Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definition
Upvote
0
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.
Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definitionWhat people believe doesn't enter into it. It's whether specific behaviors assist the species to prosper.
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.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.
Like math, measurements, volume, or anything else objective; either it is right or totally invalid.For you its like: the process either works to perfection, or its totally invalid.
Not everything in science is based on objective facts, a lot of stuff is the best answer they have at the moment.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.
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?.....Not everything in science is based on objective facts, a lot of stuff is the best answer they have at the moment.
So what does morality have to do with?Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definition
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 learnedPlenty 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?.
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 seenSo what does morality have to do with?
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.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
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.
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.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.
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.if I wanted to declare wanton murder moral and started killing people you would have no moral grounds to oppose me
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.because my morality is just as good as yours.
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?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.
But you remove all the force of your argument by denying that there is any practical basis for a moral precept.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.
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.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.
Here we have the root of the problem.Specific behaviors that assist the species to prosper has nothing to do with morality nor the objective/subjective definition
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.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.
But I don't deny there is any practical basis for a moral precept. (I don't know where you are getting this stuff)But you remove all the force of your argument by denying that there is any practical basis for a moral precept.
Umm...... NO! Perhaps taking YOUR deepest moral rules and declaring them not about morality.Here we have the root of the problem.
Taking our deepest moral rules and declaring them not about morality.
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 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?
I don't understand exactly what you mean when you deny morality is objective. At first I thought did. Not anymore.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.
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?