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.

Results 1 to 20 of 291

Threaded View

  1. #17
    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
    Again, you said god forwards moral positions as your definition of objective morality, not as an example of one way that god can forward moral positions.
    I said God forwards moral positions and then gave ONE example of God doing so. You didn't like that example so I provided a different one. I did not say that the example provided was the only possible example.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Let's re-cap:
    You (post #158): So I have supported that objective morality could exist.
    Me (#159): It depends on how you define [objective morality].
    You (#163): I am defining [objective morality] as objectively true.
    Me (#165): This definition is not valid ("objective morality" can't be defined as just an adverb and an adjective).
    You (#166): An objective moral position is one that is objective true.
    Me (#170): So, for the record, you are defining objective morality as positions on morality that are objectively true.

    Do you not see the problem here? You don't even seem to be able to define objective morality coherently to be able to make whatever claims you are trying to make about it.
    But then it would stand to reason that I don't need to as the concept should already familiar to anyone who is reading my post. I mean you aren't saying that I'm wrong here but that you don't understand what I'm saying. So let me repeat what I've already said.

    Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true (whether we can observe that these things are true or not). If you think I'm saying something else, then you don't understand what I'm saying.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You have not supported that they are similar in any way - merely claimed it. Please support that your comparison is valid.
    They are both objectively true (if objective morality exists, that is).


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So you are not defining objective morality as something which exists in the same fashion as a physical planet exists? This is wildly different from your previous definitions, and even less coherent.
    It's not wildly different. I just removed the part that was apparently causing you confusion (being observed). The are similar in that they both actually exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, because it's important that we define things clearly. You've so far attempted to slip your objective morality, whatever it is, into the same category of scientific facts as the physical shape of the Earth, without support for how you have, or one could ever reach that conclusion.
    No I haven't. That's just your misinterpretation of my argument. Again, the problem is not my argument but your failure to comprehend it. YOU are the one who is comparing objective morality to a scientific phenomena. That is not part of my argument at all.

    It's pretty much a red herring.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Oh no, of course not, you're arguing the agnostic position, of course you are.
    I guess that's sarcasm. But either way, nowhere in my argument on this thread do I attempt to argue that God actually exist and if you disagree, then find the argument where I do argue that God actually exists. Since you can't, I will consider this point to be settled.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, since you took it upon yourself to define objective and subjective morality in your OP, I don't buy this.
    In any case, "concerns itself with 'right and wrong'" is not a coherent definition, either.
    Well, it's pretty much what's in the dictionary.

    a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

    So I think I'm done addressing this kind of thing. From my perspective, the OP is coherent and the common person can understand it. I think reasonable requests to clarify something is fine but when one's primary tactic is apparently to claim that they don't understand my argument, I don't feel much obligation to keep on explaining what I mean. When it gets to the point where I use a common dictionary definition for a very common word that ANYONE should already know the definition of and one says that the definition is "incoherent", I would say that attempting to explain my argument further in the hopes of effectively communication it is a lost cause.

    So if you don't understand my argument, I'm sorry. But I've done enough clarifying and explaining. It's time to either provide a rebuttal or move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is not an explanation of how morality can be a fact. Again, what does it mean for god to simply create morality? What is that? Is he creating some nebulous entity which concerns itself with right and wrong, as per your incoherent definition above? What are you talking about?
    I'm sorry you don't understand my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your "create method" is incoherent and ill-defined.
    I'm sorry you don't understand my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The intentionally religulous unicorn example was intended to highlight the fact that neither the unicorn nor the god explanations actually explain anything. That you say it still qualifies as an example proves the point. Both are incoherent, since they both have no explanatory power.
    The word "create" has explanatory power. If you can't understand what "create" means without me providing examples of it, I'm sorry but I'm not going to explain what the word means.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you're basing you entire explanation on the simple definition of "create", the it's still incoherent, because you haven't explained WHAT is being created. You just call it objective morality, don't define what that is, just say it was created, and hope that your position would magically be made clear for you.
    I'm sorry you still don't understand what "objective morality" means. I honestly tried my best to explain it to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In one of your many posts attempting to compare objective moral "facts" with scientific facts, you made the claim that someone who claimed to know the Earth was round before it was a scientific fact that it was would have had some advantage. The point is that in such a situation, before the claim is verified, it would be irrational to hold. So in order to garner some advantage, according to you, requires that a person holds to irrational and incoherent claims. This entirely nullifies any perceived advantage.
    You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that someone who CLAIMED the world was round would have an advantage. I said a person who KNEW the world was round would have an advantage. In my scenario the world is round and the person KNOWS that it's round. That information would give him advantage over all of those who were holding incorrect beliefs. For example, he would know that sailing expeditions will not fall off the edge of the earth, giving him an advantage when it comes to decision to invest in or join such an endeavor.

    And I never compared morals with scientific facts. I never invoked science - that's your red herring, not my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your argument is still completely incoherent, since you have failed to clearly define the terms you are using.
    The "gist", as it stands now, is "if something that we have not defined or know what it is actually exists, then it's superior".
    Nope. My argument assumes that whoever cares to debate it understands what "objective morality" means. But yes, to those who have no idea what it means, my argument is not very coherent.
    Last edited by mican333; August 3rd, 2017 at 06:34 AM.

 

 

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
  •