Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 291
  1. #121
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    God by definition is omnipotent so that's supported. And since in the scenario, if God wanted me to know, I would know so that is supported as well.
    How did you determine in that scenario that you weren't experiencing a delusion, or that the devil wasn't tricking you?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are asking me to support that either of these things did happen, I'm not saying they actually did. It's a hypothetical scenario.
    And in the hypothetical scenario, how would you have supported that these things happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see the relevance of that question.
    You claim that the round-earther knows that the earth is round in your scenario. I'm asking you how he knows. Otherwise, it's just that he claims to know in the scenario, but doesn't actually know.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    While it is possible for having bad information inadvertently lead to an advantage, generally speaking correct information is better so generally speaking, the round-earthers have the advantage.
    But again, if the information is not substantiated, there's no demonstration for either the round or flat guys that the advantage is a result of the information. It's easy for us now to say that of course he was better off because he was right. But that's now, and only after his belief has been confirmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which in no way rebuts my point that the round earther has the actual advantage due to the fact that his information is better.
    You're missing the point. We know now that he had an actual advantage. But with the morality question, we're all in the same boat as either round or flat-earthers without substantiation. So at this point, there's effectively no advantage since we can't know which one is correct. After it is confirmed, the people of the future will be able to look back on us and say which one clearly had the advantage. So all you're saying at this point is that either side could have the advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Doesn't matter. If this is to be an analogy of someone believing in objective morality and objective morality being correct, then in this scenario I have to know that the money is in my account regardless of whether I confirm it or not.
    It does matter. Without support for how you could know in the scenario, then the scenario breaks down. Otherwise, all you can claim in this scenario is that you believed the money was in your account.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's irrelevant to whether my point is correct or not. If one has accurate information that others don't have, they have the advantage over them. How they go that information does not effect whether they have the advantage or not.
    Again, your point is pointless until the correct information is confirmed to be the cause of their advantage. Also, it's only after the information is confirmed as correct that you could even say that they have an advantage, otherwise, you can't differentiate between them having an advantage and just being lucky.
    Further, as pointed out by Belthazor, the subjective moralists could possibly garner the same advantages even though they don't believe in the correct morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if God whispers in one's ear and tells them something that is true and they believe that it's true but no one else believes it, they have an advantage over everyone else.
    This is little more than a tautology. If one person is right and everyone else is wrong, then he has the advantage of being right while everyone else is wrong.

  2. #122
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How did you determine in that scenario that you weren't experiencing a delusion, or that the devil wasn't tricking you?
    Because that is not the scenario. God is omnipotent so he has the power to make sure that I would know that it's him.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And in the hypothetical scenario, how would you have supported that these things happened?
    You mean provided evidence that would convince someone else that it happened? That issue is irrelevant to the scenario. You might as well ask what I was wearing when it happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You claim that the round-earther knows that the earth is round in your scenario. I'm asking you how he knows. Otherwise, it's just that he claims to know in the scenario, but doesn't actually know.
    You can't rebut my analogy by changing it into something else. In the analogy, he knows.

    Do you understand using hypothetical situations for analogies. When those are used, one accepts whatever is presented in the hypothetical as true. If you don't do that, then you aren't addressing the hypothetical and therefore not addressing the argument.

    So again, in the analogy a guy knows something that nobody else does and such a scenario gives him an advantage.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    But again, if the information is not substantiated, there's no demonstration for either the round or flat guys that the advantage is a result of the information. It's easy for us now to say that of course he was better off because he was right. But that's now, and only after his belief has been confirmed.
    One does not need confirmation in order to take positive advantage of information. Let's say that there was a shipping company that was preparing to try to ship to other areas of the world and were looking for investors. The fact that this guy knows that Earth is round gives him an advantage on whether to invest or not. He better knows that the business will be successful than those who won't invest because they think that the some of the ships might fall off the world.

    In short, having accurate information gives one an advantage. Whether one can convince others that it's accurate or confirm it somehow doesn't really change that - in fact, in the above scenario the fewer people that know the better for his investment.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You're missing the point. We know now that he had an actual advantage. But with the morality question, we're all in the same boat as either round or flat-earthers without substantiation. So at this point, there's effectively no advantage since we can't know which one is correct. After it is confirmed, the people of the future will be able to look back on us and say which one clearly had the advantage. So all you're saying at this point is that either side could have the advantage.
    No. Let's say, for example, that it's an objective fact that if you don't believe in God you are going to Hell. We can't confirm that this is true, but if it is true and the Christians know it, then they have an advantage that you don't.

    I don't think I was addressing your analogy quite right before so I'm going to start again. Here's your conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The point is, until you check your balance, you have no way of actually knowing whether what you just experienced was real, or whether it's true that you have $1M. So walking around thinking that you know you have $1M is pointless and delusional. Sure, after the fact, you can say you knew you had $1M, but even then, the value comes from the confirmation of it, not the mere fact that you believed something that was actually true.
    No, the value of the $1M comes from the objective fact that it's there and the fact that I objectively know that it's there (for I won't spend it until I know it's there). So that would be the analogy for objective morality.

    A subjective moralist would say that there is no $1M so it's delusional to try to spend it.

    So which is right? It depends on whether there really is $1M or not. So again, whichever is correct is superior to the other.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is little more than a tautology. If one person is right and everyone else is wrong, then he has the advantage of being right while everyone else is wrong.
    And that's true. Right? Isn't it an advantage to know something that no one else does?

    --------------------------------------

    But I think we might be arguing at bit. I think you are, at least in part, presenting a position that doesn't really address my argument and likewise by me trying to keep you on track with my argument, I'm not really addressing some of your points. So while I will maintain that my points stand, I will probably let you take the debate in the direction you are seeking to take it. I might make some new rebuttals to your points to address them better down here but I don't have time right now so I will probably do so in my next post assuming you respond before I get around to my addition to this post.
    Last edited by mican333; July 13th, 2017 at 01:04 PM.

  3. #123
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Do you understand using hypothetical situations for analogies. When those are used, one accepts whatever is presented in the hypothetical as true. If you don't do that, then you aren't addressing the hypothetical and therefore not addressing the argument.
    Then I don't accept your analogy, since I find it highly irrational. You can't just say "they know" and expect the analogy to work without explaining how they would know within the analogy if that's not entirely clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    One does need confirmation in order to take positive advantage of information. Let's say that there was a shipping company that was preparing to try to ship to other areas of the world and were looking for investors. The fact that this guy knows that Earth is round gives him an advantage on whether to invest or not. He better knows that the business will be successful than those who won't invest because they think that the some of the ships might fall off the world.
    This analogy only makes sense if you provide an explanation for how the guy knows vs. merely believes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. Let's say, for example, that it's an objective fact that if you don't believe in God you are going to Hell. We can't confirm that this is true, but if it is true and the Christians know it, then they have an advantage that you don't.
    Yet another pointless tautology. If the Christians know how to not go to hell then they're able to not go to hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, the value of the $1M comes from the objective fact that it's there and the fact that I objectively know that it's there (for I won't spend it until I know it's there). So that would be the analogy for objective morality.
    How did you get from having the experience with the homeles guru to objectively knowing the money is there? You see, mere belief is not enough for your conclusion to pass muster.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    A subjective moralist would say that there is no $1M so it's delusional to try to spend it.
    Subjective vs. objective morality isn't what this analogy is about, it's about the justification we have for believing something before we have confirmation (believing in an objective source of morality), and the value of believing it anyway. We're talking about simply the state of right after the experience before getting to the ATM, since that's the state we find ourselves in regarding morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that's true. Right? Isn't it an advantage to know something that no one else does?
    You're positing this hypothetical as if all that's required is "to know something that no one else does". Again, pointless tautologies aside, there's somewhat more to what you're describing as knowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I think we might be arguing at bit. I think you are, at least in part, presenting a position that doesn't really address my argument and likewise by me trying to keep you on track with my argument, I'm not really addressing some of your points. So while I will maintain that my points stand, I will probably let you take the debate in the direction you are seeking to take it. I might make some new rebuttals to your points to address them better down here but I don't have time right now so I will probably do so in my next post assuming you respond before I get around to my addition to this post.
    I already explained why the OP is pointless in post 10. Your response was that you "don't think debating the actual source of morality is inherently uninteresting", but seem intent on avoiding any actual discussion about the actual source of morality.

    Let's face it: a human source of morality exists and we use it everyday. Whether an objective source exists, or could even exist for that matter, is a big question mark. That question mark, that IF, is basically all your OP boils down to, since, according to how you have defined your terms, this is the single factor that determines which of the OP's two moralities are correct and, as a result, superior.

    Our own moral systems are all we have currently. Some of them claim to be based on external objective sources, but this objectivity has not been demonstrated.
    Even if we were able to demonstrate an external moral source in the form of a deity, we could still potentially have issues with its morality based on the core goals and values we uphold as a society being in conflict with those of the source, since we've been operating with moral systems based on those goals for millennia. Indeed, the existence of an objective source would not discount the established use and existence of our current moral systems. There is also the issue of subjective access to, interpretation of, and implementation of that objective source. So in reality the only thing objective moralists could possibly be right about in that situation is that the objective source existed objectively. In everything else it would remain subjective morality.

    You repeatedly presented yourself as an agnostic on this site, but based on how you've framed your OP and the noticeable bias you've showed for presenting the "we don't know either way/50-50" principle almost exclusively in terms of "if God gave the truth about objective morality it would be superior, right?" instead of equally between the two available options, it seems like you're actually a theist. Is that true?

  4. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Sorry my responses are sooo limited per day, you guys seem to be doing fine in my absence though....


    But back to the Op, and which of these systems is "superior". And again I am saying that objective morality could be, but we (Mican and I) have shown that it isn't necessarily so. Clearly, we have shown that it could be better, the same, or worse than subjective morality.

    So which is "superior"?....
    Whichever does the most good seems like a great place to start??? (since this whole conversation is hypothetical {as in we may be living in either of those moralities since nobody knows for sure} I don't see the point in arguing if one or the other is possible, we are granting they both are possible for the sake of conversation)



    (perhaps this question is off topic, but it seems many of the comments are, so WTH,
    If aliens were to visit earth, gathered up a million people and said "if humans willingly give one baby to them, they will let everyone go (except the baby of course). If they don't get a baby willingly, then all million people will be killed (this assume the aliens have vastly greater power than humans). Is it moral to give the baby to them? How would subjective morality handle this vs objective morality?)

  5. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then I don't accept your analogy, since I find it highly irrational. You can't just say "they know" and expect the analogy to work without explaining how they would know within the analogy if that's not entirely clear.
    Why not? It seems that your criteria for rejecting the analogy is pretty arbitrary. The only valid reason to reject an analogy is if it fails to be an appropriate analogy for the topic (which it isn't) or the analogy is impossible (and you have not shown that it isn't). Rejecting it for not supply enough detail on the scenario for your liking is not a valid reason for rejection. Just pick any reason for why someone would know and that will suffice.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This analogy only makes sense if you provide an explanation for how the guy knows vs. merely believes.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the analogy only makes sense if I provide an explanation on how the guy knows. Nowadays people know the Earth is round so it's not exactly an unrealistic scenario to have someone in my hypothetical know. Your reasoning for rejection does not make much sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yet another pointless tautology. If the Christians know how to not go to hell then they're able to not go to hell.
    But that's not a rebuttal to my assertion that if the Christians are correct that nonbelievers go to Hell, they have an advantage over those who don't believe as they do. So


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Subjective vs. objective morality isn't what this analogy is about, it's about the justification we have for believing something before we have confirmation (believing in an objective source of morality), and the value of believing it anyway. We're talking about simply the state of right after the experience before getting to the ATM, since that's the state we find ourselves in regarding morality.
    Sorry. I mistook this for a rebuttal of my argument.

    But then first person experience of any kind is proper evidence of belief in something even if one can't support it to someone else. As an analogy, if one does not believe in aliens and then one day they are abducted by aliens and fly around in a spaceship and then are dropped off back at home with no witnesses of their abduction and return nor any physical evidence that they were on the ship, then all they have is what they experienced. In that situation, they are still completely justified in believing that aliens exist. They still can't support that aliens exist to anyone who doubts them, but they are still justified in knowing that aliens exist.

    And the same goes for God. If God contacts someone and the experience is vivid enough for a person to be convinced, then it's rational for them to be convinced. And if the experience is real, then they know something that is true that others don't know. As far as how God can make sure that one knows it's God, God is omnipotent so he could make one more certain of his existence than their own existence if he wanted to.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You're positing this hypothetical as if all that's required is "to know something that no one else does". Again, pointless tautologies aside, there's somewhat more to what you're describing as knowing.

    I already explained why the OP is pointless in post 10. Your response was that you "don't think debating the actual source of morality is inherently uninteresting", but seem intent on avoiding any actual discussion about the actual source of morality.
    Only because I don't know what the source actually is. If one wants to argue that morality is indeed objective or indeed subjective, feel free to make your argument. I don't forbid it - I'm just not going to start it because "I don't know" isn't much of a starting point.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Let's face it: a human source of morality exists and we use it everyday. Whether an objective source exists, or could even exist for that matter, is a big question mark. That question mark, that IF, is basically all your OP boils down to, since, according to how you have defined your terms, this is the single factor that determines which of the OP's two moralities are correct and, as a result, superior.

    Our own moral systems are all we have currently.
    How do you know that? Do you know that our moral systems are not ultimately rooted in the objective morality of an external being? I'm not saying that that is the case but if one is going to claim that that is not the case, they will need to provide support that it is


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Some of them claim to be based on external objective sources, but this objectivity has not been demonstrated.
    Which doesn't mean that they are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Even if we were able to demonstrate an external moral source in the form of a deity, we could still potentially have issues with its morality based on the core goals and values we uphold as a society being in conflict with those of the source, since we've been operating with moral systems based on those goals for millennia. Indeed, the existence of an objective source would not discount the established use and existence of our current moral systems. There is also the issue of subjective access to, interpretation of, and implementation of that objective source. So in reality the only thing objective moralists could possibly be right about in that situation is that the objective source existed objectively.
    There are other things that they could be right about.
    1. They could be right about which moral positions are objectively correct.
    2. They could be right that we are objectively required to adhere to a particular moral position (if it's an objective moral that we are not to kill each other, then we can't kill and stay true to the correct objective moral viewpoint).
    3. They can be right about the consequences of violating objective morals.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You repeatedly presented yourself as an agnostic on this site, but based on how you've framed your OP and the noticeable bias you've showed for presenting the "we don't know either way/50-50" principle almost exclusively in terms of "if God gave the truth about objective morality it would be superior, right?" instead of equally between the two available options, it seems like you're actually a theist. Is that true?
    My personal views are irrelevant to my arguments as I am free to argue against whatever I believe.

    And the reason that my arguments may appear pro-theistic is because I'm debating someone (you) who is arguing from the anti-theistic perspective. If you read my responses to PGA2, who is clearly a theist, you would get the impression that I'm anti-theistic.

    So let me make myself clear. If morality is subjective (and I have never claimed that it isn't), then subjective morality is superior to objective morality. For then we are comparing the true source of morality (human beings) to a source that doesn't even exist.
    Last edited by mican333; July 13th, 2017 at 07:10 PM.

  6. #126
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Sure, whatever dude. It's clear that there's nothing more to say about an OP when I can literally repeat your assertion back to you, and your only response is to say, "but that's not a rebuttal to my assertion".

    It's also clear to me at this point that you really are a theist based how you responded to my question. Of course, you're right when you say, "my personal views are irrelevant to my arguments as I am free to argue against whatever I believe".
    I didn't say that your personal views were relevant to your arguments.
    You'll find it's usually the case that one's personal views are irrelevant to the arguments they make when one's personal views don't align with the arguments they make.

  7. #127
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Sure, whatever dude. It's clear that there's nothing more to say about an OP when I can literally repeat your assertion back to you, and your only response is to say, "but that's not a rebuttal to my assertion".
    Because just repeating my assertions does not rebut them.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It's also clear to me at this point that you really are a theist based how you responded to my question. Of course, you're right when you say, "my personal views are irrelevant to my arguments as I am free to argue against whatever I believe".
    I didn't say that your personal views were relevant to your arguments.
    You'll find it's usually the case that one's personal views are irrelevant to the arguments they make when one's personal views don't align with the arguments they make.
    The reason I appear to be taking the theist side is because I'm debating an atheist. And when I'm debating a theist, my argument appear to take on the atheist side. Seriously, read my responses to PGA2 who is definitely a theist. Do my responses to him look like the responses of a theist?

    And even more to the point, it doesn't matter what my actual beliefs are when it comes to my arguments. Using one's personal characteristics against them in an argument is to engage in the Ad Hom fallacy. My argument's strength and weaknesses have nothing more to do with my theistic belief than they have to do with my height.

  8. #128
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because just repeating my assertions does not rebut them.
    I did not claim that it was a rebuttal, did i? But thanks for the FYI - good to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And even more to the point, it doesn't matter what my actual beliefs are when it comes to my arguments. Using one's personal characteristics against them in an argument is to engage in the Ad Hom fallacy.
    Sigh... chill out, dude. You win your pointless OP.
    Anyway, why are you now accusing me of Ad Hominem? You said yourself that your personal views are irrelevant to the discussion, and I agreed with you. How is that against you in the argument? Please enlighten me.

  9. #129
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I did not claim that it was a rebuttal, did i? But thanks for the FYI - good to know.
    I was under the impression that you were debating me and therefore responses to my arguments were meant to show that my arguments were wrong somehow. I guess I assumed relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Sigh... chill out, dude. You win your pointless OP.
    Anyway, why are you now accusing me of Ad Hominem? You said yourself that your personal views are irrelevant to the discussion, and I agreed with you. How is that against you in the argument? Please enlighten me.
    I guess I was assuming relevance again.

    Do you have anything to debate here?

  10. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I guess I was assuming relevance again.
    The question wasn't about relevance. The question was about Ad Hominem, which is a completely separate matter, and grants/implies irrelevance.
    Re-cap:
    1. I asked you whether you are a theist.
    2. You replied that it's irrelevant.
    3. I agreed.
    4. You then accused me of Ad Hominem by saying, "Using one's personal characteristics against them in an argument is to engage in the Ad Hom fallacy."
    5. I asked you to explain how asking what we both agreed is an irrelevant question is the same as using an irrelevant personal characteristic against you (Ad Hominem).

    Please explain how I attempted to use your irrelevant personal characteristic against you by asking you what that characteristic was, because it seems as though you're projecting something which hasn't been established.

  11. #131
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The question wasn't about relevance. The question was about Ad Hominem, which is a completely separate matter, and grants/implies irrelevance.
    Re-cap:
    1. I asked you whether you are a theist.
    2. You replied that it's irrelevant.
    3. I agreed.
    4. You then accused me of Ad Hominem by saying, "Using one's personal characteristics against them in an argument is to engage in the Ad Hom fallacy."
    5. I asked you to explain how asking what we both agreed is an irrelevant question is the same as using an irrelevant personal characteristic against you (Ad Hominem).

    Please explain how I attempted to use your irrelevant personal characteristic against you by asking you what that characteristic was, because it seems as though you're projecting something which hasn't been established.
    I didn't claim that you were attempting to use my personal characteristic against me. I'm pointing out that bringing up my personal characteristics is irrelevant to the debate so there's no point in bringing them up. There's no way that the issue will help an argument since attempting to use it would be to engage in an Ad Hom fallacy.

    So my point is that whether I am or am not a theist is irrelevant to the debate.
    Last edited by mican333; July 14th, 2017 at 10:39 AM.

  12. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And more to the point, you haven't forwarded the debate for the past three posts and therefore are likely spamming.
    Please, my last two posts were in response to your accusation of Ad Hom, where I was merely attempting to clarify where you were coming from. Also, remember that my previous post was pointing out why your response to the question of why you were accusing me of Ad Hom was invalid. So if you never were actually accusing me of Ad Hom, then why didn't you just say so in post 129 instead of giving the nonsense answer regarding relevance and leading me to again ask for clarification of why you accused me of Ad Hom? And now because of that you're accusing me of spamming. I truly don't understand where you're projecting these from, especially in a thread that isn't remotely about anything so contentious that it would warrant such warnings to refrain from Ad Hom and spamming. It definitely gives your responses a kind of "she doth protest too much" feel, at least those immediately after I asked you whether you are a theist.

    Anyway, I know already said you won your pointless OP, but there are still some issues with it that have been on my mind. So I'll go ahead and post them to appease the anti-spamming gods.
    Your OP states that, whichever is correct is superior. However, your definitions focus more on whether each exists as a source of morality and don't necessarily preclude each other. Please support that they do.
    You previously kind of addressed this by saying, "Do you know that our moral systems are not ultimately rooted in the objective morality of an external being? I'm not saying that that is the case but if one is going to claim that that is not the case, they will need to provide support that it is".
    The support is that the morals coming from the human source have developed over time. Their development shows a direct correlation with the development of humans as we learn more. Other species' morality directly correlates to their societal development.

    And from your post 125:
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There are other things that they could be right about.
    1. They could be right about which moral positions are objectively correct.
    2. They could be right that we are objectively required to adhere to a particular moral position (if it's an objective moral that we are not to kill each other, then we can't kill and stay true to the correct objective moral viewpoint).
    3. They can be right about the consequences of violating objective morals.
    The fact that they could also be wrong about any/all of those things makes any objective source's morality subject to human access/interpretation/implementation.
    Therefore, the only detail in which objective morality could be correct is in the fact that the objective source existed. In all other ways it would be subjective morality.

  13. #133
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    This is the Online Debate Network, not the Online Complaining Network and I don't care to read, much less respond to, a bunch of complaining. So I'm going to respond to just the parts of your post that have some debate to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your OP states that, whichever is correct is superior. However, your definitions focus more on whether each exists as a source of morality and don't necessarily preclude each other. Please support that they do.
    I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here.

    Support what exactly? Please say "Support that..."and then be specific on what you are asking me to support.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You previously kind of addressed this by saying, "Do you know that our moral systems are not ultimately rooted in the objective morality of an external being? I'm not saying that that is the case but if one is going to claim that that is not the case, they will need to provide support that it is".
    The support is that the morals coming from the human source have developed over time. Their development shows a direct correlation with the development of humans as we learn more. Other species' morality directly correlates to their societal development.
    As far as I know. other species don't have morality. And I don't see how your claims support that morality is subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And from your post 125:
    The fact that they could also be wrong about any/all of those things makes any objective source's morality subject to human access/interpretation/implementation.
    Therefore, the only detail in which objective morality could be correct is in the fact that the objective source existed. In all other ways it would be subjective morality.
    But then they can also be wrong that objective morality even exists so I don't see the basis for separating the things one can be wrong about between objective morality existing and any other detail regarding objective morality.

    If God exists and says that murder is objectively immoral and tells someone that it is immoral then that person is correct when he states that murder is objectively immoral. And in that scenario, he couldn't be wrong that murder is objectively immoral. Unless you are going to argue that that scenario is impossible, then it's possible that people can know that murder is objectively immoral.

  14. #134
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The reason I appear to be taking the theist side is because I'm debating an atheist. And when I'm debating a theist, my argument appear to take on the atheist side. Seriously, read my responses to PGA2 who is definitely a theist. Do my responses to him look like the responses of a theist?
    Definitely not a Christian theist who tries to be true to their belief. (^8

    I think I have definitely established that from our brief exchanges.

    So you are playing Devil's Advocate to both positions.

    Do you actually have a position that you believe is right, that you can defend as right?

    (Sorry, I had to ask a question)

    You can't examine a person's beliefs or get to the flaws of a belief system very well without asking questions. It becomes very difficult to pin down, especially when a person is arguing equally for two opposing belief systems. There is no commitment there to one or the other. I have committed to defending one belief system but you can flip-flop between two or many. I identified in my profile that I enjoy Worldview Analysis. If you do not commit to one I can't examine it for flaws to understand its truth claims, yet I am perfectly willing to have someone examine what they believe are flaws in mine.

    Obviously, two opposing beliefs cannot be true. If you can establish that they can then I'm game to your argument.

    Also, do you have a rebuttal for Post # 106?

    Thanks!
    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If God exists and says that murder is objectively immoral and tells someone that it is immoral then that person is correct when he states that murder is objectively immoral. And in that scenario, he couldn't be wrong that murder is objectively immoral. Unless you are going to argue that that scenario is impossible, then it's possible that people can know that murder is objectively immoral.
    True. And I believe I can justify that God exists as most reasonable to believe (a big task), and thus that murder is objectively wrong.

    So, if you want to embark on a test I will provide a link below.

    The claim of a Christian, according to the Bible, is that God (an objective being) has revealed that murder is wrong. I believe the He has established He is the true God most convincingly. Prophecy is the argument for God I use more than any other. When you get into the argument I have not seen a response that makes good sense against it. That could be because not to many people are well enough versed in the Bible to understand the argument, or that they have not been introduced to the argument in all its depth.

    If I can establish the Bible is reasonable/logical to believe because prophecy demonstrates truth in what is prophesied, then when He speaks of morality it is reasonable to believe too, especially if you can't make sense of it with other worldviews.

    I believe that the inability to make sense is the case with any belief system when you push a worldview (excluding Christianity of course, for I contend it has what is necessary to make sense of life's ultimate questions - Matthew 7:24-29) to its core beliefs, those that everything else rides on.

    I briefly explained part of the Preterist argument in the link provided. It centers around the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is the end of the one covenant (end of the age - Matthew 24:3, passing of their heaven and earth - Matthew 5:18, or everything their world was centered around) that so much of the prophecy of the OT is concerned with:

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...misconceptions

    I could set up another thread but I think Mr. Anderson did a good job in introducing the partial Preterist position, even though I favor full Preterism.

    I would have developed his argument more along the lines of Covenant Eschatology, the two covenants that are most prevalent, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. I believe the NT is continually contrasting the two, exploring the fulfillment of the one and the transition to the other (Hebrews 8:13).

    Peter

  15. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This is the Online Debate Network, not the Online Complaining Network and I don't care to read, much less respond to, a bunch of complaining.
    What, so a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves against unwarranted and incorrect accusations? You accused me of using Ad Hom and then of spamming, and I called you on it. In any case, I understand why you don't want to discuss it further, why you removed the spamming accusation, and why you choose to label my refutation of your accusations as "a bunch of complaining". And in such a witty way, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support what exactly? Please say "Support that..."and then be specific on what you are asking me to support.
    Support that they preclude each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as I know. other species don't have morality.
    As far as expressing anything resembling morality at an animals' level, they do (here are some interesting sources: https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_w...ls_have_morals, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...rom-wrong.html) but even if they didn't, the support stands for humans being the source of human morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I don't see how your claims support that morality is subjective.
    It's not a claim that morality is subjective and not objective, since you have not supported that the two preclude each other. It's demonstrating that a human source of morality exists. Whether there is an objective source providing other morality would not change this.


    ====================================


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Definitely not a Christian theist who tries to be true to their belief.
    Careful there, Peter, you're treading into dangerous waters.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    True. And I believe I can justify that God exists as most reasonable to believe (a big task), and thus that murder is objectively wrong.
    Even if you were able to prove that God exists, you'd still need to demonstrate how we could know in that situation that murder is actually objectively wrong. It's still dependant on our subjective experience/interpretation/implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I believe that the inability to make sense is the case with any belief system when you push a worldview (excluding Christianity of course, for I contend it has what is necessary to make sense of life's ultimate questions - Matthew 7:24-29) to its core beliefs, those that everything else rides on.
    This is not the case for morality coming from a human source. We have values and goals, and our moral system is geared towards upholding them.

  16. #136
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Definitely not a Christian theist who tries to be true to their belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Careful there, Peter, you're treading into dangerous waters.
    Christians are called to promote the Good News, not put up roadblocks to it - 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. He is not building on the Christian worldview -Matthew 7:24-29. Christians were called to worship God in Spirit and in TRUTH - John 4:23-24. We should be proved right when we speak because we rightly discern God's word - Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 2:15. So, if he is a Christian he is not living true to his calling. I'm just making that observation. He should give glory to God who is merciful to him. We are called to find out what is true - Philippians 4:8.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    True. And I believe I can justify that God exists as most reasonable to believe (a big task), and thus that murder is objectively wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    Even if you were able to prove that God exists, you'd still need to demonstrate how we could know in that situation that murder is actually objectively wrong. It's still dependant on our subjective experience/interpretation/implementation.
    If God has revealed Himself and if He stated murder is wrong then even if I am subjective in nature I can know murder is wrong because Someone who is objective in nature (knows all things, created all the universe - knows how it works and holds together in every way) has told us. So the question becomes, "Has God revealed Himself?" and "Has God said murder is wrong?"

    I am 100% certain He has and He has given us proof. He has not left us as mere orphans in the universe wondering what it is all about and coming to the conclusion of a nihilist.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I believe that the inability to make sense is the case with any belief system when you push a worldview (excluding Christianity of course, for I contend it has what is necessary to make sense of life's ultimate questions - Matthew 7:24-29) to its core beliefs, those that everything else rides on.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    This is not the case for morality coming from a human source. We have values and goals, and our moral system is geared towards upholding them.
    Why are your values and goals necessary for me to believe them? Why should I believe your values are right? What is your ultimate source for best?

    If morality is relativistic there is nothing to say your views are any BETTER than mine. There is either the ability to push your preference and force me to obey you or I die, or there is not, in which case I push my preference on you instead. This is the message of human history for those who live outside of God's good and just decrees.

    Peter

  17. #137
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What, so a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves against unwarranted and incorrect accusations?
    I did not accuse you of engaging in Ad Hom. You misinterpreted what I was saying and either way I have now stated that you were not engaging in the Ad Hom fallacy so even if you want to continue to interpret my comment as an accusation as Ad Hom, now you can interpret this response as a withdrawal of the charge. And us arguing about each other does not forward the debate and is spam.

    Again, I'm not here to argue over this kind of stuff. I'm here to debate. So hopefully now that I've said that you were not engaging in that fallacy, you are willing to drop this.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Support that they preclude each other.
    I don't believe I claimed that they preclude each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As far as expressing anything resembling morality at an animals' level, they do (here are some interesting sources: https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_w...ls_have_morals, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...rom-wrong.html) but even if they didn't, the support stands for humans being the source of human morality.
    First off, a link to support is not support. You need to paste the actual content of the link's support to your post.

    I don't see what support you are referring to for humans being the source of morality so I'm going to offer a challenge of support.

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that humans are the source of morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It's not a claim that morality is subjective and not objective, since you have not supported that the two preclude each other. It's demonstrating that a human source of morality exists. Whether there is an objective source providing other morality would not change this.
    But if the objective source exists, it is superior to human-created morality.

    With objective morality, morals are facts in the same way that the shape of the Earth is a fact.

    So to continue with that analogy, when it comes to the shape of the Earth, the claim that it's a fact that the Earth is round is a superior claim to the claim that it's an opinion that the Earth is of a particular shape. And likewise if it's a moral fact that Murder is immoral, "Murder is, for a fact, immoral" is a superior claim to "It's up to human opinion if murder is immoral".

    And to be clear, if morality is subjective, then "It's up to human opinion if murder is immoral" is superior to "Murder is, for a fact, immoral".

    Per the OP, whichever form of morality that is correct is superior.



    ---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    First, I only support one religious view as being true to what is. Other religious view, I contend, are man-made attempts to fashion God in their image and likeness instead of the other way around.

    Second, obviously, someone is wrong. For an objective belief you have to have it fixed on the revelation of an necessary objective being. If you have the wrong being you have the wrong morality. If you misinterpret His revelation you have the wrong morality. If you do not have a necessary being anything is possible. If anything is possible you can't make sense of anything. It loses its identity; it has none.

    Let's use a Law of Identity example. A = A. (A dog is a dog)

    Picture two boxes, A + B. A is the smaller box. It fits within the bigger box. A is not B. B is the greater box that Box A box fits inside. B is everything else besides Box A. Put another way, B is everything that disagrees with A.
    But then what is A? Every claim regarding morality say that THEY have the correct A, even atheism. An atheistic view of morality does not say "anything goes". If there is no God then morality is just a by-product of natural selection, as in it's something that helps humans survive (which is clearly does when it comes to a species that relies on cooperation for survival).

    And more to the point, you have NEVER rebutted my argument.

    Of course we agree that if morality is objective, then objective morality is superior to subjective morality.

    But I also hold that if morality is subjective, then subjective morality is superior to objective morality because objective morality does not even exist. And you have never rebutted that position and therefore you've never rebutted my argument.

    All of your arguments assumes that morality is objective and therefore do not address the "what if" regarding morality actually being subjective which is required if one is to rebut the second part of my argument.

    ---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Definitely not a Christian theist who tries to be true to their belief. (^8

    I think I have definitely established that from our brief exchanges.

    So you are playing Devil's Advocate to both positions.
    I'm playing the agnostic. And while you seem to be critical of that position, I think there is only one logical response to not knowing certain answers - admit you don't know them. What else can one do? Make up an answer that has no evidence and use that as your answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Do you actually have a position that you believe is right, that you can defend as right?
    I can defend agnosticism by pointing out that no one has ever proven that God does or does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The claim of a Christian, according to the Bible, is that God (an objective being) has revealed that murder is wrong. I believe the He has established He is the true God most convincingly. Prophecy is the argument for God I use more than any other.
    But if you are going to argue that God does exist, you need to provide evidence that will convince those who aren't already convinced as you are. Until you do, you have no supported that the Christian God exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If I can establish the Bible is reasonable/logical to believe because prophecy demonstrates truth in what is prophesied, then when He speaks of morality it is reasonable to believe too, especially if you can't make sense of it with other worldviews.
    Accurate prophecy only establishes foresight. Foresight, even supernatural foresight, does not prove that there's a God. If we allow for the supernatural (which we must if we hold that accurate prophecy exists), then there are a practically endless number of ways that one can have accurate foresight. For example, if the supernatural can happen, then a sorcerer can cast a spell that allows him to see the future and he can present that without being God. Or maybe aliens or a secret advanced civilizations develop the means to look into the future.

    And that even assumes that the prophecies are all that accurate and specific. One can certainly read a lot into vague prophecies to make them seem accurate.

    You seem to be explaining why you are convinced but you aren't presenting any reason for someone else to be convinced.
    Last edited by mican333; July 17th, 2017 at 11:41 AM.

  18. #138
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    [QUOTE=mican333;555125]
    But if the objective source exists, it is superior to human-created morality.

    With objective morality, morals are facts in the same way that the shape of the Earth is a fact.





    And this is where we disagree. You haven't supported fully why this is so. You stated that any entity that had sufficient power to create life and a universe would be the objective moral source for that universe. I realize theists believe this entity would be all good and just, but why is this necessarily so? Is there some reason that an entity with "vast "powers" is required to be "all good" that I am unaware of?
    If the "devil" (as commonly defined by Christians) for instance, had this power, he/she would be the objective moral source for that universe. A less than desirable situation one would think.


    Also unrelated to the Op (but since IMHO, most of the responses thus far have been as well), I see no reason to have to justify you arguing as agnostic (no matter your personal beliefs). This is a debate site, not life. We come here (hopefully) to learn.
    Try arguing against what you believe for a change. It may open your eyes to unlearned truths, as in, who among us knows all? If you don't know "all", then you are wrong about some things. Seek out the things you are wrong about. Of course share the things you are right about with others (knowing you are wrong sometimes, and keep an open mind).

    Personally, I can see the argument for a "higher power" of some sort, but the Christian, Muslim, Jewish version is a high, bar that has been set so high, I doubt it can be reached. Generally you have to suspend logic for a time (eg: one supreme God of the universe that is made up of "three distinct individuals" that are, separate and one all at the same time. And we call this "monotheism". How is this different than a married bachelor or square circle?).

    (Let the spankings begin, as I am expecting hate mail for this post/position
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 17th, 2017 at 05:13 PM.

  19. #139
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't believe I claimed that they preclude each other.
    Then even if an objective source is demonstrated, it would not negate the existence of the human sources of morality, or its use/implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, a link to support is not support. You need to paste the actual content of the link's support to your post.
    One link is to a video, but here is an excerpt from the transcript (https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_w...s/transcript):
    I believe there's an evolved morality. I think morality is much more than what I've been talking about, but it would be impossible without these ingredients that we find in other primates, which are empathy and consolation, pro-social tendencies and reciprocity and a sense of fairness. And so we work on these particular issues to see if we can create a morality from the bottom up, so to speak, without necessarily god and religion involved, and to see how we can get to an evolved morality.
    And from the Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...m-wrong.html):
    The belief that humans have morality and animals don't is a long-standing assumption, but there is a growing amount of evidence that is showing us that this simply cannot be the case. Just as in humans, the moral nuances of a particular culture or group will be different from another, but they are certainly there. Moral codes are species specific, so they can be difficult to compare with each other or with humans.
    Human morality was not formed from scratch, but grew out of our primate psychology. Primate psychology has ancient roots, and I agree that other animals show many of the same tendencies and have an intense sociality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see what support you are referring to for humans being the source of morality
    Again, humans aren’t “the source of morality”, they’re the source of the morality of which they are the source, and there is no question about this in the scientific community. Whether there are or may be other sources of other kinds of morality is another question altogether. The support that humans are the source of human morality is that the morals coming from the human source have developed over time. Their development shows a direct correlation with the development of humans as we learn more. Other species' morality directly correlates to their societal development. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality):
    The evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior and not much thought is given to the social conducts of other creatures. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have argued that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if the objective source exists, it is superior to human-created morality. With objective morality, morals are facts in the same way that the shape of the Earth is a fact.
    This is not supported. Please demonstrate why the existence of an objective source would mean that any morality it forwards would be anything more than moral pronouncements. Sure, it would be a fact that the source said something about morals, but you have not supported how you get from there to “the morals are facts”.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And to be clear, if morality is subjective
    They don’t preclude each other, to which you agreed. So your statement of “if morality is subjective” makes no sense. Since they don’t preclude each other, it’s not “morality is subjective” or “morality is objective”, it’s “this morality (from a subjective source) is subjective” or “this morality (from an objective source) is objective”. You keep talking about morality itself as though it’s either subjective or objective, when you have not supported that this is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Per the OP, whichever form of morality that is correct is superior.
    Since they don’t preclude each other, this statement is irrational. So far we’ve established that human morality (from human sources) exists, and that it’s maybe possible that there exists an objective moral source which forwards its own morals.
    Last edited by futureboy; July 18th, 2017 at 06:21 AM.

  20. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  21. #140
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    First, I only support one religious view as being true to what is. Other religious view, I contend, are man-made attempts to fashion God in their image and likeness instead of the other way around.

    Second, obviously, someone is wrong. For an objective belief you have to have it fixed on the revelation of an necessary objective being. If you have the wrong being you have the wrong morality. If you misinterpret His revelation you have the wrong morality. If you do not have a necessary being anything is possible. If anything is possible you can't make sense of anything. It loses its identity; it has none.

    Let's use a Law of Identity example. A = A. (A dog is a dog)

    Picture two boxes, A + B. A is the smaller box. It fits within the bigger box. A is not B. B is the greater box that Box A box fits inside. B is everything else besides Box A. Put another way, B is everything that disagrees with A.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But then what is A?
    Whatever label/value is the identity of A. If Box A is a dog, then everything that is "dog" (Beagle, Dachshund, Golden Retriever, Great Dane) fits in Box A. If Box A is Good, then everything Good fits in the box and everything outside the box is everything else. You can't put something that is not its identity into Box A without having a logical conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    [1]Every claim regarding morality say that THEY have the correct A, even atheism. An atheistic view of morality does not say "anything goes". If there is no God then morality is just a by-product of natural selection, as in it's something that helps humans survive (which is clearly does when it comes to a species that relies on cooperation for survival).
    [1] Then every claim cannot logically be right. That is the downfall of your agnostic position.

    If I said to you "A dog is a cat" you would think I have a screw loose, but this is the very thing relativists do with subjective morality. One person puts a dog into the dog box (Box A) then another comes along and puts a cat into it, then a mouse and a snake and calls them all dog. This is exactly what happens with subjective morality. You have people giving all kinds of identities to A that do not fit in Box A because they are exact opposites of what A really is. Just because you prefer to call something A does not make it so unless it is A.

    Preference is a "man is the measure of all things" philosophy. Truth is whatever one makes it to be, everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else, so there can be no "better."

    In Plato's Theaetetus, Socrates (discussing knowledge) asks:

    "How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know the nature of it?"

    Theaet. says: "...Now he who knows perceives what he knows, and, as far as I can see at present, knowledge is perception."

    http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html

    The heart of the problem is that you perceive A = Good, I perceive A = Evil. One of us is wrong. It can't be both "Good" and still be logical.

    As for your claim that morality is a by-product of natural selection, there is no reason why evolution would protect one view over the other. You manufacture that view. Evolution is not a "whatever works" pragmatic approach. It is random, blind, uncaring, whatever survives. "Natural Selection" is another one of those fancy phrases that gives human features to blind indifferent happenstance. There is no SELECTING there. Whatever survives is "superior" to that which is exterminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And more to the point, you have NEVER rebutted my argument.
    I believe I have, most definitely. It was answered on the impossibility of your position, how A loses its identity. There is no logical consistency to changing values. There is no fixed value for A. It keeps changing based on preference. To have "good" you must truly know what is best or else good can be compared to anything. There is no such thing as best that is not arbitrary with your worldview. It can't explain best. It does not have what is necessary.

    Show me the money, Mican!

    1) Logically, you position does not hold up. "A" means anything.
    2) Philosophically, your position does not hold up. There is nothing to compare goodness to, no ideal, that is not arbitrarily made-up by preference. It begs the question of why your subjective preference is "Better" than my subjective preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Of course we agree that if morality is objective, then objective morality is superior to subjective morality.

    But I also hold that if morality is subjective, then subjective morality is superior to objective morality because objective morality does not even exist. And you have never rebutted that position and therefore you've never rebutted my argument.

    All of your arguments assumes that morality is objective and therefore do not address the "what if" regarding morality actually being subjective which is required if one is to rebut the second part of my argument.
    Your argument assumes that subjective morality is possible.

    Subjective morality meaning whatever you (whoever) decides to give it. You don't make something true or false because you affirm or deny it. It has that distinction in and of itself. It either is what you call it or it is not. It can't be both what you call it and not what you call it without losing its identity. There either is something that is true or there is not. Truth or falsity does not depend upon what we think but what is. It doesn't become true just because we want it to be, because it is our preference. It is true if it meets the identity of truth. Again, another reason why God is necessary to make sense of anything, to give anything ultimate meaning. Meaning doesn't come from an amoral universe. It does not have the means (intentionality) for meaning.

    Peter

 

 
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Objective Morality and atheism
    By CliveStaples in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: September 16th, 2012, 02:36 PM
  2. Is God Necessary for Objective Morality?
    By estill in forum Religion
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
  3. Objective morality is effectively useless
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 06:59 AM
  4. Subjective Morality Is Pointless
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: September 7th, 2011, 07:00 PM
  5. Subjective Morality
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 07:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •