire a gun..." It depends, did I fire the gun intentioaly or accidentally?
If you fell out a window and killed a pedestrian would you be morally responsible? Are we accountable for things we have no control over just because we happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
More importantly, though, can you show that my position has no validity? Can you show that there must be one and only one right answer and not just claim that there is?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
How can there be more than one correct answer?
If each aspect of a moral question has competing values it can be calculated that there can be only one answer.
Falling out the window, moral responsiblity, would come down to how you came to fall. I can't see any reasonable person falling out the window., and so they'd be guilty. A workman working on the outside of the building, should have a harness so should be guilty unless its faulty.
adolthitler 1 year ago
Did you or did you not say that morals cannot be measured or calculated a week or 2 ago? But now, magically, they can?
"How can there be more than one correct answer?"
All subjective questions have more than 1 right answer, that's what makes them subjective.
"I can't see any reasonable person falling out the window." And I can't see any reasonable person believing in objective morality...go figure.
But being unreasonable makes a person immoral? You call this being unbiased?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
Theoretically we can measure anything.
Practically we can't.
Its not being unreasonable that makes them immoral. Its taking a risk that cost someone else, you can risk your own life dancing on the window ledge, but when you kill some one else when you fall you are responsible for their death. The person on the window ledge may be moral, or not, but the action is immoral.
You are the one caught up with people being immoral when they disagree with you.
Stop projecting.
adolthitler 1 year ago
Oh, your not saying that we can actually measure moral values now, just that, theoretically it is within realm of possibility that moral values could be measured.
Its like, if we had some special ability, like, say omniscience or something, you know, something that we don't have and probably never will, then we could measure it.
Ok, I can see how that would make sense.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
Well even short of omniscience we do have the ability to measure a lot. But the problem is even if you do it for one situation, and have worked out the objective answer. You have to remeasure every time a similar situation arises to find if it is the same situation and then the same moral applies. Measurement and calculation would halt all activity.
You can only apply the morals that are based on pure logic. They are possible to calculate and always apply.
adolthitler 1 year ago
How?
How do you measure morals? What unit of measurement do you use? Wouldn't you be able to compare morals to determine which was more moral than the other?
You've already said that this is practically impossible except in some circumstances. Well, what are those circumstances and how are those morals measured?
tiggster13 1 year ago
You are deliberately avoiding the question. Is a person morally responsible for things they have no control over? Rewriting the scenario (dancing on a ledge instead of falling out of a window) so as to manufacture a greater sense of risk doesn't cut it.
People who are very safe and don't take any risks at all can still have accidents.
And what about the pedestrian in your example? Wouldn't he be taking a risk walking around below somebody who's dancing on the ledge above?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
You are faking the question. I did not dodge it.
You are not responsible for actions you don't take. But who falls out a window without taking some stupid risk?
The pedestrian almost 100% is unaware of whats going on above, so is not responsible. But if they are then yes they are responsible to some degree.
Now what has any of that proved?
Its not proven all morals are subjective.
Your just a dick.
adolthitler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What has this line of thought proved?
Do you remember about a week ago we were talking about how you are, in fact, a biased person? Well you've just proven that you are.
"But who falls out a window without taking some stupid risk?" This is a biased statement showing that you would be prejudiced against anybody who actually did fall out of a window do to no fault of their own.
As much as you might want to be objective you are not.
tiggster13 1 year ago
These are good and Fair questions. Thank for them I will attempt to answer them.
When I say rights I am talking about universal human rights. The right to life, the right to bodily integrity the right to self determination, the right to free speech, private property rights. These are the type of rights I am talking about. They exist valid and true in our universe. They exist independent of our minds. Much like, if not exactly like, the laws of logic.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
Continued
You can show that they exist because if you violate someones universal human rights you will cause unnecessary harm most notably in the form of oppression. You will always limit a persons ability to thrive. If you doubt this you only need to look at present day Iran or North Korea. These people are suffering because their universal human rights have been and continue to be violated.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
Continued
It is you the moral relativist that must rely on forcing a point of view on humanity. What you are saying is the actions of the Iranian and North Korean governments are wrong simply as a matter of convention. As long as no minds recognize what they are doing is wrong it is OK. I am saying what they are doing is objectively immoral throughout time and space.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
@Scootsalongcrib
"It is you the moral relativist that must rely on forcing a point of view on humanity" - i just debunked your position that morals are objective.
however now i am interested, according to your definition what would they be like if they were subjective, hwo would they be any different to they are now?
types10000 1 year ago
This is a very good question types10000. I thank you for it. I am going to need time to think about this one. Keep in mind that I do reject you claim that you have debunked objective morality. As per my comment below.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
Hi Types10000
I have thought about your question and I keep coming back to the fact that if morals are only subjective at a personal level and not rationally binding as objective values then we would have to accept that murder is wrong only as a social convention. We may just be fortunate to live in a time and place were such practices are condemned by the overwhelming majority, but if that were to change there would be no rational justification to reject murder.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
You decree that what those people do is "objectively immoral throughout time and space" and have the gall to tell me I'm forcing a point of view on anybody? Who do you think you are that you can dictate to other people what they should or should not think?
You're only investing in arrogant, self righteous rationalizing of your own biased and bigoted beliefs.
tiggster13 1 year ago
I do not believe I am forcing this idea on you in any way. I am saying that if you are a moral relativist you cannot claim that what Hitler did was immoral because it was just the social convention of the time. You are left in the position to force your subjective values on others. I am claiming objective moral laws. That means that means I can claim that what Hitler did was immoral no matter what the social conventions were at the time.
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
I can so claim that that what Hitler did was immoral. I've done it many times in fact and I've believed it to be true every time. What I cannot do is claim that everyone else on the planet must also believe that what Hitler did was immoral. Furthermore, I cannot hold that the people living in Germany at that time should have believed that what Hitler was doing was immoral. I can't do this because I recognize that their points of view are as valid as mine.
tiggster13 1 year ago
Triggster you said "What I cannot do is claim that everyone else on the planet must also believe that what Hitler did was immoral."
If you cant by you own words falsify the belief that what Hitler did was moral then how do you know that your belief that what Hitler did was immoral is the correct view?
Scootsalongcrib 1 year ago
Correct to who? The only person whose opinion matters to me is mine. If I think that he was wrong then that's the correct answer. That's why I can't speak for anyone but myself - that's why my opinion is subjective.
It's like asking what's the correct answer to "what is funny?' or "what is pretty?' or "what is big?"
I don't believe there is a Correct answer that is independent of all points of view because these sorts of questions are all subjective in nature.
tiggster13 1 year ago