Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 10:51 AM
397 online now:
Coyote, Davidjay, Dawn Bertot, Faith, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (8 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,812 Year: 10,418/21,208 Month: 3,505/2,674 Week: 48/873 Day: 48/76 Hour: 11/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
55NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 391 of 822 (801116)
03-03-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Dawn Bertot
03-03-2017 6:58 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
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.

That way lies madness.

quote:
Subjective

ADJECTIVE

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.


quote:
Subjective vs. Objective

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.

ObjectiveSubjective
Based uponObservation of measurable factsPersonal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs
Commonly found inEncyclopedias, textbooks, news reportingNewspaper editorials, blogs, biographies, comments on the Internet
Suitable for decision making?Yes (usually)No (usually)
Suitable for news reporting?YesNo

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

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-03-2017 6:58 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-05-2017 10:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 392 of 822 (801148)
03-03-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Dawn Bertot
03-03-2017 6:55 AM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
one is Cleary hurt by the action, how would we determine if the action is moral or immoral

I would see that one party was harmed and conclude it was immoral.
I expect you'd look to the words of Jesus or other prophets, but I also guess you'd know better than me how you would determine if the action is moral or immoral.

Bearing in mind we can't just take the victims view into consideration, because that would be inconsistent in establishing an actual moral, correct?

I reject an 'actual', or as everyone else calls it 'objective' morality and I am not trying trying to establish one as I think that is impossible by way of being incoherent. If you would like, I could just copy and past this statement a thousand times, would this help you?

Since all persons perspectives are potential morals, correct?

Not exactly. People have morals. Neither you, me, the victim or the assailant's moral is 'true'.

So it would follow that, your descriptions of what a morality actually are, in reality , are actually nonexistent, or have no real application to reality.

Not at all. They drive/guide etc., my behaviour. My behaviour is an activity in the real world. They are represented as neuronal states in my brain. They actually exist and have real application. They just don't exist outside of my brain. Round and round we go.

Since your descriptions of human actions really can't give them more meaning, i see no way for them to have meaning outside your imagination. Hence,, no morality in reality.

There is no objective morality, that is my position. There is no single true morality. There are many moralities.

But if you think that your imaginations of what are right or wrong, actually exist outside of your imaginations, you've yet to demonstrate it

My position is that my morality exists inside my head, not outside of it as some 'objective' entity.

If you say it has meaning to you, but it has a totally different meaning to someone else, this would be actually be the meaning of something NOT real, correct?

Not at all. The apple is real. The behaviour is real.

Or at best useless as a standard. Or at worst, no hope of being an actual right or wrong, correct?

You can agree to use the same standards as me or not, their utility depends entirely on their use. They are not 'actual' in the sense of being objective - 'actual' 'intrinsic' 'objective' morality is a concept I reject. Just another 500 repeats and you might stop asking me, I suppose.

Since, as you have indicated, we didn't create our brains, it would then follow that our brains or meanings coming from our brains, have no intrinsic meaning.

My position is that there is no intrinsic meaning. Our brains don't come from our brains. Our meanings come from our brains. They only mean something TO ME - and possibly other subjective beings, not intrinsically.

I think your probably starting to see why, even by your own intimations, the Socalled subjective morality has an even less chance of actually having meaning, correct?

Since I've said it over and over, I'm not sure why you think I'm 'probably starting to see it' - It's my position! The only meanings are the ones we create, give, construct for things.

So what chance do our brains have of actually creating meaning in what is actually right or wrong.

My brain, 100% Your brain, probably close to it, but I'm prepared to accept otherwise.

Meaning without a subjective being is an incoherent concept. The only thing we know that CAN create meaning are brains. There may be others, but I know nothing of them.

There could be no actual right or wrong in it , correct. Hence no actual moral

As I have said: Fine, by your definitions. But the only actual morals exist are the ones that we have. So by my definition there are actual morals.

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it valid

Correct. But I find myself having to repeat myself because you keep asking the same questions. At some point you'll advance your argument, I hope.

Since individual things are a part of the entire universe, it would follow that you would need to know everything to know it has no meaning.

By this reckoning nobody knows anything and the verb 'to know' becomes useless. I choose a definition of 'to know' which has practical use which includes tentativity: the possibility I'm wrong.

So saying absolutely there is no meaning, has no meaning, correct?

Unless I qualify it by pointing out that knowledge is tentative. Which I did: "Where knowledge is always tentative, yes. "

So, if this is true, it follows that you have little or no chance of knowing what is moral or immoral.

IF there is an objective morality - the same applies to you.

If there is not an objective morality, there is no knowledge to be had. Only perspective, views, opinions.

But this is what you need to do, give me an example of something that is actually subjectively in the area of morality.

Stealing to feed a starving child is morally good where there is no option to feed the child any other way.

Give me an example of something that will not just reduce itself to just more biological behavior.

I don't claim such a thing exists, in the area of morality. If either of us could do this, it would defeat my position.

I said you couldn't explain morals.

And yet you have still failed to defeat my argument in principle from evolution and mathematics described earlier. So if that is your final answer - you haven't demonstrated your claim that I can't do it since I have show in principle that I can.

Since behaviors in the natural kingdom, human or animal, have no hope of ever being right wrong, good or bad, actually, your have still to this point failed to demonstrate my proposition as false.

It's your job to demonstrate its truth. It's my job to show why your position can be doubted.

Applying morals to the human animal in one way and the animal kingdom another way, is alone itself, enough to show that it is an impossible task. Since we are just all animals, correct?

Different animals have evolved differently. I would have thought this self-evidently true.

And of course without even being aware of it you just set up a moral absolute

No I didn't. I didn't say anything about something being right or wrong morally.

you don't even apply the same rules to the animal kingdom in your strictly biological constraints.

We share some constraints with animals, but since other animals have different evolutionary histories, we have differing constraints too. A bird cannot build a power station, humans can. We have different constraints, but we are still constrained by physics, chemistry and history.

I'm fully aware of what the argument is, that I'm arguing against.

Then stop asking the same questions over and over and actually present an argument.

The mere fact that you would equate killing a person with some irrelevant decision as to whether, some composer is the best and a food is good, speaks volumes objective out your values and Belief system. I

The mere fact you think I equated them speaks volumes about your comprehension skills.

Your comparison is irrational and dishonest.

Your characterisation of what I said is irrational and dishonest.

'killing a person is wrong' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Mozart is the best composer' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' is a statement that is neither true nor false.

Just because these statements share the property of not having a truth value, does not make them the same. Try to comprehend before you try to refute.

So it seems you don't a gree with Jesus since he was speaking of moral absolutes

Do you now understand why I didn't quote him in order to illustrate the position of the existentialists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-03-2017 6:55 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:53 AM Modulous has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 393 of 822 (801186)
03-03-2017 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Dawn Bertot
03-03-2017 6:58 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Right. Some people like talking to other people some people like killing and eating other people, this is why humans and animals cannot decide what is moral and shouldn't try.

You'll be shocked to learn that many people have made such a decision. For example, many of them have decided that the precepts contained in the Bible are moral. Someone should really tell them to stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-03-2017 6:58 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 394 of 822 (801346)
03-05-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by RAZD
03-03-2017 12:11 PM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Let's start here. Your most recent post in this this thread was both comical and revealing

RAZD quotes

ObjectiveSubjectiveBased uponObservation of measurable factsPersonal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefsCommonly found inEncyclopedias, textbooks, news reportingNewspaper editorials, blogs, biographies, comments on the InternetSuitable for decision making?Yes (usually)No (usually)Suitable for news reporting?Yes

Razd, if objective morals are based upon observable measurable facts, then it would follow that they exist objectively. Now get ready pay close attention. You and the others have maintained that morals do not come from anywhere outside the mind. Here, yourexample of objective morality in the area of facts comes outside the mind, doesnt work as an ACTUAL objective morality. So it would follow that either objective morality exists outside the mind, or that you are maintaining that we have a way to decide what is objective right and wrong, based on objective facts. Are you saying that clear objective facts are clearly objective moralities, now.

Next, since we know that biological realities are not moralites, just facts, according to you fellas, it would follow that what you are trying to represent as objective moralities in connection with subjective moralities, are not actually objective moralities, just objective facts. So once again, you trying to get and make a subjective morality, a morality, in reality, does not work.

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.

Notice RAZD. If it is true that 47 pay no tax, then that is a objective fact, Not a moral fact. If it is a moral fact, then you are telling me that morals exists objectively outside of our minds. If you are telling me this then, you are saying that subjective morality should be assessed against something outside our minds that is OBJECTIVE, correct?

You just gave up your whole position.
IF THERE Is an objective morality that exists outside, then my subjective imaginations of why I should not pay taxes should be based on that objective morality, which exists outside my mind, correct. If it's just an objective fact, like a tree exists, is just an objective fact, then you still have no morality, correct. Because we don't have anything to measure your subjective intimations against, correct. Which horn of the delimma would you like to adopt?

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?

You haven't even got started as I just demonstrated. You can't define and discuss subjective without the objective. Since you have demonstrated that only objective FACTS exist, which we all know in the first place, You would need to admit that objective moralites actually exist for your subjective moralities to have any reality and meaning.

You have shot yourself in the foot with the examples and illustrations you have provided. Since morality only comes from the mind as you fellas suggest, It would follow that to try and get objective and subjective from the same source,your minds, would be nonsensical. Hey, they were your examples, not mine. Try to use examples that actually support your position not mine

Are you saying that objective facts are actually, and are indeed, objective moralites. If you are, you are now in a world of hurt from argumentation standpoint.

Do you AGREE that subjective concepts exist?  YES or  NO, I'm Insane

Well of course I do, never maintained that they did not. But only if they are predicated on an objective standard. Are you now saying that objective facts are indeed objective moralities, given your illustrations.

So if it is actually true that an objective fact, that 47 percent don't pay taxes, is also a moral fact , then it would follow that objective morality exists outside of the mind. If this is not true, then we still have no way to make that which you describe as subjective morality, an actual morality. It remains as nothing more than imagination or perception.

People's opinions as to why other people don't pay taxes, are nothing more than a perception or imagination. If we say they are absolutely right or wrong for not paying, then we are saying there actually exists an abosolute morality outside of us that makes our perception valid. Sorry RAZD, you can't have it both ways.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2017 12:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2017 1:57 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 395 of 822 (801347)
03-05-2017 11:01 AM


I will get the rest of the most recent posts to this thread later this evening. Thanks for your patience, it is greatly appreciated

Dawn Bertot


    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 396 of 822 (801356)
03-05-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Dawn Bertot
03-05-2017 10:59 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
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.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-05-2017 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:57 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 397 of 822 (801432)
03-06-2017 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Tangle
03-03-2017 8:51 AM


Because, my friend, so far you have failed to provide a single example of an absolute morality. Show me one, it should be simple enough. What's the problem?

Well the problem is, that when you are presented an argument, you ignore or disregard it. Since it is clear that conscience and consciouness clearly exists, Since it is clear we as humans have a knowledge of right and wrong and animals do not. Since it is clear that we can know that something are right or wrong without being taught it, it would follow that these characteristics and realities exist actually and absolutely. Further that they came from somewhere

Since it is clear that, that subjective morality cannot be a reality due to the FACT that every person could have a different view or imagination on any single point, it therefore is nothing more than an imagination of the mind.
Since it is clear that because I can imagine things that don't actually exist, then it would follow that from a purely naturalistic standpoint, morality is just a made up word.
Since it is clear that the Socalled morality of the Atheist is a concept of the mind, it has no hope of ever establishing what is ACTUALLY right and wrong absolutely,, it would follow that any imaginations of the Atheist mind are nothing more than biological processes.
Since it is clear that Atheists admit there exists no absolute morality, it would not take a rocket scientist to know that logically, there could naturally be nothing as described as subjective morality, based on speculation and human imaginations.
Since it is clear that subjective morality is not only inconsistent in establishing what is actually right and wrong, actually, as it admits it's subjective, it would follow that it's tenets cannot and do not exist outside the human experience. This alone makes it worthless as an Actual moral.

However, since we do know these things actually exist, it would follow that only an infinte God, with a morality, the likes of which no more information could be added to his tenets, to make it more or less valid or true, only, could be an explanation for such realities. Nothing else is consistent or would make sense without these facts.

Since it is clear that that which is taught in the scripture, concerning human existence and morality is consistent with what we see in reality, it would follow that that source is reliable in not only explaining these realites, but it provides a structure for following our conscince against those teachings.

Of the only two choices, Atheism or Theism, Theism is the clear choice in explaining what see see, feel, hear and KNOW. The Socalled subjective morality cannot even get started, muchless make sense.

Yes I would say that's a valid argument, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2017 8:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2017 8:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 398 of 822 (801433)
03-06-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by New Cat's Eye
03-03-2017 10:34 AM


Re: How?
Yes, it existed. And no, its existence is not dependent upon my description. What does that have to do with what its meaning is?

Are you saying that simply its existence, itself, is its meaning? That's not what the word "meaning" means.

Well that may not be the meaning of the word meaning to you, but since these things were here before humans, they clearly did not need your description to make them, valid, good, bad, right or wrong

Since there were creatures existing before humans, there descriptions don't add to thier meaning, especially when it comes to behavior

Sure, it absolutely can.

An apple can be symbolic of many things:

the forbidden fruit of Genesis
a gift for a teacher
a computer/software company

An apple could not have meant those things before humans came along and imagined/invented them, so our imaginary descriptions are capable of giving objective things more meaning.[qs]

No NCE. you miss the point. Do your imaginary applications ACTUALLY in reality make the apple more, than it ACTUALLY is. IOWs, it doesn't add to its properties to make it, itself, a happy apple for the teacher, outside your mind

So human conceptions of subjective morality don't actually add anything to human behaviors, to make them more than the the biological functions you witness. Even if they did, there would be no way to find an ACTUAL right or wrong, moral or immoral, since the first problem exists

Human imaginations don't have the power to make a thing ACTUALLY right and wrong

Or, the only way that a behavior becomes right or wrong is when us humans give it those descriptions.

Who knows?

See even you admit this fact. You do understand that saying you don't know is actually an absolute fact, correct.

Existence and reality - they are the universe. In the universe, there exists a real human. In that human there exists a real brain. In that brain exists a real mind. In that mind exists real subjective experiences. Those subjective experiences are in the universe, and the exist and are real.

Correct. But since subjective human experiences apply only to humans, they don't qualify to decide what is actually right or wrong, moral or immoral. If it's not ACTUALLY right or wrong, then human experiences are just perceptions.

There are objective facts in reality, we can imagine subjectively, but those are just more objective facts we have misrepresented or misunderstood. When we get something wrong in science, that simply means we failed at first to understand the original objective reality. Our perceptions were inaccurate, the reality didn't change.

Hence for an actual subjective right or wrong to exist in reality, it would have to be predicated by an actual right or wrong in reality, not in imaginationS Hence, this can only be found in an infinte mind. An objective reality

Hence for me to speculate about existence or reality, I would need to know absolutely that it exists. It Cleary exists ACTUALLY, so I am free to have a subjective imagination about the reality of existence. For a subjective right and wrong to exist, Actually, it would need to be predicated on an actual right or wrong, or ,it simply , can have no actual existence. It's really that simple

In fact, our ability to give meaning to our behaviors is one of the things that separates us from the other animals. It has allowed us to civilize ourselves.

Well no. If the human race were to go extinct, other life forms would arise, correct? Those life forms would not need your descriptions or meanings, to exist or have meaning. This alone should tell you that human imaginations described as morals are not an objective reality, therefore not applicable as a tool to measure what is actually right or wrong in reality. If you want to imagine that yours is actually right and wrong, your free to do so but, reason and reality say otherwise.

Do you have an example?

You said that "stealing is always wrong", but what if you need to feed a starving person and there is no other way?

Do you just discount that as not stealing? If so, then "stealing is always wrong" is just a tautology that doesn't provide us any additional information - for the question then just becomes when is it stealing and when is it not?

Well let's look at it rationally instead of onesided, which is actually subjective. Let's say you steal from a guy that was going to use that food to feed his nearly starving child. So now what do we have? In reality what we have is a subjective nothing, no actual stealing, just a bunch of things happening in a purely naturalistic enviornment. So it is evident that subjective morality becomes a nonexistent thing, something we can only imagine

So stealing has to exist objectively for it to have any meaning.

But that is objective and not comparable. Can you give an example of something else that is subjective, like morality, that already existed before humans arrived?

Yes. Lucifer said, I will ascend on high and become like the most high. His reasoning was subjective. But his reasoning was predicated against a objective morality, which demonstrated that his subjective morality was in fact wrong absolutely

But objective facts make subjective facts, so my example is comparable. If there is no objective reality there are no subjective imagined facts. If there is no objective morality, then there is no subjective morality, as per my example of stealing. In that situation both can't be wrong and or right at the same time. If that is possible, it would be logical contradiction. You do know that logical contradictions don't exist, correct? That's why they are logical contradictions

Yes, for the nth time, that is what it means to be subjective. That is not the same as not existing. You have yet to address this point besides outright denial.

Oh I think any rational reader or observer will see that I have demonstrated in rational logical form, both in my previous posts that does mean nonexistent, as per my example of stealing, for example... if two wrongs can't actually exist in the very same situation, then that is by the very definition of nonexistent, nonexistence.

If two wrongs don't actually make a right, then only one of the fellas I'm my illustration is wrong. If neither is wrong by virtue of stealing, then wrong is just an imaginary thing, correct? Oh yeah that slight you call it subjective morality.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2017 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2017 12:16 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 399 of 822 (801434)
03-06-2017 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Modulous
03-03-2017 1:37 PM


Re: the essence of existence (in actual reality)
I would see that one party was harmed and conclude it was immoral.
I expect you'd look to the words of Jesus or other prophets, but I also guess you'd know better than me how you would determine if the action is moral or immoral.

Well yes, by simple reasoning, but I would certainly point to the words of Jesus, since he claimed to testify the truth. The same person that said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Pretty bold claims for a fellow if they aren't true, correct?

But then I would also point to simple reasoning to demonstrate the fallacy of your position on the adultery situation. Since you maintain there is no absolute morality, it would follow that the action in this situation was not actually immoral just theoretically immoral. If i could find numerous people to disagree that his actions were not immoral, then we could conclude that actual immorality does in fact not exist in reality

reject an 'actual', or as everyone else calls it 'objective' morality and I am not trying trying to establish one as I think that is impossible by way of being incoherent.

So it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if it is incoherent to establish an objective morality, it would be impossible as well to establish subjective morality. If you can imagine a subjective morality, surely I can imagine an objective morality, correct? Are we both making the same mistake, or are allowed to imagine the samethings.

Not at all. They drive/guide etc., my behaviour. My behaviour is an activity in the real world. They are represented as neuronal states in my brain. They actually exist and have real application. They just don't exist outside of my brain. Round and round we go.

Oh I don't think we are going in circles, I think I am demonstrating that subjective morality as you call it goes in endless, hopeless circles with no resolution of being rational.

Not exactly. People have morals. Neither you, me, the victim or the assailant's moral is 'true'.

If that's not a TRUE statement and according to your position it may very well not be, then the opposite is true and there may exist an absolute objective morality, correct

I say that for subjective morality to exist, there must be an objective morality and that moral principle is 'true'

Now which of us is correct?

Rhetoric, modulous, is not the same as demonstrating in reality, that an imagination, which you clearly possess, is actually a moral and that it at the same time, is not 'true', by some arbitrary definition you have ascribed to True. That's just rhetoric

The only way for subjective facts to exist, is for objective facts to actually exist. The only way for subjective morality to exist is for objective morality to exist. And that is 'true' in reality, not in some imagination, or in theory.

As I have said: Fine, by your definitions. But the only actual morals exist are the ones that we have. So by my definition there are actual morals.

And as I have demonstrated your morals don't actually exist in reality in a rational way. There are nonexistent as is demonstrated by simple reasoning. Not that you can't imagine things, but they don't exist as actual right and wrong, as per the adultery example. In that situation all I would need is for another human imagining that the behavior was not immoral, as you suggested it is. And I'm sure we could find plenty of those people, correct.

If so, it would quickly be seen that your definition of moral or right or wrong are worthless in describing the ethics in human behavior and for all intents and purposes nonexistent. Yes I'm aware you can imagine things, but those aren't morals in any rational way.

By adding the comment that any persons morals are not 'true', in whatever twisted way you mean that, only heightens the nonsense of your approach to morality

Stealing to feed a starving child is morally good where there is no option to feed the child any other way.

You really don't get it do you Modulous. By your definitions of morality, there can be no definition of stealing to have any meaning in the first place. Example if there are situations where stealing is ok then that would make the word and idea nonsensical and for all purposes nonexistent. Both stealing and not stealing at the same time. If there are situations where stealing is actually wrong, that is that it is in fact stealing, that would be absolute morality. If there is not the word is useless as a moral

If there are situations, where stealing is wrong to one person but not to another, given the same instance, again we are back to the same situation, where stealing has no meaning at all. But who gets to decide whether it is or is not. Imagining that every persons imagination is acceptable is both nonsense and nonexistent.

So it seems your right back to where you started, trying to demonstrate, imaginations quality as that which is actually right or wrong. So I'm happy to do this because it narrows down exactly what is pretty much nonsense about the Socalled subjective morality

And yet you have still failed to defeat my argument in principle from evolution and mathematics described earlier. So if that is your final answer - you haven't demonstrated your claim that I can't do it since I have show in principle that I can.

I'm sorry what? Your argument from evolution demonstrated that niceness and helpful were imaginations of the human mind. If not and we are actually witnessing the evolution of morals in animals then it would follow morals exist outside the human mind. If we are doing the same things animals are, and it would seem that way, given your position, then it would seem that murder is nothing more than an imagination of the human mind

Your characterisation of what I said is irrational and dishonest.

'killing a person is wrong' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Mozart is the best composer' is a statement that is neither true nor false.
'Lasagne is the tastiest dish' is a statement that is neither true nor false.

Just because these statements share the property of not having a truth value, does not make them the same. Try to comprehend before you try to refute.

No I dont think I misrepresented you at all. You have a twisted version of reality and reason. You jumble these together acting as if you are making some valid point, you are not.

For example , the following verbal rubbish by yourself

Rules don't have moralities. Subjective moralities exist within a system of rules. We are constrained by our biology.

These like your statements above are what you need to demonstrate, not just assert. You keep saying these things over and over as if you have proven it. You have not, as I have demonstrated.

If rules don't have moralites, then it should be obvious that subjective morals could not assist in forming rules, because there would be nothing we could put our hand on in formulating rules. Every persons position would need to be consisdered, no matter how contradictory.

If there was no instance or example where we could clearly say yes that was murder, verses manslaughter and negligent homicide, then those terms would have no meaning either. So yes, killing a person is a statement that can be true or false. Even if we don't use the extreme of murder, a person could use the expression, yes I killed that person and it both be true and a truth statement.

The statement killing a person is wrong, can very easily be a truth statement, where objective clearly exists. It does. Asserting you believe it does not or may not doesn't demonstrate the opposite in any rational way.

The other examples don't fall into that category and you know that. Jumbling them up together to try and make subjective morality the only morality, doesn't work either.

Just because these statements share the property of not having a truth value, does not make them the same. Try to comprehend before you try to refute

Try as you will, twist it which ever way you wish with philosophical verbiage and jargon, but, your indirect attempt is to make subjective facts, where there is clearly objective realities, the same as subjective morality, where you claim there is no objective morality. It doesn't work Modulous, as I have clearly demonstrated. Subjective morality is just your imaginings. It's a claimed morality with no standards, which is nonexistent, for all intents and purposes and nonsense

Statements like, "Rules don't have moralites. Subjective moralities, exist within a system of rules.", Is just verbiage, it's what you need to prove not assert. It sounds good at first glance under further scrutiny it will be exposed.

Well yes if we are assuming strictly objective realities, but no, becauserules applied by humans do have moralities. Not because of subjective moralites, but objective. If I am tasked to take 20000 to the bank and deposit it and I keep it, then certainly that is objectively wrong, even if I am stealing it to pay for someone's surgery, that could not pay otherwise.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Modulous, posted 03-03-2017 1:37 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2017 2:25 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 400 of 822 (801435)
03-06-2017 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by RAZD
03-05-2017 1:57 PM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
ood. 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.

Well since I addressed most of that in my recent post to you we will wait for a response to that post.

Thats assuming you aren't the only one that gets to answer questions

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2017 1:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2017 9:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 403 by ringo, posted 03-06-2017 11:21 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4550
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 401 of 822 (801439)
03-06-2017 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Dawn Bertot
03-06-2017 7:48 AM


DB writes:

Yes I would say that's a valid argument....

I'd say that it was repetitive, error-ridden word play but let's put that aside.

What I asked you for was an example of absolute morality. If the only example of absolute morality you can think of is your imagined God, I'm going to shrug and move on because he is, as I say, imaginary.

Morality and moral behaviour is a real and measureable effect in our world so I'm asking you to produce the thing that you call absolute so that we can examine it. Surely you have an example?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:48 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 402 of 822 (801445)
03-06-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Dawn Bertot
03-06-2017 7:57 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
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.

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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:57 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12925
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 403 of 822 (801453)
03-06-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Dawn Bertot
03-06-2017 7:57 AM


Re: The game is over, you lost. Get over it.
Dawn Bertot writes:

Thats assuming you aren't the only one that gets to answer questions


I've asked you more than once to tell us the absolute meaning of, "Thou shalt not kill." If there are exceptions, how is it absolute?

You're free to answer that one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-06-2017 7:57 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by GDR, posted 03-06-2017 11:45 AM ringo has responded
 Message 413 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-07-2017 6:55 AM ringo has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 404 of 822 (801456)
03-06-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by ringo
03-06-2017 11:21 AM


Absolutes
ringo writes:

I've asked you more than once to tell us the absolute meaning of, "Thou shalt not kill." If there are exceptions, how is it absolute?

Just thought I might jump in. No it isn't absolute.

The laws pointed us in the right direction but Jesus told, and showed us, that the only absolute is the law of love. It is all about our hearts. Paul got it right in his first letter to the Corinthians when he says that ultimately God will judge the motives of our hearts. Are we motivated by self interest or are we motivated by the love of our neighbour and for all of God's creation?


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by ringo, posted 03-06-2017 11:21 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 03-06-2017 11:57 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 407 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2017 12:56 PM GDR has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12925
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 405 of 822 (801457)
03-06-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by GDR
03-06-2017 11:45 AM


Re: Absolutes
GDR writes:

The laws pointed us in the right direction but Jesus told, and showed us, that the only absolute is the law of love. It is all about our hearts. Paul got it right in his first letter to the Corinthians when he says that ultimately God will judge the motives of our hearts.


That's what Dawn Bertot said, more or less, but he says it IS absolute.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by GDR, posted 03-06-2017 11:45 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
55NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017