And here we see the next stage of cognitive dissonance -- attacking the messenger to discredit him and by extension discredit the information. Devolving into emotional ALL CAPS is not a rational argument, rather it is a sign that you are getting angry that you are losing the debate and that your cognitive dissonance is getting stronger. LOLZ
By destroying all meaning in your rabid attempt to destroy the arguments that show atheists CAN rationally explain morals also destroys your argument that your beliefs can rationally explain morals. This is your ultimate problem.
The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.
Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.
Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.
An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.
It is developed by natural processes.
You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.
∴ Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
Enjoy
Rationally derived, based on objective empirical evidence, consistent with observations of how morals actually operate in different societies.
Whether you accept this argument or not doesn't matter. Until you show otherwise with objective empirical evidence, this indeed shows that Atheism CAN Rationally Explain Morals, which is the answer to the purpose of this thread.
Note further that it is not even necessary that this argument be "TRUE", it is only necessary to show that morals can be rationally explained.
That has been done. In Spades. The rabbit holes and other distractions are swept aside and your argument is invalidated.
Oh I think your "Argument" is defeated quite easily
Then do it. (you haven't yet in any of your 74 posts on this thread to date)
Isn't it interesting that your quote and it's elements doesn't really address the animal kingdom. How do Memes reduce social conflict between humans and other species. From what I can gather, you seem to be saying your more intelligent, so you have a right to act thus and so. Well God is infinte in wisdom, hence he can act as he wills twords you.. Since you think morality is subjective, why attack his ethics?
And, curiously, that still does NOT do it. A swing and a miss ... sad.
This is more you trying to change the question from moral codes for people with social groups to include other species. Then you throw in a little religious non-sequitur. More deflection from addressing the FACT that rational people (atheists among them) CAN (and HAVE) Rationally Explain(ed) Morals.
quote:Whether you accept this argument or not doesn't matter. Until you show otherwise with objective empirical evidence, this indeed shows that Atheism CAN Rationally Explain Morals, which is the answer to the purpose of this thread.
Note further that it is not even necessary that this argument be "TRUE", it is only necessary to show that morals can be rationally explained.
That explanation is also summarized in Message 204. So your topic hypothesis is invalidated. Fail. End. Done. Finito.
So move the goal posts all over the place and throw a cognitive dissonant tantrum if you like, but your argument is falsified by the objective empirical evidence that moral have been explained without needing god/s to do so. It is human, it is subjective, it develops thru natural causes, it is observed to be different in different cultures and it is observed to change over time, all consistent with subjective natural morality.
Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
So u don't actually have a bases for believing you can treat animals differently according to your moral code, other than to say, I dont like it because it throws a wrench in the system I've set up. Well ok I'll take that as an admission.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not atheists can rationally explain morals, it's a red herring, an attempt to move the goalposts by redefining morals to include something not necessarily there.
quote:moral 1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: 2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work. 3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom:
Nothing there says treatment of animals must be included. Some people may do that as part of their subjective perception of morals, but they don't have to.
But I have shown otherwise with empirical evidence. Here it is again. You assert that memes are MORE than a biological process but you can show No chain of causality from brain activity to these alleged memes or synergy, other than to say, "can't you just see it"
What empirical evidence? Your failure to understand the many arguments showing your erroneous thinking?
Again argument this does not refute that atheists can -- and have -- rationally develop morals.
Ironically you'll need to show in a biological scientific way, that they exist and they are more than a biological process. This is what you assert correct? Communication and sharing ideas won't help you either. I need something at a cellular level to show a chain of causality. You've just changed the word tastiness to meme and synergy, in hopes that it would explain something. It doesnt. I thought you fellas liked being sciency all the way through. Because you can't do what I suggested, it runs you straight into your second problem from an empirical evidence stand point.
But if you can show no chain of causality from the brain to consciouness, how would you have any hope of showing a chain from the brain to synergy memes or whatever.
A subjective idea classified as a meme, or otherwise, is not a real thing. I can imagine I'm a cloud, that doesn't make me one and it doesn't make my subjective perception a real thing. You fellas have imagined that because you have some relative idea about morals or ethics, they are somehow real. There's no empirical way they could be
This is corroborated by the fact that it's possible to have as many different ideas On one subjective idea, classified as morals, as there are people. There is no possible logical way for perceptions to be actually real. This slams the door shut on you ever demonstrating that perceptions are a real thing, or that they are actually morals Since morality from your position derived from your perspective are not real and have no hope of being real, it would follow you have no morals or anyway of explaining them.
So it is NOT true, That I have presented NO empirical evidence to the contrary. So if I were you, I'd spend less time accusing and assigning blame and more time on my arguments
And all this rambling blather does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals.
Since this is an observation in the form of an assertion, I have nothing to which respond. I'm sure to the casual observer it sounded good though.
And again this does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals.
Message 1: Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
Done, falsified. End. Finito, Finished.
Enjoy
ps - I see I have taught you a new name for a cognitive process, now all you have to do is understand how it works so you can use it properly ...
Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Then you should talk to one of your most outspoken person, Dr Sam Harris. He says that to minimize the maximum amount of pain and suffering is the highest moral. Since this would apply to the animal world, which of you is correct?
Fallacy of argument from authority plus you are reading animals into it when that isn't necessarily implied.
But it is curious that you quote an atheist talking about rationally explaining morals to argue that atheists cannot rationally explain morals. LOLZ, so funny.
Well that's my point genius. If the Nazis decided to do that as part of thier subjective perception of morals, then why were they in any since wrong
Showing again that you don't understand the argument that morals are subjective codes, and different people have different, albeit similar, codes ... because their upbringings differ, their learning differs, their opinions differ.
So when the ASPCA says you are absolutely wrong, which of you, is correct, moral or immoral.? If they don't buy your limited definition. are you both right, it doesn't matter, or something else. If someone says the Nazis were ok in thier behavior and actions, would your definition app,you to both parties
See both comments above. Try harder to understand rather than just read to form your responses.
RAZD writes:
And all this rambling blather does not alter the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals.
I set out atleast three arguments and you don't even attempt to refute one. Well ok.
In your subjective opinion ... But I ignore them because they have no bearing on the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals, which is what your thread claims cannot happen ... and yet it has.
You are now desperately going down rabbit holes to distract everyone from the fact that your thesis is invalidated.
Your inability to admit this to yourself is part of how cognitive dissonance affects your thinking.
Rational thinking is all about matter in motion. Unless your reasoning relates somehow to matter in motion, it's just meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
Interesting, how could your relative subjective explanations of morals end up rational thinking. If I disagree with your above statement, is that reasonable given your subjective approach to everything.
So I'll let Ringo deal with that bit of blather. But it could have something to do with the way we define rational ...
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
We call things rational when they make sense to us, and irrational when they do not make sense to us.
The golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - makes sense in terms of self-preservation and thus self-interest. It's rational.
Re: Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Well if we are not going to include animals in your alleged subjective morality, ...
What I said was that it wasn't necessary that animals be included. Obviously some people do (PETA) and others don't. That's what subjective is all about.
... why don't we also exclude all others that disagree with us. Why don't we say they aren't necessarily implied as well. ...
That would again be subjective, some people could (such as republicans excluding Muslims from their moral considerations) while others don't (see sanctuary cities).
... Nice how you make things up as you go along. Oh wait, that's the meaning of subjective isn't it ...
No, that's not what subjective means, and that is not how it works.
... Of course I might be wrong, in your system all I have have to do is just imagine I'm right and whamo I'm right. Nice system
If your moral system says it's okay to lie and misrepresent what others say, then yes you can declare yourself to be right. Just look at Donald Trump for a role model.
That being the case, could I assume that you have a different morality that applies to the animal kingdom. If you have a different one what is the standard u use and how do you justify it
Enlightened self interest.
Secondly, simply because I quote from Mr Harris, doesn't mean I think he did or can explain morals. His problems in actually establish one are no different than yours
So he does have an atheist moral code then. Good, glad we agree on that.
Showing again, that you can't demonstrate that you so called morals are nothing more than more biological by products of other proccesses. ...
Which just doesn't matter, compared to the fact that we do have thought processes and can make rational derivations of morals.
... If you could simply demonstrate that Synergy is something more than biological, then u might have a point. But how will you do this. If u could simply show that your imagination of a moral has anymore meaning than the earth rotating around the sun, then you have a point. But you can't just imagine it, death won't care that you think you had a purpose.
Which again does not negate the fact that we do have thought processes and can make rational derivations of morals.
You really don't see any iorny in your above statement do you? All it would take for me to demonstrate you don't actually have a moral, in reality, is to, SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. ...
Nope, all that would demonstrate is your opinion, not that rationally derived morals exist.
You can argue against gravity and say all you have to do is "SIMPLY DISAGREE" ... and surprisingly that has no effect on reality. That's how valuable opinions are in determining things in the real world.
... In your system of so called subjective morality, I would be as correct as you would, which would make it a nonsensical moot point. ...
Except that there is a difference between "correct" and "moral" -- correct is supported by evidence that can be evaluated by other and tested. Your argument is that atheists (or any rational person) cannot rationally explain morals. The fact is that you have been shown evidence that this is false, the evidence being several cases of morals being rationally explained.
The statement that "Atheism cannot rationally explain morals" being falsified by evidence of people rationally explaining morals" is not itself a moral or subjective statement: there is objective evidence that has been provided.
... Or I would be as incorrect as you are, or neither of us would be right or wrong. NOW ARE YOU STARTING TO GET IT. Your system just imagines and makes stuff up as you go along. But bless your heart that's all you've got.
Again you are confusing correct/incorrect with moral/immoral. You're imply one definition of "right/wrong" to correct/incorrect and a different definition to moral/immoral ... equivocation fallacy.
So I repeat again what I've said before: your arguments have no bearing on the fact that atheists can -- and have -- rationally developed morals, which is what your thread claims cannot happen ... and yet it has.
You are still desperately going down rabbit holes to distract everyone from the fact that your thesis is invalidated. Meanwhile my argument is not refuted. See Summary of my argument so far:
quote:
The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.
Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.
Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.
An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.
It is developed by natural processes.
You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.
∴ Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Continued rabbit-hole dodging. Verbal masturbation and word games do not refute the argument made that show Atheist(secular) morals have been rationally explained.
I could pick your so called summary apart piece by piece, but this will suffice. So why don't you apply your alleged morality to dogs and monkeys, the same way you do you humans. I'll tell you why, you are making crap as you go along. No thinking person buys your garbage RAZD. put another way, I dont need to eat out of a trash can to know it's garbage
Except that you haven't, in spite of that being the topic. Instead you waste bandwidth on non-relevant diversions to keep attention off the fact that you haven't even attempted to touch them. Bravado is not an argument nor does it alter reality.
Morals rationally explained. QED done.
Uh no. Morals subjectively explained. ...
Sadly, being subjective does not negate them being rational.
Curiously, saying that morals are "subjectively explained" just means that morals are explained by being subjective, so you are agreeing with us.
... IOWS relativistic nonsense
So you keep telling yourself in order to avoid confronting reality, ... and yet apparently you are unable to demonstrate any rational falsehood or fallacy in the argument that (a) morals are subjective and vary from person to person, that (b) these subjective morals are rationally derived within cultural (group) settings to reduce conflicts within the group, that (c) these cultural settings (beliefs) constrain the range of those morals into a general consensus within the group, and that (d) this subjective but rational derivation explains the (sometimes small, sometimes large) differences in morals in different cultural settings.
Please note, again, that your thesis is "Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals" is refuted by the existence of many examples of morals being rationally explained, and that is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to justify those morals or to compare one cultures morals to any other, or to discuss relative merits of animals etc etc etc, because that is NOT part of your thesis.
Re: Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Well actually I have set out several arguments. ...
That go off on wild tangents trying to make the whole universe meaningless in order to say that my arguments are meaningless. That is not refuting the arguments as rationally derived morals.
... I don't remember you actually setting out an rebuttal against the FACT, that if the universe in purely physical or biological in reality and it doesn't have meaning, why do you think your biological imaginations are more than the total itself. What possible meaning could your imagined morals have on the universe itself. You would have to have a greater meaning than that which created you for your imagined meaning to have meaning.
And this is a perfect example of this rabbit-hole deflection ... all of that babble does not change the FACT that we have thoughts and that by sharing them (memes) we share similar views of "life, the universe and everything" ...
... this FACT does not refute the existence of subjective morals. It doesn't address them.
That being the case, we can see, how conscience does exist, ...
Indeed the "physical or biological in reality" explains how we have thoughts and ideas and how we share them, glad you agree.
It explains how we can have subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group.
... but for it to have meaning or relevance, there would need to be something greater than that which created it. ...
Nor is this an actual problem in reality, as has been explained:
quote:Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia[1] from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together".
The term synergy was refined by R. Buckminster Fuller, who analyzed some of its implications more fully[11] and coined the term Synergetics.[12]
A dynamic state in which combined action is favored over the difference of individual component actions.
Behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately, known as emergent behavior.
The cooperative action of two or more stimuli (or drugs), resulting in a different or greater response than that of the individual stimuli.
Biological sciences
Synergy of various kinds has been advanced by Peter Corning as a causal agency that can explain the progressive evolution of complexity in living systems over the course of time. According to the Synergism Hypothesis, synergistic effects have been the drivers of cooperative relationships of all kinds and at all levels in living systems. The thesis, in a nutshell, is that synergistic effects have often provided functional advantages (economic benefits) in relation to survival and reproduction that have been favored by natural selection. The cooperating parts, elements, or individuals become, in effect, functional units of selection in evolutionary change.[13] Similarly, environmental systems may react in a non-linear way to perturbations, such as climate change, so that the outcome may be greater than the sum of the individual component alterations. Synergistic responses are a complicating factor in environmental modeling.[14]
Instances where the "whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts" have been observed and thus it is a FACT that synergies exist, for example the brain and cognition are an emergent property that is greater than the sum of the parts. Self-consciousness is an emergent property that is greater than the sum of the parts.
... And i believe that could only be God. Do you see how the existence of a conscience, morality, a sense of ought, are actually a proof for the existence of God. Oh I'm sorry, one of the many proofs for the existence of God
That's your opinion for which you have no objective empirical evidence, it is purely subjective speculations.
And, no I don't see how assuming the conclusion in your premises proves anything ... other than a weakish mind that grasps at logical fallacies to bolster a weakish opinion.
Nor do I see any need to leap from observations of biology, especially when including observed synergies, in the history of developments in various species to explain how mind and thought occur or to explain how knowledge is passed from generation to generation by memes.
Then there is the problem of subjective meaning anything but subjective. ...
And why should it? Curiously, I don't need subjective meanings to be anything but subjective, that is kind of a tautology by definition. This is not a problem.
... It's another word you made up to describe things happening, in a meaningless universe
Demonstrating again that you don't understand (whether by choice or by cognitive dissonance is immaterial). We observe and test objective empirical (objective) happenings, catalogue them, make (subjective). When we agree that a chair is a chair because we all see and experience the chair, that is an objective observation. Our knowledge of the universe and how it works is made up of many many many such objective observations.
This attempt to make the whole universe meaningless doesn't counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures. This is not a counter argument but a non-sequitur distraction.
Then there's the problem of you not being able to charge the Nazis with any real guilt, right or wrong
Another non-existent problem that does not counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures.
Within the Nazi culture their behaviors were considered moral by fellow Nazis, that is the cultural group they operated within. That actually explains their compliance and acceptance of that behavior.
That does not mean that everyone in the world thought their behavior was moral, that is why the Nuremberg Court found them guilty of war-crimes -- crimes counter to the moral codes of the larger population.
Then there's the problem of you and the animals. YOU REALLY BLEW THAT ONE.
Because it is subjective there is a spectrum of opinions on what is moral and what is not moral, and as there are many many many issues involved it is a multidimensional spectrum.
Some people think hurting any animal is wrong, some think eating dogs is okay, some think that keeping pets is immoral because it deprives the animals of a natural existence.
South Pacific Islanders thought it was moral to kill and eat their enemies -- that they were honoring their foes by eating them, taking their essence into their own bodies. Same for any of their tribe that died.
This multidimensional spectrum of moral beliefs has many extremes, but there is also overlapping consensus on many issues, so those spectra would also show normalish bell-like curves.
And once more we see that this particular argument does not counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures.
Nor does this whole little diatribe counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed within a social groups. It doesn't address it at all.
So you see, not one of your several specious rambling arguments actually addresses the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed within a social groups -- being a social construct to improve the chances of the social group surviving and thriving through mutually beneficial behavior.
Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
Re: Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished.
No you are getting the cart before the horse. Since your imaginations can never be real it would follow that it cannot assign meanings, to a physical property, that it does not already posses. A rose by any other name. If you want to believe you've done this then it will only be in your imagination. Reality does not care about your definitions of it. Long after your gone it will still just be what it is.
If I imagine myself flying over the countryside, using just my arms, that doesn't make it real. In fact there is nothing you can imagine that is real. IOWS the specific imagination. If you think so, give me an example
There is nothing you can imagine that is actually real, including morality. You and your meaningless universe, is literally the blind leading the blind. And I'm not taking a shot at blind people there, I've never really liked that statement
Utter bullshinola that has nothing to do with observed secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation.
Does this argument refute that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation? No, because it does not address the argument.
Well to be absolutelyfair I've read this three of four times to see if it might contradict anything I am saying, it does not. ...
Good, so you agree that the foundation of the argument is solid then.
... Even if the above things are true, it doesn't demonstrate that a moral is possible. ...
And yet we have observed such morals and that they can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation. That is what demonstrates the truth of the argument: observed secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation.
... A moral is an imaginary thing applied to a physical property to make something right or wrong, moral or immoral. ...
Nope, a moral is a subjective concept applied to behavior within a cultural\social group. Change the group and the morals change. Change the culture and the morals change. This too has been observed, hence validated. That is how rational development of morals occurs, they are rational within the context of the culture\social group.
Something may be more advantageous or not, but then we may assume that across any species. Hence no actual morality
We can actually observe whether behaviors are advantageous or not, across human cultures and across species.
Curiously, that does not negate morals being observed secular subjective behavioral guides derived rationally from enlightened self preservation, rather it validates it. The purpose of morals is to reduce in-group conflicts and benefit the group as a whole so that it survives and thrives regardless of individual participants.
At best morality is a made up concept in a purely naturalistic society. Isn't it interesting that this so called emergence cannot show a causality between brain and consciouness
And it is also interesting that this has nothing to do with secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation being observed across all human cultures and also across many species.
As I've demonstrated, ...
Well I must have missed that, as I haven't seen anything remotely demonstrating anything but a willingness to deflect and run from the actual arguments. Could you cite where you actually replied to my argument with anything but bullshinola?
... for your illustrations of biological functions, synergies or otherwise, to actually have moral meaning, they would need to be remotely consistent accross species. ...
Nope, there isn't even a need for them to be "remotely consistent accross" human cultural groups, which is why we see such diverse cultural moral codes.
This is an irrational conclusion you leap to, as you often do, to deflect the thread away from the argument that:
secular subjective morals are readily derived rationally from the basic principles of enlightened self interest (game theory, etc)
the purpose of morals is to reduce in-group conflicts and benefit the group as a whole so that the group survives and thrives regardless of individual participants.
they are observed and documented,
they can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation,
this too has also been observed,
they vary from culture\social group to culture\social group
they vary over time as the culture\social group changes
these variations have also been observed,
moral type behavior can be -- and have been -- observed in other species
Heck,they can even have consistency withing your own species. Long disortations only explains complicated versions of the samething, ie survival of the fittest, but it doesn't show that actual morality exists, in a meaningless universe.
Absolute morality certainly does not exist, all the evidence points to it being a subjective construct developed withing social species to reduce in-group conflicts and benefit the group as a whole, so that the group survives and thrives regardless of individual participants.
... ie survival of the fittest, ...
Actually it is more like survival of those fit enough to survive long enough to breed ... but I am not surprised that you are under educated on evolution.
... but it doesn't show that actual morality exists, in a meaningless universe.
And again, sadly for you, all we need to do is observe it. We observe it, we observe that it is subjective and that it varies from culture to culture. Those observations show that it exists, and if this contradicts your argument this means your argument is invalid, false, wrong.
To demonstrate this absolutely, without a disortation, as is usually Characteristic of you, give me the single argument form that material that you presented that shows actually, how morality exists. You cloud up the issue with verbosity assuming you have made your point. You havent. But if you think I have missed something, give it to me on a single sentence or single argument
See Summary of my argument so far for the whole argument (that you have ignored to date}, and then let me quote the conclusion:
Secular Subjective Morals exists "because they are a type of meme that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation."
This has been posted several times, that you haven't seen it (or understood what it is) is not my fault.
Which demonstrates my point that your alleged morality cannot exist in reality. ...
You are confused about what exists in reality then. Again, all we need to do is observe it: we observe that it is subjective and that it varies from culture to culture. Those observations show that it exists, and if this contradicts your argument this means your argument is invalid, false, wrong.
... Why from a purely naturalistic standpoint are the Nazis actions different than anything you would see in the animal kingdom. ...
And yet we see species attacking other species and trying to drive competing species away. You fixation with Nazis is fascinating, but ultimately irrelevant. As I said in Message 315
quote:Because it is subjective there is a spectrum of opinions on what is moral and what is not moral, and as there are many many many issues involved it is a multidimensional spectrum.
Some people think hurting any animal is wrong, some think eating dogs is okay, some think that keeping pets is immoral because it deprives the animals of a natural existence.
South Pacific Islanders thought it was moral to kill and eat their enemies -- that they were honoring their foes by eating them, taking their essence into their own bodies. Same for any of their tribe that died.
This multidimensional spectrum of moral beliefs has many extremes, but there is also overlapping consensus on many issues, so those spectra would also show normalish bell-like curves.
We OBSERVE a spectrum of moral beliefs.
... The term subjective morality, is nothing but a worthless empty nonsensical concept thrown at reality. Goodness man look at what you wrote above and listen to it, it's double talk nonsesne
This is just you trying to tell yourself that, rather than actually dealing with the argument. More deflection and bullshinola.
Son, your at a lose for a lot of reasons. ...
That may be true, but my argument has been consistent and your failure to refute it with garbage deflections and unsupported personal opinions has also been consistent: a total failure to address the actual argument itself.
... Notice the logical conclusion of your subjective morality approach. Given your position, there is literally NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that could be considered IMMORAL in the future and in different societies as long as enough people agree with it. That means if I could get enough people to agree and I mean actually agree, a person could rape and kill as many persons as they choose, if we could get enough people signed up for that and say it's ok or moral
And slavery, cannibalism and human sacrifice ...
Curiously, I don't need to look to the future to find this, I can look at the past, both actual history and what is described in the bible (which then makes it your "absolute moral" behavior for Christians, right?).
That morals are secular and subjective explains these historic beliefs, your "absolute morals" argument does not.
... This is literally what your doctrine teaches. The conclusions of subjective morality therefore have no real meaning at all, IT'S JUST MAKING JUNK AS YOU GO ALONG, hoping everyone else will agree. Hence as I have demonstrated, morality is just a made up term to justify actions ...
Indeed, and that is how progress is made. Within a cultural group we can evolve from one that thinks capital punishment is moral to one that thinks it is immoral. It's making it up along the way to improve the morals of the current social\cultural group, and when we get enough people to go along, then it becomes accepted in a wider audience.
But saying "IT'S JUST MAKING JUNK AS YOU GO ALONG" ignores that it is a cultural phenomena, a consensus view, a cooperative view, a means to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
If the meme does not benefit the group, then it gets discarded. You will likely have stragglers, as you have stragglers that believe the earth is flat or geocentric or young, but they become the outliers in the normalish bell-like curves.
Seriously RAZD, Normalish Bell like Curves. ...
Seeing as I don't have data at hand to actually define the distribution curve of various moral beliefs, I assume that it is likely a normal distribution in a bell curve. It could have two or more peaks when comparing multiple cultures but they would be likely overlapping bell curves.
We do know that close cultural groups have mostly similar morals, that concepts like "thou shalt not kill" is found in many cultures and that virtually every cultural group has some form of the golden rule. These overlaps would created bell curves.
... More contrived verbiage that makes morality a joke ...
Well some of it is. Mostly those based on reinterpreted interpretations of sanctified religious dogma, rather than those derived from enlightened self interest. Life begins at concept for instance is a moral joke. See Deism in the Dock
... I challenge you to demonstrate that the conclusion of your doctrine, is not, as I have set it out. Literally that nothing given enough time will not be considered immoral., or that anything now immoral could become moral. What thinking person would by into that type of nonsense. Oh yeah wait, An Atheist. That is his only option. Even if I didn't believe in God I would not accept such silliness.
Curiously, I don't need you to accept my argument as valid, all I am saying is that this IS a secular explanation of morals that IS rational, it IS evidence based, it IS tested and observed, and it refutes your topic claim.
Changing behaviors described as morality,is actually nothing but matter in motion.
Utter bullshinola that has nothing to do with observed secular subjective morals derived rationally from enlightened self preservation.
Does this argument refute that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation? No, because it does not address the argument.
I guess your to sciency of a guy to understand what is being said and demonstrated. It seems Ringo is starting to get it. Razd there is no such thing as subjective morality. Your starting in the middle of an argument, then trying to demonstrate your point. You need to start with the basics or reasoning, then build on it. Since there is nothing in a Naturalistic existence that can be identified as right or wrong good or bad in actuality, it follows that there could be nothing described as subjective. It would be like saying, there's a subjective nothing over there. Or thing is is subjective.
Your argument still fails to address my point that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation.
We don't need to "start with the basics or reasoning" because we can observe it, because our ability to reason is a fact.
Ok bill guy the science guy, let's help you to understand what I just said above in the context of your above statement. Show me in reality in your Naturalistic universe right and or wrong. Show me the actual existence or Wrong. Since I know you cannot do this, we will know that nothing, that is something that does not exist, cannot be subjective, if it's not actually real.
So when I say "subjective morality" you say "show me absolute right or wrong exists" ... fail. Relative right and wrong exists, it is subjective, this has been observed and discussed several times already.
Yes RAZD, I understand what your saying, it's not rocket science. But you are ignoring simple basic reasoning because you are blinded by science. Your trying to see something that is not there. Now pay very close attention. All I need to do to demonstrate that what you are saying is not true and not real, is to show that what you describe as moral, in 1000 years could be described as absolutely immoral, or what you describe as immoral could in one thousand years be moral.
And this tripe has also been addressed already by observing things considered moral many years ago that are considered immoral now.
If you want to describe changing behavior as a meme or synergy, call it what you want, but it's not moral because those are a product of the imagination, suited for your species only. Hence they are nothing more than another biological process
Yet curiously, being a product of the mind is what subjective means. Another failed argument that has been falsified before,
Let's remember your first problem. Right and wrong do not actually exist, therefore, calling nothing subjective, is nonsense. It's like saying there's a subjective nothing over there.
Also falsified babble. Seems your first problem is moving forward with a valid argument instead of repeating falsified drivel.
Absolute "Right and wrong do not actually exist" but relative right and wrong do exist, they are subjective.
How do we know they exist? We observe them, everywhere, with many people having different subjective takes on what is right and what is wrong.
Differences of opinion don't mean they don't exist, just that there is no absolute agreement.
Morals and specifically conscience only makes sense in the realm of Theism and Judeo-Christianity. It explains the source and the processess. And why consciouness and conscience exist in the first place.
In your dogmatic narrow opinion. There are many other religions that disagree with you, so Atheists disagreeing with you is not novel or unsurprising.
btw I fixed the link to tid=19368 instead of tid=1968. So the paragraph should have read:
quote:Well some of it is. Mostly those based on reinterpreted interpretations of sanctified religious dogma, rather than those derived from enlightened self interest. Life begins at concept for instance is a moral joke. See A very brief history of Human Life
If Actual Right and wrong don't actually exist, and it seems there is no way they can, then it follows there is nothing actually morally right or wrong, subjective or otherwise.
This is your reactive opinion, based on your inability (cognitive dissonance) to accept subjective morality exists and is actually documented -- so you would rather throw out the baby with the bath than acknowledge the bath has nothing to do with the baby.
You keep confusing Absolute Right and Wrong with subjective right and wrong, and that is part of your cognitive problem.
The ability to reason doesn't mean you are starting where you need to start. Your starting in the middle of the argument. It needs to be rationally established that that which you have designated as a moral actually exists in reality. If you know intuitively that when an animal kills another animal, it's not murder, but it is when humans do, then from a purely humanistic naturalistic standpoint, it's not actually a moral. It's just something you've made up for humans
Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
No I dont say show me absolute right and wrong. I'm saying even subjective morality can't exist. In a purely naturalistic existence those two words together are nonsensical. Individually they mean nothing, together they are doubly nothing. If that's possible
Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
It's much worse than that RAZD. That's only a side issue for them to be real. Long before you came along animals and whatever life forms were here were going through the same motions. So was it murder before you got here or are you just making stuff up as humans to make things seem more rational.
Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
Is it presently right or wrong for one animal to kill another, is that murder? Before you humans got here, when one one animal killed another was it murder then? So it seems morality is strictly a human invention. Even the word morality has no reality
Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
Repeating failed arguments still doesn't make them valid.
The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep.
Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.
Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.
It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent.
It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn.
The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have.
As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions.
An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.
It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises.
We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs.
Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved.
It is developed by natural processes.
You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology.
This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy.
Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways.
Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group).
Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts.
∴ Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
You have not addressed a single one of these points.
See the bottom of Message 196 for the backgrounds for these points.
quote: ... apparently you are unable to demonstrate any rational falsehood or fallacy in the argument that (a) morals are subjective and vary from person to person, that (b) these subjective morals are rationally derived within cultural (group) settings to reduce conflicts within the group, that (c) these cultural settings (beliefs) constrain the range of those morals into a general consensus within the group, and that (d) this subjective but rational derivation explains the (sometimes small, sometimes large) differences in morals in different cultural settings.
Please note, again, that your thesis is "Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals" is refuted by the existence of many examples of morals being rationally explained, and that is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to justify those morals or to compare one cultures morals to any other, or to discuss relative merits of animals etc etc etc, because that is NOT part of your thesis.
Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint.
Falsified. See summary above for rational formulation of morals, how they develop and why they exist.
In the first place, this is not a moral it's an Instinct, any animal can avoid pain or misery. It takes no thinking process.
Secondly, since according to the Naturalistic proposition, much animal life existed before the human brain, it would follow that pain or misery and it's avoidance was not invented as a moral by the human mind, therefore not an actual moral or ethic. The lion and Bear do not share your opinion,when they are on the giving end of misery. We only discovered that it's a thing to avoid as well, for natural reasons, not ethical ones.
All of which has nothing to do with morals. At. All.
Thirdly, since I can get very different responses from human minds as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act, it should be immediately evident that there is no way to establish OBJECTIVELY, from a Naturalistic standpoint, what is in REALITY morally real.
Falsified. See summary above for explanation of morals being subjective constructs that vary from person to person, and which are objectively observed, and thus established beyond reasonable doubt, from a naturalistic standpoint.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality.
If you copy from "peek mode" then you get the coding for bullets, numbering, etc etc.
Well not only have I addressed them, but I have refuted each one of them. ...
Well, no, you haven't, so stop pretending you have. The stuff you raise is irrelevant -- gigo. It's a pile of red herring fallacies to divert the thread away from the fact that Secular Morals can and have been Rationally Explained
But for thrills and spills I'll go over it once more again ...
... Let me give you a couple of examples. Your point number 1. Self interest is contradictory to the very idea of morality, because it is just another way of describing survival of the fittest. ...
And you are wrong again: that is not contradictory, it is explanatory, and evolution is more than your simplistic "survival of the fittest" straw man (which is also wrong, as has been explained. You won't move forward if you don't correct your wrong arguments. Evolution is the survival of those able to survive long enough to breed, which includes a lot more than "the fittest" ... because it also includes all those barely fit enough to have offspring).
One down, refuted, falsified. Again.
... Secondly, if the golden rule only applies to humans as you indicate it does, ...
Except that, secondly, I didn't indicate that -- you keep repeating this false statement. Learn what people say, respond to that, and your argument may improve.
... then, murder, is not murder when you take the life of an animal. If you would only answer honestly why you know it's not murder when you take an animals life, then you would know God exists and his morality is absolute. You know this instinctively,, not by evolution but by the law God put in you ...
Irrelevant hogwash once again, because your premise is a false representation of may position, a straw man.
And also false because your conclusions don't follow from your arguments.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
Your point no. 2. You first need to demonstrate that such a thing exists ...
It ("Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation.") has been observed, therefore it exists.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... and that it doesn't just apply to humans, to be consistent. ...
Again, this has been discussed -- because morality is subjective (a) different people will see things differently, some may only apply morals to their immediate family while others may apply it to all living things. That is their choice, not yours.
Nor does it need to be consistent, it can change over time and it can change in different social environments.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... Because if there is no God and no absolute morality,
Again, there is no absolute morality, that is validated by the numerous observed subjective moralities around the world and down through time that differ from place to place and time to time.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... then your so called morality would need to apply to all species. ...
Again, this is your conclusion, not reality. Morality doesn't need to apply to any specific behavior or other -- that would be an absolute morality. You keep trying to argue against subjective morality on the grounds it isn't absolute. Faulty Logic again, GIGO.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... Since it is clear it does not, as you freely admit, your bogged down in irrational nonsense. Claiming you have a morality, calling things murder, then killing and eating animals, is either murder or it is not. In either case you would need to explain your rational. Obviously you cannot.
Except that I have explained it several times. Morality is subjective. Some people ride horses, some people eat them, both consider their actions moral. Again, please stop arguing that subjective morality is false because it is not absolute -- that is beating a dead horse and then having sex with it hoping for offspring.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
Your point no. 5. Your free to describe morality as memes or synergy, but you would first need to show a chain of causality from the brain to this synergy. It's obvious that science cannot provide this chain of causality. IOWs, science doesn't have an explanation of how the brain produces consciouness. If it did it would have been demonstrated a long time ago. ...
Nope, I simply need to observe it. It is observed, it exists. I don't need to describe in excruciating detail how a table is made, where the wood comes from, where the fasteners come from, how the parts are shaped and put together and how it came to be in the room -- I can observe that it is there. I can also remember putting tables together, and thus be familiar with the process, but that is not necessary to the observation that there is a table in the room.
This too has been discussed previously. Your argument is like a scratchy record, never getting anywhere because it keeps skipping back to things that have already been discussed, arguments that still remain refuted. GIGO.
... Theism by its evidences of God's existence demonstrates how consciouness exists and came into existence. Theism again in this instance corresponds to what we see in reality. In this instance consciouness and and indeed morality. ...
Nope. Again you have made a completely unevidenced argument based only on a leap of faith. We observe consciousness, we don't need to assume god/s are involved.
So another bad argument down, refuted, falsified. Again. GIGO
... Hence from a logical progression, morality can only make sense in the existence of God.
Which, sadly for you, shows that either your god is very confused about which morality to infuse into what person when, OR the evidence of variation from person to person shows that this has not happened.
GIGO
Right, now if you could just show us this chain from biology to consciouness. This should be interesting. Also, since you assert that primates have self-consciouness, would it be murder, to kill one and eat it? If one primate kills another, is it murder. Maybe I u could answer some of these questions.
You keep repeating these false argument, hoping for different answers, but they don't get any better when re-heated for the third or fourth time, this is still GIGO.
Do I need to go on, it appears you have your hands full. I'll wait for your responses to my rebutals.
The only trouble I have, is to keep from ROFLOLing at your pathetic attempts to divert the discussion into irrelevant rabbit holes, desperate to avoid actually dealing with the fact that:
Message 196: Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation.
What you have not addressed:
Morals are subjective, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals are a type of memes, ... non-genetic information passed from generation to generation, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals have evolved over time, ... changing over time to adapt to new social needs, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals are a consensus control on social behavior, ... there is variation from person to person, but there is general consistency within any one cultural\social group, ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals act to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, ... so energy is not wasted on fights, and individuals are not injured or killed, ... so that individuals that behave according to these rules have a better chance to survive and breed within the group than those that don't (ie - it is in their enlightened self-interest to behave), ... and this is observed to be true,
Morals thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation, ... by having healthy and productive individuals working together to common ends, ... that game theory explains these advantages for group behavior, ... that evolution acts as a large multi-trial computer test, and the "programs" that provide advantage to the species to survive and reproduce will thrive, while those that don't will fade, and thereby evolution eventually comes to the same conclusion as game theory, through extensive long term trial and error. ... and all this is also observed to be true
We observe these behaviors, we label some "good" and some "bad" and we change those labels when necessary ... because we recognize they need to change and adapt as the social group changes and adapts.
And we call them morals, as a general label for this kind of observed social behavior. They aren't magic, or revealed, or supernatural, they are just behaviors that we agree on, a social contract for in-group behavior.
This Rationally explains Secular Morals. Q.E.D.
And this is why I keep saying you have not addressed my argument.
So to help you out, let me ask you a single question for you to answer (instead of wasting more bandwidth on your spurious and irrelevant arguments) -- let's keep it simple:
Do you AGREE that morals are subjective? YES or NO
Do you AGREE that morals are subjective? YES or NO
This is like asking if I agree that things dont exist. It's a nonsensical question which requires no answer. There is no such thing as subjective, ...
So that's a NO. See how simple this is?
And here we have the proof that you have no rational refutation to my argument: you have to resort to denying the existence and reality of subjective concepts.
Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.
Objective
Subjective
Based upon
Observation of measurable facts
Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs
Commonly found in
Encyclopedias, textbooks, news reporting
Newspaper editorials, blogs, biographies, comments on the Internet
Suitable for decision making?
Yes (usually)
No (usually)
Suitable for news reporting?
Yes
No
Examples of Objective and Subjective Writing
Here are some examples of objective and subjective statements:
"47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. These people believe they are victims and would never vote for a Republican candidate." In this quote (which paraphrases Mitt Romney), the first statement is objective. It is a measurable fact that 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. However, the second statement is Romney's personal point of view and is entirely subjective.
Apple only allows apps that the company has approved to be installed on iOS devices. The company does not care about openness of their platform. Once again the first statement here is objective, while the second is subjective because fans of the company could argue, as Steve Jobs did, that iOS is indeed an "open" platform.
So it would appear that subjective does in fact exist, as it is defined and discussed objectively.
Or does objective likewise not exist ... ?
You do realize how insane it is to reject everything we know in order to pretend that my argument is meaningless don't you?
Should I start again?
Do you AGREE that subjective concepts exist? YES or NO, I'm Insane
Do you AGREE that subjective concepts exist? YES or NO, I'm Insane
Well of course I do, never maintained that they did not. ...
Good. The whole point of my post was to show that subjective concepts exist, and how subjective differs from objective: it didn't have anything to do with morality at this point, so the rest of your post is irrelevant, a waste of your time.
Okay, now the next question:
Do you AGREE that morals are concepts? YES or NO
It seems we have to take this in baby steps ... answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.
It seems we have to take this in baby steps ... answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.
Well since I addressed most of that in my recent post to you ....
Then it should be easy for you to condense\summarize that rambling post into a simple yes or no answer.
Do you AGREE that morals are concepts? YES or NO
And I will state again, and emphasize it: answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.. You were warned.
It seems we have to take this in baby steps ... answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.
Well since I addressed most of that in my recent post to you ....
Then it should be easy for you to condense\summarize that rambling post into a simple yes or no answer.
Do you AGREE that morals are concepts? YES or NO
And I will state again, and emphasize it: answer just yes or no, no soap-boxing editorializing - it will be wasted time on your part, and will be ignored.. You were warned.
This message is a reply to:
Message 400 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:57 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
If you have enough time to write other posts you have enough time to answer YES or NO, so that should mean only Unwilling to answer ...
that does not counter the observed fact of subjective morals derived from self-interest -- to survive and breed in a social group -- existing in all cultures.
™ Version 4.2
(1)