mpg
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 7,795
- Reaction score
- 1,784
- Location
- Milford, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I don't believe in God, but it wouldn't bother me if someone did that. This poll really isn't intended to be a debate. I just wanna know what people think."Core values"? From what source, your heart? May as well invoke God and be done with it.
What I feel and think doesn't matter with respect to proving a universal morality. Even what you and I can agree on doesn't matter because we exist in the same time within the same culture and are undoubtedly biased by it. A universal morality would have to encompass all of human history and I don't believe any one morality can do that.I don't believe in God, but it wouldn't bother me if someone did that. This poll really isn't intended to be a debate. I just wanna know what people think.
Let me ask you something. Do you feel that rape is immoral? If you do, imagine that you were never born and every single person on Earth felt that it was moral. Do you feel that rape would be moral in that situation?
It sure "brings us back". As in "chasing our own tails".
"Fairness" is not a "concept". It is amorphous, subjective, about as simple as asking for directions in English in the ancient Babylon, and totally useless as a moral guide.
Which is very "unfair", I agree
Can anyone prove the existence of objective morality? No. Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No. Does that make it wrong to opine about its existence? No.Haven't you ever believed something that you can't prove? Do you have no opinions whatsoever?What I feel and think doesn't matter with respect to proving a universal morality. Even what you and I can agree on doesn't matter because we exist in the same time within the same culture and are undoubtedly biased by it. A universal morality would have to encompass all of human history and I don't believe any one morality can do that.
Hell even a 6 yr old knows what's fair. It's less subjective than any definition of morals.
Hell even a 6 yr old knows what's fair. It's less subjective than any definition of morals.
A 6 yr old perhaps does. (As does that chimpanzee). When we grow up and start thinking as adults, "the knowledge" disappears.
This exact same situation exists in the debate about god's existence. The second half of that statement is just as inane here as it is there. Logically, you can't prove the non-existence of something. As I've told others using this defense, I will not go chasing teapots in orbit.Can anyone prove the existence of objective morality? No. Can anyone prove that it doesn't exist? No. Does that make it wrong to opine about its existence? No.Haven't you ever believed something that you can't prove? Do you have no opinions whatsoever?
We can agree that humans are animals, yes.Do we agree that humans - objectively, universally and distinctively - are sentient, and possess volition and the ability to make choices?
We can agree it's central to morality since morality is an individual's guide for making choices that have no objective and/or logical conclusion.Do we agree that whatever particulars one or the other moral system may embrace, making choices is central to the very notion of morality - and to the very fabric of human experience?
That would depend a great deal on what you consider "harm to other individuals". If your beliefs follow the same as many others I've been having discussions with, then the answer is most likely "no" because we probably disagree on the noted phrase.Do we agree that an individual (a grown, mentally competent adult, at any rate) who is denied his freedom of choice is being wronged, whatever his choices are, if they do no harm to other individuals?
I didn't - there you go.If you answer yes to all three - there you go. Coercion is and always had been morally wrong, ever since the dawn of human sapience.
I would also point out that for a morality to be "objective" it must hold for all societies at all times.
I wouldn't say making decisions is "the very fabric of human experience"..
That would depend a great deal on what you consider "harm to other individuals". If your beliefs follow the same as many others I've been having discussions with, then the answer is most likely "no" because we probably disagree on the noted phrase.
I didn't ask you to chase teapots in orbit. You asked me to.This exact same situation exists in the debate about god's existence. The second half of that statement is just as inane here as it is there. Logically, you can't prove the non-existence of something. As I've told others using this defense, I will not go chasing teapots in orbit.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. That's exactly what I was looking for.I gave my opinion; There is no objective morality.
Incorrect. I've consistently asked for evidence of your positive claim that objective morality exists. If it's truly objective then you should have plenty of objective evidence for it's existence.I didn't ask you to chase teapots in orbit. You asked me to.
Not at all. If resources are limited it may be required for the good of the whole to ration supplies, thereby curtailing freedom of choice. That's just one quick example, there are others.Why?!!!
There's any number of objective truths that are ignored, forgotten, disputed, or never learned by any number of people.
For a morality to be objective it needs one thing: To be invariable within the conditions of human species - independent of subjective, temporary, conditional factors. A morality based on freedom of choice is such.
You're talking to the wrong guy to say animals don't make choices. You can slap whatever label you like on their decision making processes but except for the complexity and memory capacity they seem to be very similar to ours.If you decisions were not your own, how was your life different from a life of a frog driven by instincts, or from existence of a robot driven by a program? Even pure "passive" contemplation requires making decisions - what to focus on, how to relax to be more receptive, etc.
I shouldn't have to "accept" freedom of choice. If it's truly universal then it should be self-evident, no acceptance required. Our disagreement shows that it isn't.Accepting freedom of choice as the basis for morality is not the end of it - it is the beginning. Of course we still need to do a lot of work on derivative rules and particular cases, and even then it will never be perfect. But it will be built around an objective core - as opposed to the moral systems based on authority or current consensus (and as such inherently relativist and fragile).
An interesting program ... Thanks! :thumbs:I hope that helps. If you have 50 spare minutes, that is. :2wave:
Not at all. If resources are limited it may be required for the good of the whole to ration supplies, thereby curtailing freedom of choice. That's just one quick example, there are others.
You're talking to the wrong guy to say animals don't make choices..
I shouldn't have to "accept" freedom of choice. If it's truly universal then it should be self-evident, no acceptance required.
Empathy has NOTHING to do with my example - nor does "getting robbed" :roll: You're so fixated with anti-communism (in the true sense of that word) that you failed to actually read and consider what I wrote.Not for "the good of all" - out of compassion, out of empathy. Yes, of course, we are not going to let children die of hunger, even if it means stealing food from those unwilling to share. Doesn't make theft any more moral.
Empathy has to override morality sometimes. But it cannot replace it. Empathy is a feeling. Morality is a set of rules. See the difference?
Then I'll rephrase it for you. Objective means it can be demonstrated as fact, no belief or acceptance required. If it is not a fact, then it is not objective."Objective" doesn't mean "self-evident". The Earth is objectively orbiting the Sun.
And yes - as long as you are a human being - and not a machine or an instinct-driven animal - your acceptance is required, at every step, at every turn, in every sense.
And again you exclude "instinct-driven animal" which is pretty much what we are. I thought I made my thoughts clear on that already.
as if free men weren't free to choose their own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?