The Moral Argument

[quatona]

Objective means independent of human opinion/preference/taste etc. etc.

This has been addressed several times in detail. You preferred to ignore my responses.
Remember, you have just switched to anti-intellectual preaching mode, exactly because you were unable to address the arguments presented to you.

 

[quatona]

And none of this is meant to be a mere academic exercise. It is simply an endeavor at establishing a common ground.

Here´s some common ground for you that pretty much all of humanity finds itself on: "Raping little children for fun isn´t good - even if there is/were an objective morality (non-human perspective) that considers it good."
Interestingly, it´s you who seems to be one of the very few who is outside this common ground.

 

[anonymous person]

It's enlightening to know that you think the pedophile's view on this subject is just as legitimate and valid as your own. It's enlightening to know that you think raping a child is good if a pedophile thinks it is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's enlightening to know that you think the pedophile's view on this subject is just as legitimate and valid as your own. It's enlightening to know that you think raping a child is good if a pedophile thinks it is.

Back to lying for Jesus.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Jeremy, you certainly earned your bad reputation over at The Thinking Atheist forum. But little has changed since you were banned from there.

 

[quatona]

It's enlightening to know that you think the pedophile's view on this subject is just as legitimate and valid as your own. It's enlightening to know that you think raping a child is good if a pedophile thinks it is.

It´s enlightening to see that there´s no one around to whom this could possibly be addressed. Your dishonesty appears to have no limitations.

 

[anonymous person]

It´s enlightening to see that there´s no one around to whom this could possibly be addressed. Your dishonesty appears to have no limitations.

It is addressed to anyone who is an atheist who is an ethical subjectivist.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Jeremy, you certainly earned your bad reputation over at The Thinking Atheist forum. But little has changed since you were banned from there.

Your on TTA? Do I know you?

 

[quatona]

It is addressed to anyone who is an atheist who is an ethical subjectivist.

Except none of them here have said anything to that effect. Stop lying.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your on TTA? Do I know you?

Yes, though I don't think I have a single post to my name there. I lurked for a while, joined to read the threads, but haven't contributed as yet.

 

[anonymous person]

Except none of them here have said anything to that effect. Stop lying.

You're an ethical subjectivist right?

 

[quatona]

You're an ethical subjectivist right?

Don´t push me around with asking stupid questions that have been answered numerous times.
Read my previous posts and adddress the points I made instead of making up positions for me.

 

[anonymous person]

Don´t push me around with asking stupid questions that have been answered numerous times.
Read my previous posts and adddress the points I made instead of making up positions for me.

Yea. You're an ethical subjectivist. You think right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the human making the claim.

That's naturalistic meta-ethical subjectivism.

You Davian, Archaeopteryx are all in that camp.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Don´t push me around with asking stupid questions that have been answered numerous times.
Read my previous posts and adddress the points I made instead of making up positions for me.

You can't expect him to actually engage your position honestly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yea. You're an ethical subjectivist. You think right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the human making the claim.

That's naturalistic meta-ethical subjectivism.

You Davian, Archaeopteryx are all in that camp.

Ummm... excuse me? If you're going to make an informed comment on someone's position, you had better understand it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, that was the very post where you defined it that way.
From post#671:

I don't think you quite understand the connection. Objective does not mean "God given" and I never defined it as such. Please provide one quote where I said such. Objective is based on an undeniable fact as the standard for reference. Morality in its nature is subjective because it internal as opposed to ethics which are external. In order for objective morality to exist, it would require it to be based on mankind's created purpose as that standard. The only way mankind to have a created purpose is by God(or alien?).

 

[quatona]

Yea. You're an ethical subjectivist. You think right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the human making the claim.

That's naturalistic meta-ethical subjectivism.

You Davian, Archaeopteryx are all in that camp.

Again, stop making up positions for me.
For further references, here is a summary of my relevant positions on the subject (based on your definition of "objective"):
1. In my opinion, raping little children for fun is wrong.
2. As you have pointed out numerous times in one single post, this is universally agreed upon in the human perspective.
3. I agree that there are countless "objective" (=by your definition: non-human) views on the subject of *raping little children for fun*. (So, by your definition, I am a moral objectivist.).
4. Frankly, I don´t care whether dogs, aliens, the tooth fairy, Satan or Gods (all of which would have an objective view on the matter, by your definition) might think raping little kids for fun is good.
5. IOW: the mere fact that a perspective is "objective" (non-human) adds the option of diverting "objective" opinions on the matter, while the human perspective is universally agreeing.
6. Thus, introducing "objective" (non-human) perspectives actually creates the very problem that didn´t exist without them. I´m not sure why you are so eager to look for a non-human perspective that might contradict that which is agreed upon in the human perspective.

If you want to engage me on my views, read these points carefully and refer to them.

 

[quatona]

I don't think you quite understand the connection. Objective does not mean "God given" and I never defined it as such. Please provide one quote where I said such.

IIRC I never said you did. I said you defined it as "intended by the creator". Since "God" is defined as the conscious intentional creator of this world, it´s banally obvious that an objective (=intended by the creator) morality would require there to be a God. It´s implied by the definitions you gave.

Objective is based on an undeniable fact as the standard for reference. Morality in its nature is subjective because it internal as opposed to ethics which are external. In order for objective morality to exist, it would require it to be based on mankind's created purpose as that standard. The only way mankind to have a created purpose is by God(or alien?).

Again: If we apply your definitions, this is tautologically obvious.

 

[quatona]

You can't expect him to actually engage your position honestly.

Yeah, he doesn´t care for universal human ethical standards.
Apparently, he has found some "objective morality" that is more lenient and gives him a free pass in these matters.

 

[anonymous person]

You're an ethical subjectivist right?