Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Ken-1122]

What people believe doesn't enter into it. It's whether specific behaviors assist the species to prosper.

Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definition

 

[Ken-1122]

More all-or-nothing binary thinking.

The other odd thing is how you think everyone comprehends objective facts perfectly correctly just because theyre objective, and always draw the best conclusions reliably.

True! If it's objective, there can only be one answer. 1+1=2. Anybody who comes up with any other answer is wrong because 2 is the only answer.

For you its like: the process either works to perfection, or its totally invalid.

Like math, measurements, volume, or anything else objective; either it is right or totally invalid.

Your crazy standard would even deny the validity of science itself, in which we go down dead ends sometimes and controversy is always with us.

Not everything in science is based on objective facts, a lot of stuff is the best answer they have at the moment.

 

[durangodawood]

....Not everything in science is based on objective facts, a lot of stuff is the best answer they have at the moment.

Plenty of scientists have different interpretations of the implications of objective facts. Guess science is all subjective and none objective. I mean things have to be either one of the other, right?.

 

[Speedwell]

Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definition

So what does morality have to do with?

 

[Ken-1122]

Plenty of scientists have different interpretations of the implications of objective facts. Guess science is all subjective and none objective. I mean things have to be either one of the other, right?.

Some things with science may be objective while other things is just the best information they have at the moment and is liable to change when new information is learned

 

[Ken-1122]

So what does morality have to do with?

Morality is the idea that some behaviors are right and other behaviors are wrong. Behaviors that assist species to prosper and grow is not in any definition I’ve ever seen

MORALITY | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Speedwell]

Morality is the idea that some behaviors are right and other behaviors are wrong. Behaviors that assist species to prosper and grow is not in any definition I’ve ever seen

MORALITY | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

So you have, in effect, ceded the argument. Morality is subjective, nothing more that individual whim, and if I wanted to declare wanton murder moral and started killing people you would have no moral grounds to oppose me, because my morality is just as good as yours.

 

[essentialsaltes]

if I wanted to declare wanton murder moral and started killing people you would have no moral grounds to oppose me

I would have no objective moral grounds (because such things don't exist at all), but nothing prevents me from acting on my subjective beliefs.

because my morality is just as good as yours.

No, I think yours is monstrous.

 

[Speedwell]

I would have no objective moral grounds (because such things don't exist at all), but nothing prevents me from acting on my subjective beliefs.



No, I think yours is monstrous.

You are welcome to your opinion, but by Ken's definition that's all it is, and the notion of right and wrong is vacuous--there is no possibility of even subjective morality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are welcome to your opinion, but by Ken's definition that's all it is, and the notion of right and wrong is vacuous--there is no possibility of even subjective morality.

Well, if I'm welcome to my opinion, that's all I need to support a subjective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

if I wanted to declare wanton murder moral and started killing people you would have no moral grounds to oppose me

No. I would explain my moral position and explain why murder is wrong. Just because morality is subjective does not mean I have to accept your moral positions as equal to mine.

because my morality is just as good as yours.

No, I believe my moral position is superior to yours. Under objective morality, you will tell the person he is wrong because your God said so, and he will tell you murder is good because his God said so. Under subjective morality at least we can have a discussion and I can perhaps convince him that his God is wrong and I am right; you wouldn't have that option.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are welcome to your opinion, but by Ken's definition that's all it is, and the notion of right and wrong is vacuous--there is no possibility of even subjective morality.

Where are you getting this stuff? I've been making the case for subjective morality this entire thread! Haven't you been listening to anything I've said thus far?

 

[Speedwell]

No. I would explain my moral position and explain why murder is wrong. Just because morality is subjective does not mean I have to accept your moral positions as equal to mine.

No, I believe my moral position is superior to yours. Under objective morality, you will tell the person he is wrong because your God said so, and he will tell you murder is good because his God said so. Under subjective morality at least we can have a discussion and I can perhaps convince him that his God is wrong and I am right; you wouldn't have that option.

But you remove all the force of your argument by denying that there is any practical basis for a moral precept.

 

[Moral Orel]

So you have, in effect, ceded the argument. Morality is subjective, nothing more that individual whim, and if I wanted to declare wanton murder moral and started killing people you would have no moral grounds to oppose me, because my morality is just as good as yours.

Hey @durangodawood Remember when I told you that arguments for objective morality always devolve into an appeal to emotion? This response is what it looks like.

Speedy, what you're saying here is, "If you're right, wouldn't you hate that?" And ironically, that's all people are doing when they argue about what is moral or immoral, because it's all subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definition

Here we have the root of the problem.

Taking our deepest moral rules and declaring them not about morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Hey @durangodawood Remember when I told you that arguments for objective morality always devolve into an appeal to emotion? This response is what it looks like.

Speedy, what you're saying here is, "If you're right, wouldn't you hate that?" And ironically, that's all people are doing when they argue about what is moral or immoral, because it's all subjective.

I realized a while back in the discussion that when people say morality is "not objective" they typically dont know or say exactly what they are denying.

What exactly are you denying?

 

[Ken-1122]

But you remove all the force of your argument by denying that there is any practical basis for a moral precept.

But I don't deny there is any practical basis for a moral precept. (I don't know where you are getting this stuff)

 

[Ken-1122]

Here we have the root of the problem.

Taking our deepest moral rules and declaring them not about morality.

Umm...... NO! Perhaps taking YOUR deepest moral rules and declaring them not about morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

I realized a while back in the discussion that when people say morality is "not objective" they typically dont know or say exactly what they are denying.

What exactly are you denying?

What does this have to do with what I pointed out to you? Did you think that was a good point that Speedy made? I've been perfectly clear about what I've claimed and what I deny. I'm not going to keep rehashing it.

 

[durangodawood]

What does this have to do with what I pointed out to you? Did you think that was a good point that Speedy made? I've been perfectly clear about what I've claimed and what I deny. I'm not going to keep rehashing it.

I don't understand exactly what you mean when you deny morality is objective. At first I thought did. Not anymore.