• 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

Your post inaccurately represents the conversation it joins and does not appear to understand the words "good" and "bad" in this context.
In other words your "wrong again" is wrong again.


Namaste

if you mean a good watch is 1 that keeps telling time accurately because that's what you want watches to do ok

but that's already getting into subjective territory (pretty common though) its subjective if such a thing is itself good bad or if you just don't care

if you try to apply this to how things that are not designed

and things that can think for themselves should behave then that's also just your personal preference
 
if you mean a good watch is 1 that keeps telling time accurately because that's what you want watches to do ok

but that's already getting into subjective territory (pretty common though) its subjective if such a thing is itself good bad or if you just don't care

if you try to apply this to how things that are not designed

and things that can think for themselves should behave then that's also just your personal preference
Are you you kidding me?
I made you an offer you can't refuse at #346. You can ignore it, of course, and compound your offense. That's up to you.
#346
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
 
Are you you kidding me?

#346

nope pretty sure that's how it works

you could maybe mean a watch is defined as a kind of something that keeps time accurately for a long time and under lots of conditions

so the more your watch manages that the more accurate it is to say it is a watch

but i don't normally look at a cheep kids watch and think to myself that's less watch then then an expensive and more accurate waterproof one
 
nope pretty sure that's how it works

you could maybe mean a watch is defined as a kind of something that keeps time accurately for a long time and under lots of conditions

so the more your watch manages that the more accurate it is to say it is a watch

but i don't normally look at a cheep kids watch and think to myself that's less watch then then an expensive and more accurate waterproof one
Yeah, the technique you're using is called "blocking" in psychoanalytical circles; it is also a technique used to comic effect by Paul Reuben in his Pee Wee Herman routine.
Bye, blarg.
 
No one's pretending, unless you are. A good watch is a watch that works, period; a bad watch is a watch that doesn't work, period. Both are objective statements.
No both are subjective opinions
If you were right, and you're not, if these designations were subjective determinations rather than objective determinations, then it would be as reasonable to say that a good watch is a watch that doesn't work and a bad watch is a watch that works, but this makes nonsense of language, logic, and reason.
It depends on the point of view
Go back and see post 391
 
I'm desperately trying to make some progress here... maybe we'll try this question...

Does logic exist externally or can it only exist inside minds?

Ahh Ok I think see where you are going.
Yes and no
Yes it exists in the mind
For lack of a better term the logic behind logic will remain if we all of humanity dies tomorrow and a new species becomes as intellectually evolved as we are. Same with mathematics the logic behind 1+1=2 and 1+1+1=3 then 1+2=3 will always remain true but if no one exists or all humanity loses their memory. No one would know it and it would have to be relearned. It could look differently but the logic will be the same
eg Q#Q;d and Q#d;c then Q#Q#Q;c
 
Your post inaccurately represents the conversation it joins and does not appear to understand the words "good" and "bad" in this context.
In other words your "wrong again" is wrong again.


Namaste
Actually the problem is entirely on your part. Your subjective opinion is that a working watch is good and you incorrectly claim that it is an objective fact
 
Your post inaccurately represents the conversation it joins and does not appear to understand the words "good" and "bad" in this context.
In other words your "wrong again" is wrong again.


Namaste

Good does not mean functioning. A good person is not a functioning person. The analogy doesn't work. The meaning of words is dependent on context.
 
Good does not mean functioning. A good person is not a functioning person. The analogy doesn't work. The meaning of words is dependent on context.

Exactly Angel is desperate to pretend that working and good are the same thing but he cant do anything other than claim it is true because he believes it is.
Ie it is just his subjective opinion.
 
No both are subjective opinions

It depends on the point of view
Go back and see post 391

Actually the problem is entirely on your part. Your subjective opinion is that a working watch is good and you incorrectly claim that it is an objective fact

Good does not mean functioning. A good person is not a functioning person. The analogy doesn't work. The meaning of words is dependent on context.

Exactly Angel is desperate to pretend that working and good are the same thing but he cant do anything other than claim it is true because he believes it is.
Ie it is just his subjective opinion.
You gentlemen are talking through your contrarian hats, denying the existence of objective evaluations and functional concepts.
I recommend a regimen of thought.
Meanwhile I'm done with your thoughtless posts.


Namaste
 
Good does not mean functioning. A good person is not a functioning person. The analogy doesn't work. The meaning of words is dependent on context.

Shhhhh dont post facts like that when they will just be ignored and dodged because they dont support the fact that morals are subjective and morality can be had with or without god
 
1.)You gentlemen are talking through your contrarian hats, denying the existence of objective evaluations and functional concepts.
2.) I recommend a regimen of thought.
Meanwhile I'm done with your thoughtless posts.


Namaste

1.)LMAO and more posted lies . . you FACTUALLY haven provided any "objective" evaluations. They have all been your subjective feelings that people arent buying and proved wrong because they have no accurate, consistent or intellectual merit to support them
2.) thought, facts, proof and reality are all the things that prove your claims completely wrong
3.) failed insults wont change the fact your claims were proved wrong but good move giving up because facts would have continued to win and prove your claims wrong time and time again
By all means though when you think you have a new angle that you can support with one fact that makes it true and doesn't completely fail like the ones you presented so far please come back and present it

Namaste
 
Nevertheless, your reluctance to admit even a morally neutral use of the term "good" into the discussion makes a mockery of the scientific notion that X "confers and advantage" in evolutionary terms.

Eh? I just offered a version of the word divorced of any ethical content (GOOD2). But you reject it because when the word is divorced of its ethical significance it isn't able to do the work you'd like it to and your argument runs into a dead end!

Conferring an advantage and conferring a disadvantage, on your view, become indistinguishable, synonymous, meaningless. The word "advantage," it seems to me, clearly posits a value in the goings-on of nature.

Yes, colloquially "advantage" is an ethical notion (just like "good"). But this isn't a problem; an account can be given of evolution that doesn't ever need to appeal to "advantage" in this sense. (For example, instead of saying "The giraffe's long neck is an advantage" we can explain it as "The giraffe's long neck leads her to survive and reproduce". There's no need to introduce normativity.)
 
Last edited:
Eh? I just offered a version of the word divorced of any ethical content (GOOD2). But you reject it because when the word is divorced of its ethical significance it isn't able to do the work you'd like it to and your argument runs into a dead end!
On the contrary, I am pressing you to acknowledge a non-ethical meaning that accounts for the objective evaluations of functional concepts commonly made by language-users. I rejected your GOOD2, I believe, because it produces tautologies. Anyway, that's a matter of record.

Yes, colloquially "advantage" is an ethical notion (just like "good"). But this isn't a problem; an account can be given of evolution that doesn't ever need to appeal to "advantage" in this sense. (For example, instead of saying "The giraffe's long neck is an advantage" we can explain it as "The giraffe's long neck leads her to survive and reproduce". There's no need to introduce normativity.)
"Advantage" is an evaluative notion, not ethical. Revising our evolutionary discourse to comply with your aversion to evaluative propositions does not alter the fact that it is in terms of advantage that everybody, including biological science, conceives of the matter.
 
On the contrary, I am pressing you to acknowledge a non-ethical meaning that accounts for the objective evaluations of functional concepts commonly made by language-users.

But such uses of the term are not free of moral significance. Outside of a framework of oughts, values, goals etc nothing is any more advantageous or disadvantageous than anything else.

The bottom line here is that you're trying to move from an is-claim to an ought-claim and so are running up against Hume's guillotine.
 
Last edited:
You gentlemen are talking through your contrarian hats, denying the existence of objective evaluations and functional concepts.
I recommend a regimen of thought.
Meanwhile I'm done with your thoughtless posts.


Namaste

Says the guy who claims his subjective opinion that working equals good is an objective fact
 
But such uses of the term are not free of moral significance. Outside of a framework of oughts, values, goals etc nothing is any more advantageous or disadvantageous than anything else.

The bottom line here is that you're trying to move from an is-claim to an ought-claim and so are running up against Hume's guillotine.
You well anticipate where I'm going with this, but I'm far from there at the moment, and your objections are premature.
And yes, Hume's guillotine, which is taken by now, by many if not most, as almost self-evidently true, is not free of challenge. See:
After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory by Alasdair MacIntyre
https://www.amazon.com/After-Virtue-Study-Moral-Theory/dp/0268035040
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue
 
Actually the problem is entirely on your part. Your subjective opinion is that a working watch is good and you incorrectly claim that it is an objective fact
Good does not mean functioning. A good person is not a functioning person. The analogy doesn't work. The meaning of words is dependent on context.
But such uses of the term are not free of moral significance. Outside of a framework of oughts, values, goals etc nothing is any more advantageous or disadvantageous than anything else.

The bottom line here is that you're trying to move from an is-claim to an ought-claim and so are running up against Hume's guillotine.

Look, guys. We make these objective evaluations all the time without moral or subjective taint.

The Volvo is a good car.

The fence around my garden is a good fence.

Ted Williams was a good hitter.

Eating green vegetables makes for a good diet.

Bose makes good speakers.


And so on ad infinitum.
 
Look, guys. We make these objective evaluations all the time without moral or subjective taint.

The Volvo is a good car.

The fence around my garden is a good fence.

Ted Williams was a good hitter.

Eating green vegetables makes for a good diet.

Bose makes good speakers.


And so on ad infinitum.

In all those examples "good" is subjective.

I never claimed "good" had to be used in a moral sense or even brought up morality when pointing out the FACT that good/bad are subjective terms
 
Look, guys. We make these objective evaluations all the time without moral or subjective taint.

The Volvo is a good car.

The fence around my garden is a good fence.

Ted Williams was a good hitter.

Eating green vegetables makes for a good diet.

Bose makes good speakers.


And so on ad infinitum.

Those aren't objective evaluations. And Ted Williams was a great hitter.
 
In all those examples "good" is subjective.

I never claimed "good" had to be used in a moral sense or even brought up morality when pointing out the FACT that good/bad are subjective terms
No, those statements are based on and reflect objective criteria. They are objective evaluations.
Perhaps you don't know what subjective means, or perhaps you are using the term in a way that makes all human statements subjective because they express an idea.
If one says on a rainy day.that it is wet out today, one is expressing an objective evaluation on the nature of the day. It is not a subjective observation except to a contrarian who needs to make out every human observation as subjective in order to support his unreasonable thesis.
 
Those aren't objective evaluations. And Ted Williams was a great hitter.
"Ted Williams was a good hitter" is an objective evaluation of Williams as a hitter based on career stats including, among other data, 2654 hits in 7706 at-bats for a .344 batting average.
This is an objective evaluation of the functional concept "hitter" in the context of the professional sport of baseball. Its contradiction is false on the facts.
 
No, those statements are based on and reflect objective criteria. They are objective evaluations.
No they are subjective anyone can say the exact opposite in fact when it comes to Volvos I would definitely never say they are good cars.
Perhaps you don't know what subjective means, or perhaps you are using the term in a way that makes all human statements subjective because they express an idea.

Perhaps you dont know what subjective/objective means I have put the definitions out there for you before.

If one says on a rainy day.that it is wet out today, one is expressing an objective evaluation on the nature of the day. It is not a subjective observation except to a contrarian who needs to make out every human observation as subjective in order to support his unreasonable thesis.
Agreed. But that isn't what I am saying and you know it. We are talking about the qualifier "good" that you falsely claim is an objective.

If one were to say a rainy day is good they would be making a subjective statement, same as if they said a rainy day is bad. I am not arguing that a Volvo isn't a car, I am stating that your claim The Volvo is a good car is a subjective statement because the term good is subjective.
 
"Ted Williams was a good hitter" is an objective evaluation of Williams as a hitter based on career stats including, among other data, 2654 hits in 7706 at-bats for a .344 batting average.
This is an objective evaluation of the functional concept "hitter" in the context of the professional sport of baseball. Its contradiction is false on the facts.

No it is a subjective claim he is objectively an above average hitter but the term "good" is subjective
Your problem is you are trying to make the word "good" mean whatever you want at any given time and it doesn't have to mean that to another person. ie it is subjective.
You did the same with your failed broken watch analogy.
 
No they are subjective anyone can say the exact opposite in fact when it comes to Volvos I would definitely never say they are good cars.


Perhaps you dont know what subjective/objective means I have put the definitions out there for you before.


Agreed. But that isn't what I am saying and you know it. We are talking about the qualifier "good" that you falsely claim is an objective.

If one were to say a rainy day is good they would be making a subjective statement, same as if they said a rainy day is bad. I am not arguing that a Volvo isn't a car, I am stating that your claim The Volvo is a good car is a subjective statement because the term good is subjective.

No it is a subjective claim he is objectively an above average hitter but the term "good" is subjective
Your problem is you are trying to make the word "good" mean whatever you want at any given time and it doesn't have to mean that to another person. ie it is subjective.
You did the same with your failed broken watch analogy.

If you don't know what these words mean, I refuse to carry on a dialogue with a contrarian.



Reproduce the criteria laid out in this video and let's see if "Ted Williams was a good hitter" is objective or subjective.
My watch analogy did not fail. Only in your subjective biased opinion did it fail.
 
Back
Top Bottom