Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

[AGENT J]

I just assumed that your knowledge of subjective morals (completely ruling out objective morality) meant that you had the deepest philosophical aspects of life figured out. But I was wrong. I'm sorry that I was wrong. I shouldn't assume things, nor should I resort to lies and making stuff up to distract from my weak arguments.

Correct you were factually wrong like your OTHER assumptions that were factually wrong.

But it does highlight where your HUGE mistake is . . . the discussion on whether morals are subjective or not up for debate. Its already factually established philosophy only comes into play on this specif topic for what ifs , feelings, fantasies, possibilities etc. All those discussions can be had but the fact remains morals are still subjective by definition.

at least youre learning . . once again we are here if you need us. good luck in your future postings, hopefully they will have more accuracy and integrity then the ones that failed here.!

 

[gfm7175]

You don't get it at all. Calling a past action a mistake does not mean I am using an objective basis. How do we know epilepsy is not demon possession? Because we learned the real cause and we no longer cling to outdated superstitions. Same with witchcraft. We know better now. We replace superstition with fact. This also applies to moral codes based on superstitions. We learn and realize the moral codes were based on erroneous thinking. This does not imply that we compared these old moral codes against some objective basis. It means that we corrected errors in our thinking and thus changed our view of morality.

It means that you are treating morality as if it was objective... was the mistake a mistake only for you or was it a mistake for other people too?

And your final sentence is making objective claims once again... WE corrected ERRORS in OUR thinking... what errors? Why were they errors? Were they errors for ME and not just yourself? If so, why and how is that so, given subjective morality?

 

[devildavid]

It means that you are treating morality as if it was objective... was the mistake a mistake only for you or was it a mistake for other people too?

And your final sentence is making objective claims once again... WE corrected ERRORS in OUR thinking... what errors? Why were they errors? Were they errors for ME and not just yourself? If so, why and how is that so, given subjective morality?

I'm making factual claims about the observed subjectivity of human created morality. Morality is created by us and changed by us when we discover that we based it on erroneous assumptions about human behavior combined with superstitious beliefs. Why do we no longer think there are people who are witches and are in league with the devil and put curses on people? Why is that thinking an error? You tell me.

 

[Angel]

I just assumed that your knowledge of subjective morals (completely ruling out objective morality) meant that you had the deepest philosophical aspects of life figured out. But I was wrong. I'm sorry that I was wrong. I shouldn't assume things, nor should I resort to lies and making stuff up to distract from my weak arguments.

You forgot your "retarded strawmen."

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm not confused on the meaning of the word... I do think that you are overlooking a whole realm of existence though when you claim that "without humans, morals don't exist".

You make claims for this other realm, yet, you can not show it is more than your own opinion feelings and emotions, conditioned by social expectations.

 

[Angel]

Namaste

...

...

...

...

 

[AGENT J]

LOL meltdowns over being proved wrong are always funny. Now thats over do you have one fact that proves morals are objective like you falsely claim? Can you post one objective moral and factually prove its objective? can ANYBODY . . . . ONE . . thats all that is needed :lol:

When you can please let the majority of posters here who posted facts and definitions that prove morals are subjective know and present your evidence, we'll be waiting, thanks!!!

 

[gfm7175]

You make claims for this other realm, yet, you can not show it is more than your own opinion feelings and emotions, conditioned by social expectations.

There's pretty good evidence for the existence of the spiritual realm... Many people speak of their prayers being answered (and I've had personal experience with having my prayers answered, such as my prayer for "peace of mind"), and there are many religions and billions of people who focus their lives on the spiritual realm, which suggests to me that it is more likely real than not... The Bible itself is also good evidence because it has strong historical authenticity, so the other parts of the Bible are more likely true than not as well (I believe it's all 100% true)... The relation (and differences) between our brain and our mind seems to suggest existence of the spiritual (imagination/memory/dreams/will/etc.) ...

 

[gfm7175]

I'm making factual claims about the observed subjectivity of human created morality. Morality is created by us and changed by us when we discover that we based it on erroneous assumptions about human behavior combined with superstitious beliefs. Why do we no longer think there are people who are witches and are in league with the devil and put curses on people? Why is that thinking an error? You tell me.

You're still claiming that certain morality is "erroneous" and other morality is "not erroneous"...

Now, do those "errors" of the "erroneous" morality apply only to you, or do they apply to people other than yourself?

 

[RAMOSS]

There's pretty good evidence for the existence of the spiritual realm... Many people speak of their prayers being answered (and I've had personal experience with having my prayers answered, such as my prayer for "peace of mind"), and there are many religions and billions of people who focus their lives on the spiritual realm, which suggests to me that it is more likely real than not... The Bible itself is also good evidence because it has strong historical authenticity, so the other parts of the Bible are more likely true than not as well (I believe it's all 100% true)... The relation (and differences) between our brain and our mind seems to suggest existence of the spiritual (imagination/memory/dreams/will/etc.) ...

Well.. I don't consider testimony 'good evidence'. There are pieces missing. One.. a model to show why it could work. 2) Independent verification with a double blind test to show that the claimed effect actually does work, rather than is confirmation bias. In fact, when that was tested, while an initial study showed there was a slight slant to people's recovery in heart surgery when people prayed for them, a follow up test by the same group with a bigger sample size showed that effect did not happen.

The bible , if taken for evidence,.. is evidence of what people 2000 years ago believed.. that that those beliefs were true.

All in all, the argument is you are making is very weak.. and the claim for 'good evidence' is incorrect.

You have to have a double blind test to get rid of confirmation bias.

 

[gfm7175]

Well.. I don't consider testimony 'good evidence'.

Then I'm afraid our discussion about the existence of the spiritual realm can't go any further. If you refuse testimonial evidence, and only accept empirical evidence, then you will always reject the spiritual because the spiritual can't be empirically proven (unless I'm missing something).

 

[RAMOSS]

Then I'm afraid our discussion about the existence of the spiritual realm can't go any further. If you refuse testimonial evidence, and only accept empirical evidence, then you will always reject the spiritual because the spiritual can't be empirically proven (unless I'm missing something).

That's right.. I don't. Not without a double blind test to remove the confirmation bias. The thing is many pray for everything, and totally discount the times nothing happens. They DO remember the 'hits', but forget the 'misses'. That very human tendency makes the claims about answered prayers rather worthless.. unless there is the double blind test to show the effect actually happens.

 

[gfm7175]

The thing is many pray for everything, and totally discount the times nothing happens. They DO remember the 'hits', but forget the 'misses'. That very human tendency makes the claims about answered prayers rather worthless.. unless there is the double blind test to show the effect actually happens.

Well, I think what happens here is that people will pray for selfish reasons, and those selfish reasons are in opposition to God's will.

I wish not to speak of the "disorder" that I have, but it's lead to many "why me" thoughts, and I've prayed for many years for it to be "taken away" or to "overcome" it, and that prayer of mine was never answered. I still deal with it to this very day and most likely always will deal with it. But the problem with that prayer was that I wanted God to succumb to my own will, instead of vice versa. My other prayer in relation to this "disorder", after the first prayer failing for many years and leading me down a path filled with depression and suicidal thoughts/plans, was a prayer to find "peace of mind". That prayer was made in an "according to your will, LORD" attitude, and that prayer, while I didn't see immediate results, was answered in due time (after a year or so).

In short, I think there's a lot more to prayer than "hits and misses", and one will get more "hits" when they pray with proper (selfless) intent.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well, I think what happens here is that people will pray for selfish reasons, and those selfish reasons are in opposition to God's will.

I wish not to speak of the "disorder" that I have, but it's lead to many "why me" thoughts, and I've prayed for many years for it to be "taken away" or to "overcome" it, and that prayer of mine was never answered. I still deal with it to this very day and most likely always will deal with it. But the problem with that prayer was that I wanted God to succumb to my own will, instead of vice versa. My other prayer in relation to this "disorder", after the first prayer failing for many years and leading me down a path filled with depression and suicidal thoughts/plans, was a prayer to find "peace of mind". That prayer was made in an "according to your will, LORD" attitude, and that prayer, while I didn't see immediate results, was answered in due time (after a year or so).

In short, I think there's a lot more to prayer than "hits and misses", and one will get more "hits" when they pray with proper (selfless) intent.

You can believe anything you want, but until you can show that it actually has an effect that can nto be covered by the placebo effect, and you can show that you think is true, then it all falls under the category of 'confirmation bias'.

 

[devildavid]

You're still claiming that certain morality is "erroneous" and other morality is "not erroneous"...

Now, do those "errors" of the "erroneous" morality apply only to you, or do they apply to people other than yourself?

They apply in general to the societies in which they were held true. I am not claiming that the morality is erroneous, the basis of it is erroneous. All morality is decided upon by man based on some criteria. If the criteria proves to be based on something erroneous, then the moral code is altered to reflect that.

No moral codes apply universally, nor do personal moral codes, obviously. We all choose whatever moral code we prefer.

 

[gfm7175]

They apply in general to the societies in which they were held true.

So they apply, as truth, beyond yourself...

I am not claiming that the morality is erroneous, the basis of it is erroneous. All morality is decided upon by man based on some criteria. If the criteria proves to be based on something erroneous, then the moral code is altered to reflect that.

So, for example, slavery is not erroneous, but the basis of slavery is? What would the "erroneous basis" for slavery be? Heck, what would the CORRECT basis for slavery be? And why does this truth apply to a whole society and not just yourself?

No moral codes apply universally, nor do personal moral codes, obviously. We all choose whatever moral code we prefer.

But how can we do this if moral codes apply to societies? (see how both of the bolded claims contradict)

 

[devildavid]

So they apply, as truth, beyond yourself...


So, for example, slavery is not erroneous, but the basis of slavery is? What would the "erroneous basis" for slavery be? Heck, what would the CORRECT basis for slavery be? And why does this truth apply to a whole society and not just yourself?


But how can we do this if moral codes apply to societies? (see how both of the bolded claims contradict)

No, they don't apply as "truth", nor did I claim that. They apply to what any society agrees on in general at that time. You keep on insisting on looking at things in absolutist terms. Even when societies agree in general, it doesn't mean all members of that society agree perfectly. Slavery is a moral issue when society decides it is. Once, it was considered perfectly moral. Later, some societies decided it was not. There was never ever an inherent moral issue regarding slavery until humans decided that there was.

 

[gfm7175]

No, they don't apply as "truth", nor did I claim that. They apply to what any society agrees on in general at that time. You keep on insisting on looking at things in absolutist terms. Even when societies agree in general, it doesn't mean all members of that society agree perfectly. Slavery is a moral issue when society decides it is. Once, it was considered perfectly moral. Later, some societies decided it was not. There was never ever an inherent moral issue regarding slavery until humans decided that there was.

It's hard to have a dialogue when you are all over the place on what you believe... meaning, I can't pin-point down your beliefs to have a focused dialogue about them...

Combining all my past dialogues with you, you've argued for subjective morality, you've argued that morality is made up (doesn't exist), and you've argued that morality subjectively applies to some people but is made up for other people...

You've also argued that free will is make believe... Given that belief, how can we even have morality, or reasonably hold people to certain moral expectations, if free will doesn't exist? The actions of people wouldn't be their fault because it's all "controlled by fate" at that point...

 

[devildavid]

It's hard to have a dialogue when you are all over the place on what you believe... meaning, I can't pin-point down your beliefs to have a focused dialogue about them...

Combining all my past dialogues with you, you've argued for subjective morality, you've argued that morality is made up (doesn't exist), and you've argued that morality subjectively applies to some people but is made up for other people...

You've also argued that free will is make believe... Given that belief, how can we even have morality, or reasonably hold people to certain moral expectations, if free will doesn't exist? The actions of people wouldn't be their fault because it's all "controlled by fate" at that point...

Your mistake is in trying to pinpoint what you call my beliefs. I am only conveying the facts of morality and how it originates.

It's not peoples fault because we don't have perfect control over our behavior. It's not because of a make believe thing you call fate.

Society decides to punish or reward certain behaviors. In order to attempt to justify this we use the made up concept of free will. We imagine that everything we do is perfectly conscious choices, when in reality it may or may not be. In the final analysis, we can only determine what types of behavior we want to punish or reward. We can't know for certain the amount of free choice that went into that behavior. We subjectively decide that, and act accordingly at that time.

 

[devildavid]

So they apply, as truth, beyond yourself...


So, for example, slavery is not erroneous, but the basis of slavery is? What would the "erroneous basis" for slavery be? Heck, what would the CORRECT basis for slavery be? And why does this truth apply to a whole society and not just yourself?


But how can we do this if moral codes apply to societies? (see how both of the bolded claims contradict)

Things apply to society according to what that society in general prefers. And it can change over time.

Individuals can both follow societies moral codes (or not) and also have their own moral code. Moral codes, being subjective, easily accommodate this.

 

[gfm7175]

Things apply to society according to what that society in general prefers. And it can change over time.

Individuals can both follow societies moral codes (or not) and also have their own moral code. Moral codes, being subjective, easily accommodate this.

All of that can be done under objective morality also, so I don't see the point...

 

[devildavid]

All of that can be done under objective morality also, so I don't see the point...

Not if morality is truly objective. Objective morality does not allow for moral subjectivity, so it is not flexible. Facts are not flexible. Objective facts don't change over time. So the fantasy objective morality cannot function the same as real life subjective morality.

 

[gfm7175]

Not if morality is truly objective. Objective morality does not allow for moral subjectivity, so it is not flexible. Facts are not flexible. Objective facts don't change over time. So the fantasy objective morality cannot function the same as real life subjective morality.

People would act the same way whether morals were subjective or objective... what changes is the truth value of (and accountability for) moral actions and duties.

 

[blarg]

People would act the same way whether morals were subjective or objective... what changes is the truth value of (and accountability for) moral actions and duties.

your out of luck on truth without your feeling it doesn't make sense to call something moral or immoral nothing matters at that point

so morality is based on how you feel

now that might be objective if the universe forced all of us to feel the same way but that doesn't seem to be the case

your morals wood not be any more objective by you having someone who would hurt every one for not going along with them

 

[gfm7175]

your out of luck on truth without your feeling it doesn't make sense to call something moral or immoral nothing matters at that point

so morality is based on how you feel

now that might be objective if the universe forced all of us to feel the same way but that doesn't seem to be the case

your morals wood not be any more objective by you having someone who would hurt every one for not going along with them

It's not based on how anyone feels... it's based on God's perfect nature.