E
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.
Please define the definition of "existing objectively" in regards to possibility (2).
You have made that promise to me several times before, and each time you left the discussion soon because you were unable to make your case. Have you found new arguments in the meantime?In recent discussions, it has become clear that there is a large presence of moral relativists/subjectivists here in this thread. All of them seem to fall under the non-theist category.
It is my position that no one in this world can be a consistent moral relativist/subjectivist.
If anyone thinks they are a consistent moral relativist/subjectivist then I would like to show you why you are not.
No.I also want to state that there are only three possibilities regarding moral values and duties:
1. They exist relatively
2. They exist objectively
3. They do not exist at all
Um, yes. "objective moral values[...]exist more probably as being objective rather than[...]". Sure, with all the force that tautologies can summon up.In defense of (2), it will be shown that objective moral values and duties exist more probably as being objective rather than relative or not existing at all.
You have made that promise to me several times before, and each time you left the discussion soon because you were unable to make your case. Have you found new arguments in the meantime?
No.
Firstly, "relative"/"objective" aren´t antipodes.
"Relative"/"absolute" and "objective"/"subjective" are.
Secondly, subjective morality can be demonstrated to exist: People do have different opinions as to what´s right and wrong.
Thus, if you happen to succeed in showing that "objective morality" exists, it must exist along with subjective morality.
Um, yes. "objective moral values[...]exist more probably as being objective rather than[...]". Sure, with all the force that tautologies can summon up.
The existence of subjective moralities is undisputable. It is demonstrable. So is the fact that moralities are relative to time and place.
So, false dichotomies aside, feel free to go ahead and make your case for the existence of objective morality.
I observe subjective moralities. I don´t observe "objective morality", and, frankly, I don´t know even know what that´s supposed to be.Fair enough. The amendment has been made to cohere with your observations.
Fair enough, the necessary amendment has been made. But I must ask, are you a moral subjectivist? In other words, do you deny that objective moral values and duties exist?
I observe subjective moralities. I don´t observe "objective morality", and, frankly, I don´t know even know what that´s supposed to be.
So, as soon as you make a good case for "objective morality" existing (after you have provided a definition that exceeds the usual ex negative definitions) I will look at your argument. Go ahead and convince me.
Not really.Will the [post]62182431[/post] definition in post #3 suffice?
Firstly, it´s an ex negativo definition. It says what they are independent of, but it doesn´t say what they are dependent of.Objective moral values are moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings.
In recent discussions, it has become clear that there is a large presence of moral relativists/subjectivists here in this thread.
Not really.
Firstly, it´s an ex negativo definition. It says what they are independent of, but it doesn´t say what they are dependent of.
Secondly, I have no idea what a "true value" is supposed to be. A value, in my understanding, is what someone ascribes to something. IOW, a value, in my understanding, is a relation between a person (or a conscious entity) and an object or a concept.
I have no idea how what "value" could possibly mean without there being someone who values something. The underlying concept is about as alien to me as the idea that there can be friendship without people. Or a thought without someone thinking.
Well, "murder" is wrong by definition. So that´s not a particularly good example.When I say that objective moral values exist, I mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about an objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference.
I don´t know how there can be a judgement without there being a judge. Enlighten me.Instead of value, you could use the word judgment i.e moral judgements.
It´s not like I haven´t understood your ex negativo definition. I am just missing the criteria that would render something "objectively" wrong or right in the absence of someone considering its value.Another example to help you understand this concept is:
To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
No, sorry, no.Does this clear it up?
Fair enough - so the case for subjective and relative moralities exsting has been made.Fair enough, the necessary amendment has been made.
Well, "murder" is wrong by definition. So that´s not a particularly good example.
It doesn't matter how many times you make different versions of the same thread if you are unable/unwilling to provide the evidence you claim you have to support your position, and are equally unable/unwilling to address the positions of others.
I am ecstatic you dropped by. I see quatona has retired for the time being. Would you like to state whether you are a moral subjectivist or objectivist?
I don't see how anyone can be a consistent moral relativist. You can never say that charity is an objectively good thing or that murder is objectively wrong because it might be beneficial to someone & be harmful to someone else.
But in the end if it's all about survival of the fittest, what does it matter? We may as well speed it up before the heat death of the cosmos.
Well, isn't the point of moral relativity that it isn't consistent?
Not all kinds of charity is good, to use your example. Donating clothes to people in underdeveloped countries may seem like a good thing to do, but in actuality the over abundance of clothing puts local clothes-makers (sewers, tailors, fabric makers, sheep farmers, etc.) out of business, decreasing jobs and increasing poverty. Giving food to the Red-Cross in the form of canned goods or boxed meals may seem generous, but since each item must be sorted and examined separately by hand to make sure it is undamaged and pre-expiration date, the extra manpower needed to process it actually costs the organization more money than the food is worth.
Now, murder is an English word that means 'unlawful/wrongful killing' (depending on the dictionary) so it is wrong by definition. 'Wrong thing is wrong' is obviously always going to be true. But, what one culture or person considers a wrongful killing, another may believe to be perfectly justified. Perhaps if someone did something terrible to you or your family (and I sincerely hope no one does) you would feel like hurting or killing them would not be a wrong thing to do. The law--and other people--may disagree.
So, what is right or what is wrong depends not only on the circumstances (an action may cause harm in one case and good in another) but also the perspective of the person forming the opinion. When perspectives under certain circumstances are similar throughout the population, it is made into law.
It's messy, it's complicated, it's full of gray areas and disagreements and changing social patterns and all kinds of weirdness. The people who think there is such a thing as objective morality are looking for the easy way out. They imagine one set of cosmic perfect rules (usually the ones they grew up with, fancy that) and then let that excuse them from thinking too hard or examining their own beliefs with the scrutiny they deserve.
What we need to remember is that many of the things we think are alright today were once considered very, very wrong, and many of the things we think are very wrong were once considered perfectly normal. Would you, as a young woman about to enter adulthood, like to have been married off to a forty-year-old man you never met before at the age of twelve and have two or three kids by now?
No?
Me neither. Today we consider that pedophilia and child abuse. Our many-greats-ancestors called it traditional family values.
We are an evolving species, not just physically, but also socially. Look at how much better we treat each other now than we did just a few centuries ago. Imagine how much better our children's children will be treated.
Gosh, what's the point of anything if you don't get to live forever? [/sarcasm]
You have to find--or create--your own meaning in life, and in my opinion, the farther you can do it from religion, the better. As an atheist, I think one of the greatest tragedies is the vast numbers of people who spent their only short time on this planet suffering or toiling or fighting for the hope of something better afterwards, only to receive nothing. There is a reason the slave-owners of the South taught their slaves to adhere to their master's religion--what better tool for keeping an uneducated population in check, than instilling a belief that blind obedience is good, suffering is noble, and reward is guaranteed only after you no longer live and therefore can't complain if it isn't there?
Now, suffering, toiling, or fighting to make THIS world better for you and for your children, I can understand that. Which gets back to survival of the fittest, in a round-a-bout way. Systems of morals and beliefs are also subject to evolution. Tiny changes in accepted thought creates societies better capable of working together and surviving in the world.
Why does it matter, you ask, if we're all going to die and the universe is going to ka-boom in a million trillion years or whatever? Well in the long run you're right, it doesn't matter at all to the universe because the universe wouldn't care if we blew ourselves to tiny bits.
But here, and now, and to us, it matters. We make it matter.
I am guessing, in light of the above, that you are a moral subjectivist then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?