The problem with your logic is it is all based on faith. You believe by faith that only a transcendent God can be morally perfect, and you believe every single person on Earth is morally imperfect. What do you base this on? Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No; you just assume because you aren’t perfect, nobody else is. I can proclaim myself perfect, and you have no way of proving me wrong. So if objective morality DID exist, as far as you know, it could be based on my nature; instead of your God’s.Fair enough. But you can understand that there are two separate arguments here. One is about objective morality an ontological claim. If objective morality is supported then it bolsters support for there being a transcendent being like God. Then a case for the Christian God can be made as this being the transcendent being.
Ah so it is possible if you are an evil dictator huh? Look; your argument fails because we all know it is possible to kill a human being regardless of their ethnicity. If you can kill one, you can kill them all.It is if you are not an evil dictator and just want to prove a point.
No. Give me a few apples and I can demonstrate 1+1=2 without any scientific verification.But when you say that objective morals need to be demonstratable to me that is a vague word which can mean scientific verification.
Which could be me.Proving there are objective moral values naturally follows that there must be an independent source for those objective morals that are perfectly good.
Debates do not require honesty, and honesty is subjective not objective because it is based on your personal thoughts not objective proven facts.I am not sure what we were talking about. I think I was saying that a logical argument can be used to support objective morals. Or an example of a real-life situation where a moral value is given objective status or 'truth' value like with how people use 'honesty' in a debate. You cannot deny the objective status of honesty so therefore it is an objective fact that stands when people engage in debates that require people to be honest. Otherwise, it is all meaningless and we can never engage in anything that requires some sort of standard to determine whether people are just trotting out any rubbish or telling the truth.
The formulas used to detect dark matter IS demonstrable; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to use it.You were saying that objective morals should be demonstrated like math. I said that objective morals can be supported by demonstrating them directly just be the realness and 'truth' status given to them in how people use moral values. I used math as an example in that some formulas for math that are accepted as fact have no physical demonstration like dark matter.
No, the only way you can support your claim is by demonstrating it is wrong to kill a child for fun. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate this claim, I eagerly await your attempts.That is how morality is determined. A truth claim can be made and then someone has to argue that the truth claim is not supported by a counter-argument. My claim is that objective morals do exist (ontology). I just have to show one objective moral to show it exists. I gave an example of an objective moral. You then have to argue that this is not an objective moral. If you cant then I have supported my claim.
The value placed on honesty is subjective; not objective.It is the fact that people give a moral value realness and 'truth' status that makes it objective. It is giving the moral a status outside themselves. Because if we use the moral value of honesty when people engage in a debate for example they assume that no one will lie or misrepresent arguments.
I said taking something that doesn’t belong to YOUNo you can be charged with stealing even if you take something that does not legally belong to a person..
So how are company codes of conduct different than company laws?Actually they are different. Codes of conduct are usually code of ethics that an organization imposes on its employees.
Upvote
0