Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 744

Thread: Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality

  1. #301
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    You forgot the 5th point, the frustrating one and the one that doesn't follow from anything.
    If you really think there is no objective morality and that slavery is just a personal preference akin to choosing a favorite color, then there's nothing I can do for you. I just want people to understand that that's what they're advocating: the idea that choosing between right and wrong is like choosing between green and red. To me it's absurd, but apparently I'm just not new-agey enough to get it. If you want to believe that, go right ahead, I think it's wrong.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  4. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by malkusm View Post
    I believe Android phones are superior to Apple phones.
    I could just say this is a preference, but since I said I believed it, I must think there is an objective truth, which invalidates all the idiots out there who believe Apple phones are superior, and especially the ones who don't think that their preference is the universally correct answer.
    Insert favorite Absolute Objective "whatsit?".

    How about Government and Law? Is there a perfect system of Absolute Objective government stamped into the fabric of the universe that we're all floundering about trying to comprehend?

    How about the Absolute Objective computer operating system? Oh, I'll give it to Android, who follows the only true path which is Linux. And since we're dealing in Absolutes, then all others including Windows and MacOS are flat out wrong.

  5. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is
    Is that like a certain health care law? We need to pass this thing to find out what's in it?



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by malkusm View Post
    I believe Android phones are superior to Apple phones.
    I could just say this is a preference, but since I said I believed it, I must think there is an objective truth, which invalidates all the idiots out there who believe Apple phones are superior, and especially the ones who don't think that their preference is the universally correct answer.
    I never said the fact that I admit believing in an objective morality invalidated anything. I'm just trying to get people to understand where morality really comes from. Either something is objectively right or wrong or it's just a preference akin to choosing between green and red. I think accepting the idea of objective morality is a much better motivator for getting people to behave morally, but I'm not trying to invalidate your preference model if that's really what you believe and you can't be bothered to search for an objective truth.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  8. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Is that like a certain health care law? We need to pass this thing to find out what's in it?
    No, how in the heck did you get that out of what I just said? I said there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is. If my premise that there is an objective morality is true, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to find out what it is. You're just trying every trick in the book to make it sound absurd so that you can claim ignorance and say there's no reason to search for truth. Your childish comparisons to political squabbles only inhibits clarity. Bills have nothing to do with philosophical, axiomatic truths.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 12:03 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  9. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Insert favorite Absolute Objective "whatsit?".

    How about Government and Law? Is there a perfect system of Absolute Objective government stamped into the fabric of the universe that we're all floundering about trying to comprehend?
    YES. If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be here. Do you believe that a certain kind of government (or lack thereof) can be better than another kind? If so, then you are acknowledging that there is a best form of government somewhere out there or else you would have no way of knowing better from worse.

    How about the Absolute Objective computer operating system? Oh, I'll give it to Android, who follows the only true path which is Linux. And since we're dealing in Absolutes, then all others including Windows and MacOS are flat out wrong.
    Sure, it's possible. What you apparently think is absurd you inherently accept by the nature of your argument. You believe certain things are better than others and yet you are not willing to acknowledge the possibility that there may be a best out there.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  10. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    No, how in the heck did you get that out of what I just said? I said there is an objective moral reality and we need to find out what it is. If my premise that there is an objective morality is true, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to find out what it is. You're just trying every trick in the book to make it sound absurd so that you can claim ignorance and say there's no reason to search for truth. Your childish comparisons to political squabbles only inhibits clarity. Bills have nothing to do with philosophical, axiomatic truths.
    I'm sorry about that. Sometimes this forum gets so serious it makes me want to crack a joke.


    I guess it seems odd to me to so fervently argue the existence of this thing to non-theists, and then not be able to give details on it. Or suggest the practical application of it.

    If an Atheist accepts the existence of Absolute Morality, has their life changed for the better in some way?

  11. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    I'm sorry about that. Sometimes this forum gets so serious it makes me want to crack a joke.


    I guess it seems odd to me to so fervently argue the existence of this thing to non-theists, and then not be able to give details on it. Or suggest the practical application of it.
    Conversion happens in two steps. You must first accept that there is an objective moral reality before you can accept any arguments as to what it is. If you don't believe that moral absolutes exist, then I might as well be talking to a brick wall because we are on completely different levels. If you accept moral absolutes as truth, then at least I know we are arguing on similar terms and the discussion can commence, but not until you accept the axiomatic truth of the existence of moral absolutes. It would be pointless for me to tell you what I think they are if you don't even believe they exist.

    If an Atheist accepts the existence of Absolute Morality, has their life changed for the better in some way?
    Sure. Not only do they have the assurance that all is not lost when they die, but there are tons of stories of people who turned their lives around when they accepted that morality was what God wanted and not simply what they wanted.

    I have never heard any stories about people who were motivated to become better people when they lost their religion.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 12:30 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  12. #310
    mo·ral·i·ty
    məˈralədē/
    noun
    principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
    synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality
    a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
    plural noun: moralities
    "a bourgeois morality"
    the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
    "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
    em·pa·thy
    ˈempəTHē
    noun
    the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
    ...
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  13. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    YES. If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be here. Do you believe that a certain kind of government (or lack thereof) can be better than another kind? If so, then you are acknowledging that there is a best form of government somewhere out there or else you would have no way of knowing better from worse.
    It's very situational and can depend a lot on culture. I'm not sure there is a perfect one-size-fits-all government that would work for all people in the world. For example, I don't think most people in Afghanistan would know democracy if it bit them in the ass.

    For some nations, socialism may work just fine if the prevailing culture is collectivist by tradition. For individualist people, they probably prefer capitalism.

    I'll also say I'm not even absolutely Libertarian. I'm willing to have a dialogue with Progressives or Green Party types. Maybe we have differences, but maybe we can find common ground to.

  14. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    ...
    Orenbus, my only problem with that is that it doesn't have an answer for why anyone should care about the feelings of another. Empathy doesn't mean anything if you think it's just a personal preference.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post



    Sure. Not only do they have the assurance that all is not lost when they die, but there are tons of stories of people who turned their lives around when they accepted that morality was what God wanted and not simply what they wanted.
    Does it particularly matter which God? People can turn to Jesus or turn to Brahma and the Upanishads and feel that kind of assurance. Would this still connect them with the sense of Absolute Morality?

  17. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    It's very situational and can depend a lot on culture. I'm not sure there is a perfect one-size-fits-all government that would work for all people in the world. For example, I don't think most people in Afghanistan would know democracy if it bit them in the ass.

    For some nations, socialism may work just fine if the prevailing culture is collectivist by tradition. For individualist people, they probably prefer capitalism.
    This may be true of government, but that doesn't mean it's also true of morality. Morality must be universal in order to be right or wrong. Government recognizes no optimal state of human welfare, which is ostensibly the goal of government, so it doesn't really have a direction. This fact, as bleak and pointless as it may seem, does not preclude a best system from existing. After all, in order to make any distinction between any kind of government, we have to first acknowledge that there is a best kind of government that we can move closer to. I happen to think no government can truly satisfy people unless it is based on the laws of God, but that's a different discussion. The fact that there is no one-size-fits-all government does not mean a best system doesn't exist in each of those situations.

    I'll also say I'm not even absolutely Libertarian. I'm willing to have a dialogue with Progressives or Green Party types. Maybe we have differences, but maybe we can find common ground to.
    Sure, that's fine. But in order to find any common ground you must first recognize that there is a best fit for whatever common ground you establish. If you did not believe an absolute best existed, then you wouldn't even be able to begin discussing how any government practice was better than any other. So when you discuss these things, you already come to the table under the assumption that there is a best to be strove toward.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 12:43 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  18. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Does it particularly matter which God? People can turn to Jesus or turn to Brahma and the Upanishads and feel that kind of assurance. Would this still connect them with the sense of Absolute Morality?
    Yes, it would still give them the sense of Absolute Morality, which would then allow them to begin trying to discover the truth. That's why I say you must first have an idea of absolute truth before I can try to convince you what that is. I would be willing to talk to a Muslim about why Christianity is the best, but that's only because we are both operating on the same axiomatic truth that there exists an absolute best to be found and that it's not just a preference.

    If you look at the difference between a Christian and a Muslim, they both worship the same God because they both agree that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the absolute basis for everything that is right or wrong as well as the basis for existence itself. The difference is that they disagree about what God's word actually is, and I believe I can show why the Bible is the true word of God and the Kuran is an impostor, but that's not for this discussion.

    I think once you accept that there is an objective true morality to be found, it would be pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff and put aside all of those rubbish beliefs in multiple gods to get to the real heart of the issue, which is the argument over what the one true God wants from us.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 12:57 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  19. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post

    I think once you accept that there is an objective true morality to be found, it would be pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff and put aside all of those rubbish beliefs in multiple gods to get to the real heart of the issue, which is the argument over what the one true God wants from us.
    If there is a God, I wish he would make an official searchable Morality Wikipedia. Why leave us guessing?

    I mean yeah I know Christians will point out the Bible and the Commandments, but as we move into the future new issues will continually arise.

    What if say 400 years from now, how would morality weigh in if individuals decided to marry an Artificial Intelligence? If so, would it be adultery if a person made a digital copy of someone else's Artificial Intelligence Spouse?

  20. #317

    Subjectivists Operate Like Objectivists in Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Yes, and the reason we have these moral controversies is because morality is subjective. The idea that "what one considers to be right or wrong will always be in the eye of the beholder" -- why is what so horrible? Isn't that exactly what happens in this world already? You said yourself, people don't even agree on what constitutes murder under certain circumstances. You claim objective morality, yet everyone disagrees on what this objective morality is. When you have a billion individuals all claiming "I am appealing to objective morality", and yet all of their opinions contradict one another, then what is the use of even referring to it as objective? Obviously, some moral issues are more controversial than others. You can't use controversial issues where you might be outside of a prevailing moral consensus ("taxation is theft") as evidence of objective morality -- that does not follow at all. Your own subjective moral position is not evidence of an objective morality.

    When debating a moral point with someone, one of the least effective debate tactics is to claim "my moral position is objectively self-evident therefore you are wrong." To them, if they are representing themselves honestly, their moral position is just as self-evident as you think yours is. We make moral progress when we actually bother to appeal to another person's reason and human experience, and to share our own, in an effort to reach a shared construction of a moral concept. If you want other people to share your view that taxes are theft, then you need to convince them to see it that way in their own eyes. Asking someone to blindly follow some standard that they don't agree with in their own eyes won't get you very far.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    The argument is that objective morality must exist in order for anything to be right or wrong, not necessarily that everyone has to agree on it. I don't think anyone made such a claim.
    Exactly, PaulConventionWV. Crashland, you've asked what's wrong about morality being determined in the eye of the beholder, but I'm pretty sure that if someone used the State to force you to do things which contradicted your moral standards that you would have a problem with that. But, after all, the person in authority of the State is just implementing policies (based on his moral code) which he believes is right for you. So, what would be so wrong with that, given your reasoning that morality is only subjective? His moral standard is just as "self-evident" as yours, right?

    But if you say that he's wrong for imposing his moral standards upon you, then you have conceded the point that there is such a thing as objective morality, because you are supposing that there is moral code above that of the Statist authority which condemns him as being wrongful about his imposition of morality upon you. And as is the case, most people in positions of authority will not be convinced that their moral standard is in error, which is why they begin with that standard as the basis for what they perceive is the "greater good." So, it seems to me that subjective morality, in practice, is an impossibility because no one treats morality as subjective when someone else's moral code trumps theirs in society.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  21. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    ...
    Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
    dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
    the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
    to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
    warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
    as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
    If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
    do we not die?



    I'm not sure what is meant by "absolute".
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  22. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    If there is a God, I wish he would make an official searchable Morality Wikipedia. Why leave us guessing?
    It's called the Bible.

    I mean yeah I know Christians will point out the Bible and the Commandments, but as we move into the future new issues will continually arise.

    What if say 400 years from now, how would morality weigh in if individuals decided to marry an Artificial Intelligence? If so, would it be adultery if a person made a digital copy of someone else's Artificial Intelligence Spouse?
    Matthew 5:28

    "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

    Now, does that mean he has actually committed the sin of adultery? Probably not, but the Bible is pretty clear that it's a dangerous temptation.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  23. #320
    So if someone typed Adultery into the searchable Morality Bible Wiki, they would likely find the passages from the Old Testament prescribing death.

    Do published Bibles say somewhere that The Old Testament is only for historical record, but is now considered obsolete on morality?



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    So if someone typed Adultery into the searchable Morality Bible Wiki, they would likely find the passages from the Old Testament prescribing death.

    Do published Bibles say somewhere that The Old Testament is only for historical record, but is now considered obsolete on morality?
    Would it kill ya to not use a computer for once? Besides, the Bible can be searched online. It's really not that hard.

    I don't get into Bible discussions with atheists. Someone who rejects the existence of an ultimate authority does not really want to know about the Bible. I will say, though, that I do not think the OT is obsolete.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 10:51 AM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  26. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    YES. If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be here. Do you believe that a certain kind of government (or lack thereof) can be better than another kind? If so, then you are acknowledging that there is a best form of government somewhere out there or else you would have no way of knowing better from worse.

    Sure, it's possible. What you apparently think is absurd you inherently accept by the nature of your argument. You believe certain things are better than others and yet you are not willing to acknowledge the possibility that there may be a best out there.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    If you did not believe an absolute best existed, then you wouldn't even be able to begin discussing how any government practice was better than any other. So when you discuss these things, you already come to the table under the assumption that there is a best to be strove toward.



    This doesn't make sense. Just because I can make a judgment that 2 is greater than 1, doesn't mean that I am saying "there is a greatest number, and 2 is closer to it than 1 is." All you need when making a judgment is some attribute or set of attributes to compare. In the case of numbers, you might be comparing quantity. In the case of governments, you might be comparing attributes like sustainability, or freedom. None of this requires there to be a "best" anything anywhere but in your own subjective view.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  27. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    This doesn't make sense. Just because I can make a judgment that 2 is greater than 1, doesn't mean that I am saying "there is a greatest number, and 2 is closer to it than 1 is." All you need when making a judgment is some attribute or set of attributes to compare. In the case of numbers, you might be comparing quantity. In the case of governments, you might be comparing attributes like sustainability, or freedom. None of this requires there to be a "best" anything anywhere but in your own subjective view.
    You can't make value judgments in math, so that analogy doesn't really apply to this discussion.

    If we're taking about preferences, then no preference can be objectively better than any other. So if you acknowledge that one thing is objectively better than another; for instance, that capitalism is better than socialism, then you are also acknowledging that it's NOT just a matter of opinion and that there must be a best system out there because, otherwise, you would have no way of telling whether capitalism was really better or just a preference you have. If you acknowledge that ANYTHING is objectively better than something else, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extend that reasoning until better eventually becomes best. Having an objective better is evidence of an objective best.

    You may say the 'better' is not objective, but then you contradict yourself when you assert that it would be better for everyone and not just you. If it's really only better in your own subjective view, then why do you insist that everyone should take your view?
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 12:03 PM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  28. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Exactly, PaulConventionWV. Crashland, you've asked what's wrong about morality being determined in the eye of the beholder, but I'm pretty sure that if someone used the State to force you to do things which contradicted your moral standards that you would have a problem with that. But, after all, the person in authority of the State is just implementing policies (based on his moral code) which he believes is right for you. So, what would be so wrong with that, given your reasoning that morality is only subjective? His moral standard is just as "self-evident" as yours, right?

    But if you say that he's wrong for imposing his moral standards upon you, then you have conceded the point that there is such a thing as objective morality, because you are supposing that there is moral code above that of the Statist authority which condemns him as being wrongful about his imposition of morality upon you. And as is the case, most people in positions of authority will not be convinced that their moral standard is in error, which is why they begin with that standard as the basis for what they perceive is the "greater good." So, it seems to me that subjective morality, in practice, is an impossibility because no one treats morality as subjective when someone else's moral code trumps theirs in society.
    Just because someone else might be acting based on their own view that they honestly believe, doesn't mean I have to accept their view. Of course if someone acts in a way that I see as immoral, I would have a problem with that. But the reason I would have a problem with that is because I am invoking my own subjective moral view, not because I am invoking an objective morality. The moral code which condemns the state when I don't like what the state is doing, is my moral code, I am the one doing the condemning. Other people don't react the same way to the same actions of the state because they have different subjective views.

    The reason that people tend to treat their subjective view as objective, is for a few reasons. People naturally assume that they are always right, that everyone else should think like them, and they assume that everyone else should feel the same way they do. Some of this is arrogant and presumptuous, while some of it is quite reasonable because we as humans do have quite a lot of shared experiences and shared capability of reasoning. But "treating it as objective" isn't the most accurate description. Making use of common experience or common reasoning is not the same thing as appealing to objectivity. If you have two people arguing for and against euthanasia, they won't get very far if one of them just keeps insisting "murder is objectively wrong" and the other one keeps insisting "deliberately prolonging suffering is objectively wrong".
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  29. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    You can't make value judgments in math, so that analogy doesn't really apply to this discussion.

    If we're taking about preferences, then no preference can be objectively better than any other. So if you acknowledge that one thing is objectively better than another; for instance, that capitalism is better than socialism, then you are also acknowledging that it's NOT just a matter of opinion and that there must be a best system out there because, otherwise, you would have no way of telling whether capitalism was really better or just a preference you have. If you acknowledge that ANYTHING is objectively better than something else, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extend that reasoning until better eventually becomes best. Having an objective better is evidence of an objective best.

    You may say the 'better' is not objective, but then you contradict yourself when you assert that it would be better for everyone and not just you. If it's really only better in your own subjective view, then why do you insist that everyone should take your view?
    I didn't claim one form of government is objectively better than another. I might have a view that one form of government is better than another, but that is a subjective view. Even if I did think there is a "best" form of government, that would also be subjective. I recognize that not everyone experiences the world in the same way I do and not everyone values the same things I do. I do not insist that everyone take my view, but I am happy to share my view with people in an effort to find common ground. You are referring to using force on others. I don't have a problem with imposing force on others who do not share the same values -- for example if someone has a mental disorder or has some morality completely at odds with mine and they honestly think it's okay to murder my family, I am perfectly comfortable with using force to prevent that from happening. I'm not just going to sit by because the murderer is just acting based on his own view which is just as valid. As I have said many, many times already, just because views on morality or government are subjective, doesn't mean that I have to accept other people's views.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  30. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Just because someone else might be acting based on their own view that they honestly believe, doesn't mean I have to accept their view. Of course if someone acts in a way that I see as immoral, I would have a problem with that. But the reason I would have a problem with that is because I am invoking my own subjective moral view, not because I am invoking an objective morality. The moral code which condemns the state when I don't like what the state is doing, is my moral code, I am the one doing the condemning. Other people don't react the same way to the same actions of the state because they have different subjective views.
    Why do you condemn somebody for not having the same preferences as you? When you say you "honestly believe" something, you are implying that you think it is objectively true and not just a preference.

    The reason that people tend to treat their subjective view as objective, is for a few reasons. People naturally assume that they are always right, that everyone else should think like them, and they assume that everyone else should feel the same way they do. Some of this is arrogant and presumptuous, while some of it is quite reasonable because we as humans do have quite a lot of shared experiences and shared capability of reasoning. But "treating it as objective" isn't the most accurate description. Making use of common experience or common reasoning is not the same thing as appealing to objectivity. If you have two people arguing for and against euthanasia, they won't get very far if one of them just keeps insisting "murder is objectively wrong" and the other one keeps insisting "deliberately prolonging suffering is objectively wrong".
    If it's just a preference, though, then why would you care? Of course if the two people you cited just shout the same thing over and over, they wouldn't get very far, but why would they do that when they have an objective basis on which to establish why they disagree? If you are arguing over a mere preference, you have no basis for your disagreement in the first place. You can't tell someone why why you disagree if you are also saying it's just a preference and it doesn't really matter which one you choose. Why would it matter that other people adopt your preference?

    If you tell someone they would prefer moral actions over immoral ones, then they can always disagree with you and say that they actually prefer the immoral actions. If you tell them that they are wrong, then they can't just say they prefer not to be right because being wrong might have real, tangible consequences as opposed to the consequences of having different preferences than you, which are neither real nor tangible unless you happen to hold a majority opinion.
    Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 02-22-2015 at 12:45 PM.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  31. #327

    My Sentiments Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    But then you're reduced to saying that slavery is only wrong because other people believe it is wrong. In other words, it wasn't wrong when it was popular.



    If it is not true, then demonstrate why. Explain to me why you believe it without appealing to the majority belief. If you have a reason, then what is your reason?



    If you say something is right or wrong, then you are making an objective claim. If you weren't, you would say I believe this is wrong, but you would have no reason for that belief if you also believed that objective morality did not exist. You cannot deny objective morality and then claim there is a reason for you to believe it to be true. If it is not objective, then you have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. I'm asking you why you believe it if it isn't objectively right or wrong.

    No amount of reasoning is going to convince the nazis that they were wrong because what they believed was based on value judgments they made about their race, not on reason.
    Exactly, PaulConventionWV.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  32. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post

    If you tell someone they would prefer moral actions over immoral ones, then they can always disagree with you and say that they actually prefer the immoral actions.
    If you tell them basically the same thing, claiming you're backed by the Bible and AOM, can't they just as easily go about their lives choosing their moral or immoral path on their own?
    Last edited by VIDEODROME; 02-22-2015 at 06:07 PM.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    If you tell them basically the same thing, claiming you're backed by the Bible and AOM, can't they just as easily go about their lives choosing their moral or immoral path on their own?
    Sure, they are capable of doing that, but the key difference I'm pointing out is that being right or wrong have real consequences, whereas having certain preferences really doesn't matter one way or the other. If I was told I was objectively wrong for doing something, I would be a lot more interested in trying to find out why than if someone simply told me they thought I would enjoy doing something else better than what I apparently already enjoy doing.

    Furthermore, I think this mindset is damaging because it sets up the perpetrator of evil acts as the judge of what is right or wrong and allows them to choose on a whim. Nobody's going to listen to you if they feel that they can do whatever they want with no consequences. There can be no justice if you treat the perpetrator of evil acts as if choosing to do what you think are moral acts instead of immoral ones is of no great importance or consequence and that they can choose freely as if they were picking a favorite color. There's no justice in that view. It's abhorrent.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  35. #330

    A Word on Subjective Morality From Dr. Ravi Zacharias

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Just because someone else might be acting based on their own view that they honestly believe, doesn't mean I have to accept their view. Of course if someone acts in a way that I see as immoral, I would have a problem with that. But the reason I would have a problem with that is because I am invoking my own subjective moral view, not because I am invoking an objective morality. The moral code which condemns the state when I don't like what the state is doing, is my moral code, I am the one doing the condemning. Other people don't react the same way to the same actions of the state because they have different subjective views.

    The reason that people tend to treat their subjective view as objective, is for a few reasons. People naturally assume that they are always right, that everyone else should think like them, and they assume that everyone else should feel the same way they do. Some of this is arrogant and presumptuous, while some of it is quite reasonable because we as humans do have quite a lot of shared experiences and shared capability of reasoning. But "treating it as objective" isn't the most accurate description. Making use of common experience or common reasoning is not the same thing as appealing to objectivity. If you have two people arguing for and against euthanasia, they won't get very far if one of them just keeps insisting "murder is objectively wrong" and the other one keeps insisting "deliberately prolonging suffering is objectively wrong".
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Christian group claims teaching science promotes ‘atheistic’ worldview for Kansas students
    By Natural Citizen in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 06:30 PM
  2. Atheistic Buddhism
    By TheLibertarianNationalist in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-04-2012, 12:16 PM
  3. Atheistic Morality
    By TheViper in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 07-11-2011, 09:06 PM
  4. Why Let The Gop Determine Our Candidate?
    By jointhefightforfreedom in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 08:11 AM
  5. To determine who is in the lead
    By LibertyCzar in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 06:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •