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.
As a feature of human culture.It has to be some rules "out there" somewhere for you to pick number one.
As a feature of human culture.
Morals dont need to be out there in any absolute way that religious people often conceive of.
...then it remains mind independent in its essence...
Bwahahahaha!So mired in god- beliefs that you cannot comprehend the thinking
of someone not so burdened hardly makes you
correct in your odd notions about atheists think.
Either that, or society decided what our morals should be. Either way works for my vote in the poll.
As a feature of human culture.
Morals dont need to be out there in any absolute way that religious people often conceive of.
It's a dilemma because there are two mutually exclusive choices. That's what a "dilemma" is.So you cant detect a " dilemma" either?
We've been around that block. And whether youre right or wrong, in either case my response to the poll is still reasonable."Society" and "culture" are just groups of people. Whether it's decided by "society" or "culture" or the individual, human preference determines what is moral.
The first definition that pops up for me is:It's a dilemma because there are two mutually exclusive choices. That's what a "dilemma" is.
If I'm right, then human preferences make a thing moral, and a thing being moral causes human preferences to be what they are. So humans preferences are X because human preferences are X. No, that is not reasonable.We've been around that block. And whether youre right or wrong, in either case my response to the poll is still reasonable.
The whole nature of morality is an obvious answer? You didn't need to think about it much, eh?The first definition that pops up for me is:
"a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones."
Yes two alternatives are there in your poll. But no, the choice is not difficult.
Your option 1 which I chose is not determinative of the whole nature of morality. Its compatible with multiple explanations of the origins of morality.....The whole nature of morality is an obvious answer? You didn't need to think about it much, eh?
Even if youre right in principle, your above oversimplification is insufficient to draw conclusions from.If I'm right, then human preferences make a thing moral, and a thing being moral causes human preferences to be what they are. So humans preferences are X because human preferences are X. No, that is not reasonable....
"Society" and "culture" are just groups of people. Whether it's decided by "society" or "culture" or the individual, human preference determines what is moral.
No, it would be preference independent in a very specific way, not mind independent. What we prefer and what our mind conceives are not isomorphic. The dubious premise has naught to do with mind independence, but rather with a specific conception of how morality and personal preference interleave.
But this assumes mistakenly that...
It's not either/or and preferences as the primary notion in terms of this "atheistic" perspective is not even a charitable perspective, it's borderline well poisoning to make the group look like psychopaths.You're running off on a whole slew of tangents here. The question is simple:
Does the first option of the poll indicate that morality is "absolutely mind independent", or does it indicate that morality is preference independent?
The obvious answer is the latter, yet you continue to persist in the former.
Option 1: Morality depends on something other than my preferences.
Option 2: Morality depends entirely on my preferences.
It's not either/or and preferences as the primary notion in terms of this "atheistic" perspective is not even a charitable perspective, it's borderline well poisoning to make the group look like psychopaths.
"Absolute" is a qualifier that rarely, if ever, helps in discussions of morality, because it just reduces the topic to something about authority, usually dictated rather than discussed.e
It's not either/or and preferences as the primary notion in terms of this "atheistic" perspective is not even a charitable perspective, it's borderline well poisoning to make the group look like psychopaths.
"Absolute" is a qualifier that rarely, if ever, helps in discussions of morality, because it just reduces the topic to something about authority, usually dictated rather than discussed.
I argue it isn't mind independent, because it isn't a physical thing anymore than numbers as descriptive for quantity are physical existence. But I also don't argue it's rooted in preference, because that makes the only other option moral relativism, which is a false dichotomy on its face
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?