Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The subconscious absorption of moral precepts during nurture and socialization.
Yes and that is why I am saying asking these questions about which God and how does he do it and where does God get these objectives morals is not relevant. The focus needs to be on support for objective morals themselves and how they can be measured.
Not sure when that paper was written but its references date back to the 1980s. There is new research that shows that we are born with an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong.
Interesting, but it doesn't show that the morality they are "bred to the bone" with is objective.
The intuition itself may be a subjective moral position.
Not necessarily. There is nothing about subjective moral precepts that prevents them from being universally shared.
No, you just have a hard time understanding how they can do it. But I notice you use the phrase "individual subjectivity." You're not moving the goal posts again, are you?
Judging from the description you gave of yourself, you sou nd like an unreasonable person so I doubt I would have much luck trying to reason with you
I would not agree morality is based on emotions. I think it is a judgment and this judgment is done on a case by case basis
As I said before, I would judge your actions immoral because they go against my moral standards
At a minimum you should be punished because consequences are necessary for your actions. Forcing you to reimburse me for the property stolen would also be just IMO
If you are unable to decipher right from wrong; yes.
How are you defining God?
If you are unable to distinguish right from wrong, I can teach you.
Much needed moral guidance.
I believe my views are honest and fair thus my views are superior to all others that differ from mine. If another moral view is shown to be superior to my own, I will adopt that view as my own and it will become a part of my moral view.10. You neglected a question. I shall repeat it.
I'm Christian, i believe all morality and law comes from God. So we both know each other properly, what is your position?
Cheers you diamond
If there were objective morals how do you think we could determine them.
But if subjective morality is like other areas which show varied tastes, likes and dislikes there should be a variation. That is the nature of subjectivity that people are different and through their personal experience and personalities, they see things differently.
I disagree they can do it as it is a paradoxical position. You cannot both say that mutilating a females genitals is both justified under a relative moral position and also morally wrong at the same time. But if you think so then show me how they can do it.
No, I am only making that distinction between cultural relativity and subjectivity as an individual. But if you need to explain subjectivity in the group, societal or even national terms then your more or less making a similar stand to a moral relative position. If we have one group or society saying that x is OK and another that says x is not ok who is right. Yet at the same time, one group/nation is calling the other out about how wrong their morality is.
I haven't got the faintest idea. You don't seem to, either.
We may be born with innate moral precepts as with other evolved social instincts, but that does not prove that they are objective.
Nothing about subjective morality prevents us from making value judgments about other moral systems.
I have already stated where we can determine objective morality. Unless there is a defeater that can show that our lived experience of objective morality is totally unreal and unreliable then we are justified to believe our lived experience of objective morality. That is the only way we can determine them and this method is also used as a legitimate way to determine metaphysical things.
We cannot evolve morality, it is a nonphysical thing that cannot be inherited.
Yes it does. How can we determine that other groups' morals are truly wrong apart from our personal views which cannot determine if something is really right or wrong? You may as well be talking about whether you like their choice in cake and not morality. But the moment you start making moral judgments that the other group holds the wrong moral position and that they should abandon them and take up your own you are making a "truth" statement that your morality is the only correct one.
But our lived experience of morality is subjective.
Only if you assume to begin with that moral precepts are ontological entities. Wait! Isn't that what you are trying to prove?
So you are asserting that there is no such thing as instinctual behavior? Astonishing.
Truly wrong? Really wrong? Aren't you begging the question just a little bit?
I would never make such an absolute statement.
Or both are wrong. But let's assume arguendo that morals are objective and transmitted to us by our "lived moral experience." Given two groups with different "lived moral experience" regarding the same act, how do you determine which is correct?
What did I say that gave you the impression I think historical facts are assumptions? I have no idea where you are getting this.
A friend enters my house with a wet umbrella and he is covered with water. Reason might cause me to conclude it’s raining outside, but that reasoning is not based on fact.
No morality is claimed to be subjective but actual lived morality (how people act and react) in moral situations is objective. All reasonable people will agree that certain moral acts are always right or wrong despite subjective claims. Whenever they see a moral wrong like rape, stealing, child abuse, domestic violence, etc they will always say it is wrong, and despite people's subjective opinions.
That doesn't make sense as ontological is about the existence of something. I am making an ontological claim that objective morals exist. I am not assuming objective morals exist, I am saying they do exist and then providing support for this.Only if you assume, to begin with that moral precepts are ontological entities. Wait! Isn't that what you are trying to prove?
Instinctual behavior is not moral behavior but rather about innate behavior usually from genetics. IE maternal instinct, predatory behavior, nest building, etc. But this doesn't equate to morality as for example, predatory behavior can lead to killing and a mother may kill her baby to ensure the survival of the group.
All I mean by truly wrong is objectively wrong. Wrong independent of individual or group opinions. If we as a group protest that an African tribe is morally wrong for the genital mutilation of their females or that some Middle Eastern nation is wrong for persecuting homosexuals all we are doing is expressing our dislike of it. We cannot claim it is objectively morally.
We in western nations do it all the time and we don't realize it. We virtue signal about how we know better and that these 3rd world nations are backward and the sooner they catch up to our standards the better. If we don't then there is something wrong with us. That's our intuitive morality yet in the same breath we declare moral subjectivity and relativity.
Yes and that is the ridiculous position we claim under subjectivity. Nothing is right or wrong. We are admitting there is no right and wrong for that situation when there is a clear wrong.
If you go through each moral act you will usually see a clear right or wrong behavior. That is usually known to us intuitively. It is usually along the lines of the golden rule, treating human life as sacred/precious, not violating people, non-violence, caring, and loving people.
Are you claiming that historical facts are proven? Don't get me wrong, I think that a lot of historical facts have a preponderance of evidence, so I'm comfortable calling them facts. But unless you've built yourself a time machine to witness the events yourself you're going to come up short on proof. You didn't forget how you defined "assumption" already, did you?
Ahh, see I asked for a syllogism. When you started making claims about reason I thought you had actually learned what reason and logic is. If you had, you would know what a syllogism is, and wouldn't have responded so... sloppily. Get back to me when you've learned what reason is. I'm not going to keep conversing about things you just make up. Once you know what a syllogism is, what a syllogism means to logic, and how they can be expressed mathematically, then you'll understand that reason deals in facts. Until you know something about the subject, you probably shouldn't bother making any more claims about it if you don't want to appear foolish.
How about if you address what I actually said. I said nothing about historical facts; that's something you brought to the table.
You said reason deals with facts, I am saying it does not always deal with facts; I even provided an example to support my claim.
I am addressing what you've said. If an assumption is something not proven it fits your definition. We don't "know" those things happened, we're just "assuming", right? You just don't like the implications of how you use your words because you want to redefine everything arbitrarily to argue your case. Well tough noogies! If we use "assumption" the way you'd like, then historical facts are mere assumptions. I'm just applying your definitions evenly. If you don't like those implications, then acknowledge that isn't a good use for the word "assumption". Your choice, buddy.
You didn't provide an example of using reason because you didn't provide a syllogism because you don't know what that is, though you still think you know enough to talk about the subject. You could have just Googled "syllogism" and no one would have been the wiser, but instead you chose to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about when you try to tell me what reason is and isn't. But go ahead, keep trying to tell me that your example was of using reason. You are simply factually incorrect, but put that on display if you like.
.
Wrong again. The reason I refused to address syllogism is because I didn’t make any claims about syllogism; you keep bringing it up in an attempt to hang on to your dying argument by attempting to change the goal posts; and it aint working. If this is the best you can do, I think you're done here.
It would depend on what moral acts I am talking about, that's why I specified certain moral acts. IE rape, domestic violence, child abuse for example. I think anyone would agree that if someone thought that these acts were good to do they would be unreasonable.
As I said, those sorts of things make a preponderance of evidence. It isn't proof though, is it? "Proof" is the standard you set, not "whatever arbitrary amount of evidence Ken decides is enough".
If you don't think you brought up syllogisms, but you cited the definition for "logic", you still don't know what they are. lol But yes, show us all what an expert on reason and logic you are!
I don't think that "unreasonable" is the right word to use to describe those sort of people. I feel they're awful, terrible, despicable, etc. But being "reasonable" isn't something I would judge about a person because they're any of those things. Remember too, that you said any reasonable person would call some acts "wrong", I won't call any acts "right" or "wrong", so am I unreasonable?
