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 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 291
  1. #181
    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.

  2. #182
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes.





    No there cannot be more than one objective reality existing in this universe. The Earth is either round or flat and it can't be both. If you want to posit that in the far future, the rules of physics can change in such a way that the Earth will go from round to flat, that would be referring to a FUTURE reality and not the realty that currently exists, which is the reality that I'm addressing.

    I am referring to this reality at this time. Referring to different reality and/or a different time is to stray away from my argument.




    Yes I have. I have repeatedly forwarded that what is correct is what is superior. You seem to be ignoring this answer when you say that I have given no reason.



    No I'm not. You've said that before and I've corrected you before. Please address the argument I'm making instead of mistaking my argument.

    I did not argue that a reality is superior.

    I argue that correctness is better than incorrectness. If morality is objective, then an objectively correct moral pronouncement is superior to a subjective moral pronouncement because it's correct. Do you disagree with this? IF so, then present your argument about why I'm wrong about this.




    And that's because that's not my argument nor is it a premise for my argument.
    So only this moment, only this universe, whatever the actual current state of morals is correct/superior.....whatever....

    You also said if this universe is subjective then that would be the superior moral system, but by definition, that can change.

    It seems we have traveled as far as we can at the moment. IMHO, you have not overcome the objections to your Op, hell you haven't even overcome "might makes right" in who gets to decide what is "objective", but I will leave you the last word.

    I will still be watching, as I do find it an interesting subject
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 2nd, 2017 at 07:49 PM.

  3. #183
    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 Belthazor View Post
    So only this moment, only this universe, whatever the actual current state of morals is correct/superior.....whatever....
    That's not my argument at all. I never said that our reality is superior to any other reality. I'm saying that our reality is the topic of discussion so the other realities are not relevant to my argument and therefore cannot be the basis of a valid rebuttal to my argument.

    If we were discussing physics, we would be talking about the physical properties of this universe at this time and not concerning ourselves with alternate universes and hypothetical futures. Likewise, those issues are not relevant the argument I'm forwarding now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You also said if this universe is subjective then that would be the superior moral system, but by definition, that can change.
    In the future maybe but again, that's not what this debate is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    IMHO, you have not overcome the objections to your Op, hell you haven't even overcome "might makes right" in who gets to decide what is "objective", but I will leave you the last word.
    You have not raised a relevant objection to my position so I've had no relevant objections to overcome.

    You have consistently invoked things that are irrelevant to whether, in this reality, objective morality is superior to subjective morality or vice versa.

    Do you have a rebuttal to the notion that if morality is objective at this time in this reality, then in this time and reality objective morality is superior to subjective morality? You certainly have raised no objections to that notion.
    Last edited by mican333; August 3rd, 2017 at 08:39 AM.

  4. #184
    Registered User

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I appreciate your sincere openness.
    As I probe, challenge, and discuss what you are forwarding as "truth", please do not take offense at anything I might say or ask. Sometimes I exchange expediency for eloquence when trying to get my point across.
    I seldom take offense with posts although I realize that some people do get uptight when I challenge their core presuppositions. As a Christian, I believe the Christian message is worth persecution, ridicule, and even death. I hope to have that kind of courage if it ever comes to that.
    The Apostle Paul said the battle is not against flesh and blood (physical) but against philosophies and every pretense that presumes to set itself up against God (Colossians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Yes, I take them as literal human beings. They are included in historical narrative and genealogical lists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I ask because I don't want to waste your time if I argue against something you are not forwarding.

    So I get Adam and Eve are the first two humans that exist. They have children. Now we have two generations of humans.

    Where does the next generation come from??????
    From their offspring.

    Genesis 5:4 (NASB)
    4*Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    In regards to God, I do too, if you come to Him with a sincere heart and don't waiver in your faith and trust. He has promised to reveal Himself (Hebrews 11:6).
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I believe my heart could not be more sincere in my quest
    Then, I pray that God is merciful to you and opens your eyes to the truth!

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    When you are speaking of qualitative values (morals and meaning) I don't see how they mean anything unless you have a fixed (ideal) value by which to measure change and value against. If you don't have that unchanging basis then, morals and meaning becomes arbitrary. They become whatever one makes them (much of the time by force). If you happen to live in a society that has Judeo-Christian values you tend to do okay, but if you live under a tyrannical regime (North Korea is a prime example) your individual freedoms can be quite unbearable. That is when it is reassuring to know that we do have utter accountability for injustices - we all answer to God. In an atheist universe (one that operates under the assumption that ultimately the universe is meaningless), someone may very well get away with what you would see as an injustice because in the end nothing ultimately matters. There may very well be no accountability for someone who tortures innocent babies for fun in an atheist universe (a universe where atheism was a true belief). The inconsistency with the atheist worldview is that many want to make it matter and make it meaningful in the here and now. They borrow from the Christian worldview that says it does ultimately matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I don't see why I would need [1] something that created the universe to tell me murder is wrong. [2] One need only experience it in their own life to understand this. I understand kinda when you say "morals become arbitrary", but the Christian God may not exist (hence faith), so we might be actually living in such a situation where that is true, and yet, we still as a society, hold murder as immoral. And yet, Christians murder. Atheists murder....
    [1] Something that "created the universe" can't tell you anything. A personal being who created the universe can. If the universe was devoid of this ultimate, necessary Being, 1) why is there meaning to be had in the universe? Why would an impersonal, uncaring, meaningless, random chance (because there would be no intentionality), unintelligent, illogical, universe be ABLE to produce and SUSTAIN anything, let alone meaning?

    I liken such a notion to rolling six repeatedly millions and billions of times by random happenstance. It may work in theory but try it in practice.

    If I intentional wanted to roll six repeatedly I could rig the dice so that it rolled onto the same surface, it rotated the same number of turns, with the same weight, and a whole bunch of other factors that made it happen. That is possible. With a meaningless, purposeless universe there is no REASON for sustainability and uniformity of nature - natural laws. Even if you had the vehicle for sustainability, the question still comes up as to what rolls the dice? (Why the universe?) There is no why to it without necessary Being. It just is.

    As I proposed earlier, you either have a universe that is here because of chance happenstance or one that it here because of necessary mindful being intending it to be here.

    Chance is no answer either. Chance is a mathematic probability. It does not have any ability to do anything. Chance is no thing - nothing. People put human qualities to it and ascribe all kinds of things to it.

    The fact that there is meaning in the universe points to a necessary Being since neither you nor I are necessary for meaning. I could not exist, yet you would still find meaning. You and I are not necessary beings; we are contingent beings. Why, in a universe devoid of ultimate meaning is there meaning? My Christian worldview has an answer for that. The Bible says humans are made in the image and likeness of God. We can reason, love, find beauty, find purpose, create, imagine, be conscious of others, and all kinds of other qualities that a rock cannot do and has no ability to do. How, if we derive our origins from rocks dissolving and chemicals mixing in the long distant past? This ideology is just an ASSUMPTION that those who dismiss God make, that consciousness and being can come from something that has neither. As I contended with Mican, it is what an atheistic worldview rests upon, that such qualities that we are speaking of derive their existence from something completely devoid of them. Atheists build a worldview that accompanies their imaginations, yet who knows whether what they believe is true? There is nothing concrete to pin their assumptions to because their worldview is relative. It is built on presuppositions that don't make sense.

    [2] You can experience it but how do you justify it? Why is your SUBJECTIVE, RELATIVE opinion any BETTER than the guy who thinks the opposite of what you do? Is it better because more people think it? You use terms of qualitative values - "good, better, evil" - but there has to be something unchanging by which we measure change by or else anything is possible.

    I also gave what I thought was a logical and reasonable reply to Mican which he avoided. There are self-evident truths, truths that have to be thought of or else nothing makes sense. We call them the "laws of logic."

    1) The Law of Contradiction - A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same manner. Give A value if you want to see this law in operation. A = Dog, or A = Good. A dog cannot be both a dog and a cat at the same time.

    2) The Law of Identity - A = A. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat.

    To put it another way, picture A as a small box. Inside that box is everything that is a dog - Great Danes, Beagles, Poodles, etc.
    Picture a bigger box that surrounds A and that A fits inside. This box is non-A. Everything else in the universe that is not A is in the other box, non-A.

    3) The Law of Excluded Middles - A statement is either true, or it is false, it is either one or the other. A statement has to be either true or false. It can't both be true and false at the same time. A is not B. A dog is not a cat. If A is true then B is false.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It's quite a stretch to say atheists (in general) would condone baby torture. I am not an atheist, but this would still need some serious support.
    I have found that some atheists live better lives than Christians do. The question is how they justify what they believe. I do not see their worldview as able to make sense of morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My question was basically, why should I feel my life is meaningless if the Christian God does not exist. Indeed, I don't understand why anyone would feel this way.
    From an atheistic perspective, you can manufacture meaning, but ultimately it means nothing in a meaningless universe that does not care about anyone or anything. The question is WHY can you produce meaning? Follow the chain back to its beginning and explain how consciousness and values derive from something that has neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So again I posit:
    "whether the Christian God exists or not my life still has meaning"
    How did that meaning originate?

    Peter

  5. #185
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I seldom take offense with posts although I realize that some people do get uptight when I challenge their core presuppositions. As a Christian, I believe the Christian message is worth persecution, ridicule, and even death. I hope to have that kind of courage if it ever comes to that.
    The Apostle Paul said the battle is not against flesh and blood (physical) but against philosophies and every pretense that presumes to set itself up against God (Colossians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5).
    Peter
    I like your attitude!

    ---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=PGA2;555240]From their offspring.

    Genesis 5:4 (NASB)
    4*Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.


    So you are forwarding that Adam had children with his daughters and/or Eve had children with their sons and/or their children had children together?
    And that all of humanity has been produced from these relationships?

    ---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I have found that some atheists live better lives than Christians do. The question is how they justify what they believe. I do not see their worldview as able to make sense of morality.
    If they are living "better", do they really need to "justify" it?
    Who do they need to "justifying" it to ?

    Lot's of this doesn't make sense. Adding God does not clear it all up.
    Sure it answers some questions, but then it asks a whole bunch more.....

    ---------- Post added at 06:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How did that meaning originate?
    It originated when I was born, as with all life.

    I think maybe ALL life has the SAME "meaning". From a bacteria to human and every other form of life that may exist anywhere.

    Whatever your personal values, you have to admit, life is a pretty damn incredible thing!
    What human ever could have imagined such a "thing"
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 4th, 2017 at 07:34 PM.

  6. #186
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's not my argument at all. I never said that our reality is superior to any other reality. I'm saying that our reality is the topic of discussion so the other realities are not relevant to my argument and therefore cannot be the basis of a valid rebuttal to my argument.

    If we were discussing physics, we would be talking about the physical properties of this universe at this time and not concerning ourselves with alternate universes and hypothetical futures. Likewise, those issues are not relevant the argument I'm forwarding now.




    In the future maybe but again, that's not what this debate is about.

    Hmmmm, well if I can only discuss "this universe, at this time, and no other possibilities", then ok, it's "superior" only because it is currently true.
    (I only "invoked things" so we would have something to discuss. As it is, your Op is correct because you have defined it so)

    But "superior" to what?
    You won't allow any other possibilities to compare it to, so by definition, it is indeed "superior" as it is the only choice!

  7. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  8. #187
    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 Belthazor View Post
    Hmmmm, well if I can only discuss "this universe, at this time, and no other possibilities", then ok, it's "superior" only because it is currently true.
    (I only "invoked things" so we would have something to discuss. As it is, your Op is correct because you have defined it so)

    But "superior" to what?
    You won't allow any other possibilities to compare it to, so by definition, it is indeed "superior" as it is the only choice!
    Again, that's not what this debate is about. There is nothing in my argument that forwards, or requires me to forward, that the universe/reality that we are in is superior to anything else. So it's relative superiority is completely off-topic.

    What is being compared is clearly identified in the OP as well as the very title of this thread.

    I'm comparing objective morality and subjective morality and therefore they are the only things that we should be comparing the superiority of.

  9. #188
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the question of this thread is:

    Which is superior - objective morality or subjective morality

    My answer is "Whichever one of them is correct".
    Of course that is not what you are "arguing". What I am saying is what your argument naturally leads us to...

    And you are defining "correct" as whatever the "current state of this universe is at this time". And defining "superior" as whichever is "correct".
    You built in the answer. Given the parameters, of course "its" correct/superior.

  10. #189
    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 Belthazor View Post
    And you are defining "correct" as whatever the "current state of this universe is at this time".
    No. I'm defining "correct" as that belief which accurately aligns with the current state of the universe.

    As an example, in the current state of the universe, the world is round. Saying "it's a fact that the world is round" is a correct, and therefore superior, statement to the alternative statements regarding the shape of the Earth because it's true that the Earth is round. The ONLY way the current state of the universe plays into it is that we have to know what the current state it in order to assess the accuracy of the statement.

    And the same principle applies to the debate at hand - objective vs. subjective morality. They are the ONLY things that we should be assessing the correctness of in terms of this debate.

    The universe itself is not "correct". The universe just is what it is.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2017 at 09:01 AM.

  11. #190
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. I'm defining "correct" as that belief which accurately aligns with the current state of the universe.

    As an example, in the current state of the universe, the world is round. Saying "it's a fact that the world is round" is a correct, and therefore superior, statement to the alternative statements regarding the shape of the Earth because it's true that the Earth is round. The ONLY way the current state of the universe plays into it is that we have to know what the current state it in order to assess the accuracy of the statement.

    And the same principle applies to the debate at hand - objective vs. subjective morality. They are the ONLY things that we should be assessing the correctness of in terms of this debate.

    The universe itself is not "correct". The universe just is what it is.


    So if a person's "belief of the current state of morals in this universes accurately described it, that person's belief's are superior to someone that didn't have an accurate assessment".

    Is this correct?
    (I would rather you quit using physical things for metaphors regarding thoughts. I like metaphors, but things you can see/touch don't compare well to thoughts/ideas)

  12. #191
    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 Belthazor View Post
    So if a person's "belief of the current state of morals in this universes accurately described it, that person's belief's are superior to someone that didn't have an accurate assessment".

    Is this correct?
    I think so. Let me restate it so it says exactly what I mean.

    If a person's belief of the current state of morals in this universe is accurate, that person's belief's are superior to someone whose beliefs are not accurate.

    I'm sure that it says the same thing as what you said but you can quote me on what I wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    (I would rather you quit using physical things for metaphors regarding thoughts. I like metaphors, but things you can see/touch don't compare well to thoughts/ideas)
    Then you can pick your own objective fact for comparison and we can use that instead if the metaphor needs to be used again.

  13. #192
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If a person's belief of the current state of morals in this universe is accurate, that person's belief's are superior to someone whose beliefs are not accurate.
    Is that an objective or subjective state?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  14. #193
    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 MindTrap028 View Post
    Is that an objective or subjective state?
    In regards to that argument, it's both (as in my statement applies to both equally).
    Last edited by mican333; August 14th, 2017 at 06:47 AM.

  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #194
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think so. Let me restate it so it says exactly what I mean.

    If a person's belief of the current state of morals in this universe is accurate, that person's belief's are superior to someone whose beliefs are not accurate.

    I'm sure that it says the same thing as what you said but you can quote me on what I wrote

    Cool Beans!! So we are on the same page here, finally

    (How could anyone translate old languages that don't exist anymore with any accuracy when it take so many posts to grasp this (any) idea? Communicating your thoughts is harder than one would think!)

    ---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the question of this thread is:

    Which is superior - objective morality or subjective morality
    I thought we were discussing which type of morality was superior. This is MUCH easier!

    Clearly, a person who is correct about the state of morals in their universe has a superior view to a person who has an incorrect view, whether they can prove it or not!

    (But this does not mean that either subjective or objective morals are superior in and of themselves, only that this persons beliefs are superior to a person who's belief's are incorrect about the state of morals.)
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 13th, 2017 at 07:51 PM.

  17. #195
    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 Belthazor View Post
    But this does not mean that either subjective or objective morals are superior in and of themselves, only that this persons beliefs are superior to a person who's belief's are incorrect about the state of morals
    If objective moral beliefs are superior to subjective moral beliefs, then it stands to reason that objective morality is superior to subjective morality (and vice versa).
    Last edited by mican333; August 14th, 2017 at 07:51 AM.

  18. #196
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the question of this thread is:


    Which is superior - objective morality or subjective morality


    My answer is "Whichever one of them is correct". And since I can't support that either are correct and as far I know,
    no one else can either, the answer to that question is "I don't know" and likewise the position of this OP is that we
    don't know which is superior.

    So to defeat the OP, one has to show that either
    1. One of them is correct and the other is incorrect
    or
    2. One of them is superior even if it is incorrect and the other is correct (which isn't impossible as sometimes a lie is
    better than the truth such as telling your child an untruth to dissuade him from doing something dangerous).

    I'll quickly define terms (although one is free to offer better definitions although I don't want to get bogged down in
    debating this).

    OBJECTIVE MORALITY:
    There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow.
    For example, God says Murder is wrong and therefore to disagree with this moral position is to be objectively wrong
    in the same vein as saying that the earth is flat.

    SUBJECTIVE MORALITY:
    Morality is a human invention and whatever is wrong is whatever a person happens to think is wrong and it is
    determined person to person (but then certainly moral issues, such as murder and rape, seem to be forwarded
    as consistently wrong by a vast majority of people).


    And again, I argue that whichever is correct is the one that is superior. If objective morality is correct, its superiority
    to subjective morality is obvious so I won't spell it out. In the case of subjective morality, if it is indeed true that
    morality is a human construct, I see no reason why failing to acknowledge this reality and acting on the truth would
    not be superior to falsely believing that there is an objective source of morality. Again, while a lie can sometimes
    be preferable to the truth, I don't see this situation as an exception.

    So again, since we don't know which is true and which is false, we also don't know which is superior to the other.
    Hello Mican,

    I was browsing around looking at old threads and came upon a post you wrote about 5 years ago on Dec 15, 2012.
    Today, with your OP in mind, and still thinking about objective/subjective morality, I thought you might mildly enjoy
    reading what you said, about 5 years ago, on that subject. Your post 3, HERE

    A quote from that post about 5 years ago:
    "And really, whether objective morality is better than subjective morality or vice-versa is, IMO, entirely
    dependent on which is correct.
    If there is indeed a God or some other external moral authority who has determined
    that it's a moral fact that killing children is always wrong then Objective Morality is better than Moral Relativism because
    it's correct and the other isn't. If there is no God then Moral Relativism is superior under the same reasoning.

    And since I argue here as an agnostic and I have yet to see anyone prove that God does or does not exist, I likewise
    have to be agnostic on whether Objective Morality or Subjective Morality is superior to the other. Maybe killing
    children is objectively immoral or maybe objective immorality doesn't even exist. If it will help keeps things simple, I will
    argue as if I am a meta-ethical moral relativist from this point (so I can just say "I" and "me")"__Mican Dec 15, 2012

  19. #197
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If objective moral beliefs are superior to subjective moral beliefs, then it stands to reason that objective morality is superior to subjective morality (and vice versa).

    And this is where you keep leaving the reservation....

    Just because a persons beliefs are in line with the moral reality of that universe does not in any way make THAT moral system superior. It only shows the persons belief is correct or warranted.

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think so. Let me restate it so it says exactly what I mean.

    If a person's belief of the current state of morals in this universe is accurate, that person's belief's are superior to someone whose beliefs are not accurate.

    I'm sure that it says the same thing as what you said but you can quote me on what I wrote.
    ...

  20. #198
    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 Belthazor View Post
    And this is where you keep leaving the reservation....

    Just because a persons beliefs are in line with the moral reality of that universe does not in any way make THAT moral system superior. It only shows the persons belief is correct or warranted.
    And that shows that the moral system that he subscribes to is likewise correct and therefore superior to all other moral systems (that aren't correct).
    Last edited by mican333; August 14th, 2017 at 05:19 PM.

  21. #199
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the shows that the moral system that he subscribes to is likewise correct and therefore superior to all other moral systems (that aren't correct).
    It MOST certainly does not.

    It shows the persons beliefs are correct about the moral system in his universe, nothing else.

    How does that possibly make that moral system itself superior?
    And what is this moral system superior to?

    We are back to circles here....

    Telling me if you believe a planet exists that we haven't identified yet you are correct. So the belief is superior to non belief in the planet.
    Ok fine. Is the planet now superior? (and to what). This is why the analogy fails. You jump from a correct fact to that fact being "superior".

    Perhaps I really don't understand the definition you are using for "superior".

    Whatever the current state of morals in our universe just does not speak at ALL to whether this system itself is "superior".
    Believing correctly the state of morals in our universe does not make that system itself "superior".

    As stated previously, either subjective or objective moral systems could be superior. Whichever system we live in (or both) doesn't make the system itself superior and neither does believing correctly which it is. Knowing which it is, doesn't affect its superiority in the least. Al it does is make your "beliefs superior" and then only superior because it would help you live better. This still doesn't make the system itself superior

    The actual moral state of this universe is superior, if and only if, its, well, superior.....

  22. #200
    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 Belthazor View Post
    It MOST certainly does not.

    It shows the persons beliefs are correct about the moral system in his universe, nothing else.
    And it also shows which moral system is correct. If he thinks the moral system is actually objective and he's right, that means that the moral system IS objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How does that possibly make that moral system itself superior?
    It doesn't inherently make the moral system superior.

    What it means that it's true that there is an external moral source which has forwarded a moral system that is objectively correct (which would be the case is morality is objective). And therefore any other moral system's correctness is dependent on how well it aligns with this objective moral system.

    Therefore subjective moral systems can never be as accurate as the objective moral system and therefore is inferior to it (even if happens to perfectly align in morals, it still misidentifies the source of the morality).



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    As stated previously, either subjective or objective moral systems could be superior. Whichever system we live in (or both) doesn't make the system itself superior and neither does believing correctly which it is. Knowing which it is, doesn't affect its superiority in the least. Al it does is make your "beliefs superior" and then only superior because it would help you live better. This still doesn't make the system itself superior
    Maybe that doesn't. But being one of them being more correct than the other does make it superior to the others.

    Either:

    1. Morality is objective and those who forward subjective morality are misidentifying the actual source of morality and therefore, all else being equal, have an inferior moral system to those who do correctly hold that certain moral position are objectively true.

    Or

    2. Morality is subjective and those who forward that morality is based on human beings, all else being equal, have a superior moral system to those those attribute morality to something that doesn't even exist.

    Either way, the one who has it right has a superior belief. And the system that exists is superior to the system that does not exist.

 

 
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 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
  •