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.
What's the difference? Remember; when the Nazis began murdering the Jews, they started with the Jewish citizens of Germany who were members of their tribe. Stalin, Mao, Amin, and countless others killed their own people as well. History is full of examples of tyrants subjectively deciding who within their tribe is deserving of murder.Attacking other threatening tribes? I dont see how thats purely a matter of subjective personal preference like chocolate/vanilla or country/rap.
Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?
Good examples. But Mao, Stalin, Amin etc.... their modes burn out pretty fast, because while you can get people ideologically amped up to go against deeper moral sensibilities for a time, it doesnt endure. Soviet communism is a great example of this in so many ways.What's the difference? Remember; when the Nazis began murdering the Jews, they started with the Jewish citizens of Germany who were members of their tribe. Stalin, Mao, Amin, and countless others killed their own people as well. History is full of examples of tyrants subjectively deciding who within their tribe is deserving of murder.
Not sure what you define as “burning out pretty fast” but slavery has been around for thousands of years and still continues today. But what’s your point? Are you suggesting murderous regime’s don’t last long because they are morally subjective?Good examples. But Mao, Stalin, Amin etc.... their modes burn out pretty fast, because while you can get people ideologically amped up to go against deeper moral sensibilities for a time, it doesnt endure. Soviet communism is a great example of this in so many ways.
I believe smell is subjective, but poison is definitely objective. I remember my dog once came home stinking like dead fish. We washed that horrible smell off her (to her chagrin) and as soon as we were done washing her, crazy dog went outside, found that dead fish and rolled around in it again. Though we found that smell repulsive, she obviously found the smell sweet.Lets look at this subjective/objective thing another way. Humans recoil at the smell of rotting stuff or the taste of many poisonous things. The experience happens purely in the mind, right? So we could call it "totally subjective". But it happens for reasons that are utterly objective: these things are objectively bad for humans to ingest.
Would you mind providing an example of having subjective feelings for objective reasons? (I believe smell is subjective, while poison is objective)The main hang up here is that we have subjective interior feelings for objective reasons. Thats all I'm claiming, is that some of our most important moral feelings happen for objective reasons.
And where did the Group of Jews get the story? From the guy who wrote the book.And the oral history of every group of Jews.
We get the feeling of disgust (subjective feeling) at the smell/taste of rotting flesh because it is actually bad for us to ingest (objective fact of reality)....Would you mind providing an example of having subjective feelings for objective reasons? (I believe smell is subjective, while poison is objective)
If you are trying to make the argument that whatever smells bad is harmful to the body, IMO that is a poor argument to make. Chitlins smell bad but lots of people like them, Ive heard antifreeze taste good which is why so many dogs die from it's poison; just because something smells or taste bad doesn't mean it is bad for you; just because something smells or taste good, doesn't mean it is safe to consumeWe get the feeling of disgust (subjective feeling) at the smell/taste of rotting flesh because it is actually bad for us to ingest (objective fact of reality).
No it not an argument. Its what you asked for: an example.If you are trying to make the argument that whatever smells bad is harmful to the body....
If you are making the point that there are times when one might have a subjective bad feelings about something that it objectively bad, I will agree with that. It may not happen all the time, but it does happen.No it not an argument. Its what you asked for: an example.
Of course some subjective feeling are based on subjective things.
But you asked for an example of a subjective feeling based on an objective fact. I provided.
My point was some of our subjective feelings based on objective facts.If you are making the point that there are times when one might have a subjective bad feelings about something that it objectively bad, I will agree with that. It may not happen all the time, but it does happen.
Do you see the difference between what you just said vs what I agreed to?My point was some of our subjective feelings based on objective facts.
I made the point to show you a parallel to how some morals that we experience subjectively are based on objective facts. I just needed to open that door because it seemed totally nailed shut for you.
What you agreed to sounds fine to me.Do you see the difference between what you just said vs what I agreed to?
What I agreed to has nothing to do with morality being objective. IOW the idea that some morals issues are based on objective facts.... that door remains nailed shut.What you agreed to sounds fine to me.
If you are making the point that there are times when one might have a subjective bad feelings about something that it objectively bad, I will agree with that. It may not happen all the time, but it does happen.
"Objectively bad" and "objectively good" are oxymorons. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms already. If you're talking about morality as being objective then you should be using "right" and "wrong" or more precisely "correct" and "incorrect". We can say that anything is "based on objective facts" if we phrase it correctly, which renders it meaningless.I made the point to show you a parallel to how some morals that we experience subjectively are based on objective facts. I just needed to open that door because it seemed totally nailed shut for you.
I think you highly overrate how much conscious choice we have in determining our base values."Objectively bad" and "objectively good" are oxymorons. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms already. If you're talking about morality as being objective then you should be using "right" and "wrong" or more precisely "correct" and "incorrect". We can say that anything is "based on objective facts" if we phrase it correctly, which renders it meaningless.
People generally experience an aversion to the smell of rotten meat because it is an objective fact that we evolved that trait. So what? Harming our health isn't "objectively bad". Is choosing to eat rotten meat an incorrect choice? That depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to remain physically healthy, then it was the incorrect choice; if your goal is to become sick then it was a correct choice. Which goal is the correct goal to have? That's a matter of opinion, which makes the whole thing subjective.
Ok. It was fun. Sort ofWhat I agreed to has nothing to do with morality being objective. IOW the idea that some morals issues are based on objective facts.... that door remains nailed shut.
When I was speaking of objectively bad for you, I was referring to poison. The toxic effects of poison like cyanid or ethylene glycol will have on the human body is objective. However; this has nothing to do with morality."Objectively bad" and "objectively good" are oxymorons. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms already.
Whether the choice is conscious or not has nothing to do with whether or not the choice is correct or incorrect. Unconscious =/= correct.I think you highly overrate how much conscious choice we have in determining our base values.
Right. Values are axiomatic. Moral rules are correct to the extent they satisfy values.Whether the choice is conscious or not has nothing to do with whether or not the choice is correct or incorrect. Unconscious =/= correct.
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?