@zaxgamez Your definitions are contradictory. Conformity to rules is deontological, virtuous implies the virtue theory of ethics. These are two different concepts of morality. Defining morality as moral behaviour is just circular. To make your case you need to show that the rules of right conduct or the appropriate virtues are not objective. I agree they aren't, but just stating it doesn't make it so. Those who disagree with us would probably reject your definition anyway.
"Morality" and all of those associated, artificial ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Nature is pure war with every man against another, so man is only civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor. Nature does not care, nature does not need human permission. Nature kills everything, there is nothing eternal, everything dies...
Moral is NOT objective. What moral a person gets is depending on what enviroment the person grow up in. F.ex honourkillings is unheard of in the west while it's encouraged in the muslim world. In China it's ok to fart at a restaurant while most other places it's not. Moral is NOT objective. However some things are universally agreed on like killing is bad (Wich it also is within all other mammal groups) stealing etc. This is because it's antiscocial behaviour and we're scocial animals.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think morality is objective. I simply argued one could rationally believe morals to be absolute and objective and be an atheist. I don't think moral facts exist at all, never mind subjective or objective moral facts.
Also, a sociopath with no conscience has no sense of right and wrong, thus even killing is not universally agreed upon.
@nanoduckling I think some things can be understood as morally objective by most people undependent of their religion or philosophy like killing and stealing. Basicly the same I said the first time. However these are sometimes things dependent on who you kill or steal from.
@allinsman Well by objective I mean a property of something independent of what people think. Universal (or near universal) is not the same as objective. Quantum entanglement is an objective property of appropriately set up two photon systems, but it certainly isn't universally believed. One for a thing which morality (any morality) could be a property of is the conscience. I believe that facts about the conscience are descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus not moral. Another is god.
Morality's Definition - Comformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
It's not objective.
zaxgamez 4 months ago
@zaxgamez Your definitions are contradictory. Conformity to rules is deontological, virtuous implies the virtue theory of ethics. These are two different concepts of morality. Defining morality as moral behaviour is just circular. To make your case you need to show that the rules of right conduct or the appropriate virtues are not objective. I agree they aren't, but just stating it doesn't make it so. Those who disagree with us would probably reject your definition anyway.
nanoduckling 4 months ago
@nanoduckling I know, because most internet people are basically irratational.
But I am sure glad I got someone on my side. Thanks!
zaxgamez 4 months ago
"Morality" and all of those associated, artificial ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Nature is pure war with every man against another, so man is only civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor. Nature does not care, nature does not need human permission. Nature kills everything, there is nothing eternal, everything dies...
-
"Morality" is nothing more than a phantasm.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Moral is NOT objective. What moral a person gets is depending on what enviroment the person grow up in. F.ex honourkillings is unheard of in the west while it's encouraged in the muslim world. In China it's ok to fart at a restaurant while most other places it's not. Moral is NOT objective. However some things are universally agreed on like killing is bad (Wich it also is within all other mammal groups) stealing etc. This is because it's antiscocial behaviour and we're scocial animals.
allinsman 2 years ago
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think morality is objective. I simply argued one could rationally believe morals to be absolute and objective and be an atheist. I don't think moral facts exist at all, never mind subjective or objective moral facts.
Also, a sociopath with no conscience has no sense of right and wrong, thus even killing is not universally agreed upon.
nanoduckling 2 years ago
@nanoduckling I think some things can be understood as morally objective by most people undependent of their religion or philosophy like killing and stealing. Basicly the same I said the first time. However these are sometimes things dependent on who you kill or steal from.
allinsman 2 years ago
@allinsman Well by objective I mean a property of something independent of what people think. Universal (or near universal) is not the same as objective. Quantum entanglement is an objective property of appropriately set up two photon systems, but it certainly isn't universally believed. One for a thing which morality (any morality) could be a property of is the conscience. I believe that facts about the conscience are descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus not moral. Another is god.
nanoduckling 2 years ago
Darn nab it, that should read "One thing which a morality (any morality) could be a property of is the conscience".
Probably worth mentioning that I don't believe in god so I clearly don't think that is a source of objective morality.
nanoduckling 2 years ago
@nanoduckling Oh my god! It's a nerd fight! :P
zaxgamez 4 months ago
@allinsman
("... these are sometimes things dependent on who you kill or steal from.")
-
Yes, superior firepower...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago