• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Morality and Belief in God

that was it can't you read it?

it can be right or wrong or just not matter

and which 1 it is can be different for every one and shifts with their feelings

I'm not asking other people... I'm asking you directly... what's your answer to the question.
 

morals are relative nothing absolutely matters

though i dont reject all principles so if you got a more suitable word then nihilism let me know
 
Let me guess, the theists are still trying to argue something into existence rather than showing existence as an argument.

1) Minds other than your own exist.

2) The reality of the external world exists.

3) The universe was not created five minutes ago with built-in appearances of age and memory.

4) You are not a brain in a vat.

5) You are not a body lying in the Matrix.


Please "show existence as an argument" for these things... In other words, prove them to be true without "arguing them into existence".

If you can do so, I'll heed your advice for my beliefs... If you can't do so, then you have no grounds to criticize me for doing something that you also do.
 
I'm not asking other people... I'm asking you directly... what's your answer to the question.

what about suicide? its bad if someone who i want to live dies and i generally want people to live

but its also bad if they suffer to the point where they want to die

if they can feel better that's better then suicide but if the condition can't be helped then suicide would be the less bad then someone living in pain
 
morals are relative nothing absolutely matters

though i dont reject all principles so if you got a more suitable word then nihilism let me know

So you agree that morality exists?
 
what about suicide? its bad if someone who i want to live dies and i generally want people to live

but its also bad if they suffer to the point where they want to die

if they can feel better that's better then suicide but if the condition can't be helped then suicide would be the less bad then someone living in pain

I think this says it all, and it goes right in line with our argument... self-preservation is the very nature of all living things, and suicide directly counters that nature (which you admitted to in the bolded section), so there's a universal objective answer to Hamlet's Question...
 
So you agree that morality exists?

yes lots of people feel things are good or bad

its the nature of morality that i figured we were arguing about

i don't think morality exists independently of peoples minds and that it changes with the feeling of people on an individual basis
 
I think this says it all, and it goes right in line with our argument... self-preservation is the very nature of all living things, and suicide directly counters that nature (which you admitted to in the bolded section), so there's a universal objective answer to Hamlet's Question...

then your reasoning seems flawed. because i feel the way you do how you feel is objective?

because we both don't want to die nothing can?

becaser nature tends to select for life that tries to live suicide is some how unnatural?



that's non sense
 
I think this says it all, and it goes right in line with our argument... self-preservation is the very nature of all living things, and suicide directly counters that nature (which you admitted to in the bolded section), so there's a universal objective answer to Hamlet's Question...

more subjective claims trying to prove something is objective LMAO
once again ZERO objective morals have been presented and factually proven. when you can do so please let us know....we have been waiting but it seems NOBODY can do it . .i wonder why...

fact remains by definition morals are subjective
 
then your reasoning seems flawed. because i feel the way you do how you feel is objective?
Nope, but rather because your assertions fit right into the argument... You accept that mankind are agents... you just accepted that mankind can make moral decisions, etc... That means that you accept that mankind are moral agents. I'm assuming you agree with me in a general sense on what "moral issues" are (point #6) ... That then makes Hamlet's Question a moral question with a moral answer... and so on and so forth, until it concludes that there is a universal and objective moral answer.

because we both don't want to die nothing can?
Never said that nothing can choose to die... Point #2 actually shows that I claim that choice is involved. But that choice goes against the universal and objective inclination ("wanting") of self-preservation, according to biological science.

becaser nature tends to select for life that tries to live suicide is some how unnatural?
Yes, that's the very definition of unnatural, which is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature"

that's non sense
No, that's completely logical.
 
But if neither right nor wrong, then why has it been favored and selected by nature as the universal action? The ad hoc a-moralist must answer, following his scientific theory, that it favors the propagation and continuance of species. At this point the a-moralist introduces a value and his argument is lost.

Huh? Pointing out that these behaviors tend to lead to the propagation of genes doesn't involve a value judgement; it's simply identifying empirical fact.
 
The question was: Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?

Our friend wants to answer "ever, never, and always." He wants to answer all three. He wants to answer all three because he doesn't want to answer the question. Because he doesn't want to answer the question for himself, he slips into meta-ethics or descriptive ethics in order to say that different people will answer the question differently.

These dodges don't affect our argument, which is solidly based in a universal and objective value, attested by science itself.
 
Nope, but rather because your assertions fit right into the argument... You accept that mankind are agents... you just accepted that mankind can make moral decisions, etc... That means that you accept that mankind are moral agents. I'm assuming you agree with me in a general sense on what "moral issues" are (point #6) ... That then makes Hamlet's Question a moral question with a moral answer... and so on and so forth, until it concludes that there is a universal and objective moral answer.


Never said that nothing can choose to die... Point #2 actually shows that I claim that choice is involved. But that choice goes against the universal and objective inclination ("wanting") of self-preservation, according to biological science.


Yes, that's the very definition of unnatural, which is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature"


No, that's completely logical.

nope just more subjective feelings that you are desperately pushing as meaningful of factual and they remain subjective and meaningless
 
The question was: Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?

Our friend wants to answer "ever, never, and always." He wants to answer all three. He wants to answer all three because he doesn't want to answer the question. Because he doesn't want to answer the question for himself, he slips into meta-ethics or descriptive ethics in order to say that different people will answer the question differently.

These dodges don't affect our argument, which is solidly based in a universal and objective value, attested by science itself.

hey look ANOTHER subjective made up assumption based on subjective feelings TRYING to sell the idea its an objective claim. FAIL
your question was answered by multiple people and your question in itself further proves the fact (besides the factual definition) that morals are subjective

at any time you or anybody disagrees all you have to do is provide ONE objective moral and factually prove it. thanks
 
Nope, but rather because your assertions fit right into the argument... You accept that mankind are agents... you just accepted that mankind can make moral decisions, etc... That means that you accept that mankind are moral agents. I'm assuming you agree with me in a general sense on what "moral issues" are (point #6) ... That then makes Hamlet's Question a moral question with a moral answer... and so on and so forth, until it concludes that there is a universal and objective moral answer.


Never said that nothing can choose to die... Point #2 actually shows that I claim that choice is involved. But that choice goes against the universal and objective inclination ("wanting") of self-preservation, according to biological science.


Yes, that's the very definition of unnatural, which is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature"


No, that's completely logical.

not sure how free are decision are but we seem to make them yes but one objective moral anser doesn't follow form that multiple subjective ones do

the will to live its not universal or objective its just common because it tends to stick around

you understand that wanting to live got common because things that did not died right nether one is more or less natural wanting to die would not be against that its in fact something that maintains it

your reasoning is flawed
 
The question was: Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?

Our friend wants to answer "ever, never, and always." He wants to answer all three. He wants to answer all three because he doesn't want to answer the question. Because he doesn't want to answer the question for himself, he slips into meta-ethics or descriptive ethics in order to say that different people will answer the question differently.

These dodges don't affect our argument, which is solidly based in a universal and objective value, attested by science itself.

i did answer the question it can right or wrong or it can be neutral there's an answer for each person and it depends on how they feel and changes with how they feel

what is this

universal and objective value, attested by science itself. that you speak of?
 
Huh? Pointing out that these behaviors tend to lead to the propagation of genes doesn't involve a value judgement; it's simply identifying empirical fact.
Hold off on the judgement part for now. We'll return to it. Here's a question for you: Are "behaviors [that] tend to the propagation of genes" good for the continuance of the species?
 
Hold off on the judgement part for now. We'll return to it. Here's a question for you: Are "behaviors [that] tend to the propagation of genes" good for the continuance of the species?

No. Not in the normative sense of the word "good". These behaviors tend to realize (in the sense of "bring about") the continuation of the species. The content of this fact is entirely empirical; there is no normative content to it whatsoever.
 
No. Not in the normative sense of the word "good". These behaviors tend to realize (in the sense of "bring about") the continuation of the species. The content of this fact is entirely empirical; there is no normative content to it whatsoever.
In any sense of the word good you like. Are these behaviors good for the species? Are my cats as a species better off than the Dodo?
 
In any sense of the word good you like.

Then let's use it in the sense relevant to the topic at hand - morality.

Are these behaviors good for the species?

No (or rather the fact that these behaviors realize the continuation of the species does not imply that said behaviors are "good" for the species).
 
...
what is this

universal and objective value, attested by science itself. that you speak of?
I've known you too long and like you too much to let your erratic behavior in gfm's Objective Morality thread stand in the way of our exchanging views. So if you would kindly leave a comment in my thread on "What's Wrong with the World" -- without quoting the whole OP -- all will be forgiven and I'll answer your "What's this?" question:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/326460-whats-wrong-world.html


Namaste
 
Hold off on the judgement part for now. We'll return to it. Here's a question for you: Are "behaviors [that] tend to the propagation of genes" good for the continuance of the species?

again subjective NOT objective...fail after fail after fail . . .why cant you simply provided ONE objective moral and factually prove it?
 
Then let's use it in the sense relevant to the topic at hand - morality.



No (or rather the fact that these behaviors realize the continuation of the species does not imply that said behaviors are "good" for the species).
So you're choosing a meaning of the word "good" just so you can reject it, yes? Bene. That's the way to open the mind to a possible new way of viewing things.
So is it fair to conclude that you don't think the behaviors in question are good for the species in any sense?
 
So is it fair to conclude that you don't think the behaviors in question are good for the species in any sense?

Of course not. The meaning of that statement will depend on the meaning of its words. Whether I agree or disagree with a statement will depend on its meaning (of course!).

If you want to use the string of characters g-o-o-d to mean something lacking any moral content like "realize" or "bring about", then I will readily agree that such behaviors are "g-o-o-d" for the continuation the species (ie, such behaviors realize the continuation of the species). But my point is that when we use the word in this way there is no normative content here! We're just using a word typically used to make ought-claims to instead make what is nothing more than an is-claim.
 
Of course not. The meaning of that statement will depend on the meaning of its words. Whether I agree or disagree with a statement will depend on its meaning (of course!).

If you want to use the string of characters g-o-o-d to mean something lacking any moral content like "realize" or "bring about", then I will readily agree that such behaviors are "g-o-o-d" for the continuation the species (ie, such behaviors realize the continuation of the species). But my point is that when we use the word in this way there is no normative content here! We're just using a word typically used to make ought-claims to instead make what is nothing more than an is-claim.
Yes, I remember what you said about the normative use of "good." Do you remember my asking that we leave aside the question of judgment for now, to return to it later? That's why your choice of moral good, when asked to pick any meaning beyond the moral good which you had just rejected, seemed to me less than cricket.

So, you acknowledge that behavior conducive to propagation is good for the continuance of the species. Would you acknowledge that the continuance of the species is itself good? (I think you must; otherwise it will be hard to justify that behavior conducing to continuance is good.)
 
Back
Top Bottom