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.
(Ken)
Nobody talks that way. People say “in my opinion, I feel murder is wrong because that’s my opinion.”
The Nazi’s were convicted of murder because they lost the war. Had they won the war, their actions would have been considered heroic. If morality were objective, it wouldn't based on who wins wars.
(Ken)
Our senses are the only natural means we have to detect reality. And though they may be inaccurate in extremely rare occasions, 99.99% of the time they are right; so to ask you to provide evidence to support your claim that can be detected by our senses is perfectly reasonable.
No, because everybody else can detect the car the same way I detect it.
I’m not talking about science, I’m talking about logic and reason. I find it illogical and unreasonable to assume a reality consisting of brains in vats.
(Ken)
Provide the evidence.
Who decides this “greater moral” that overrides objective morals, and what is this greater moral based on?
Give me your definition of “Objective” and “Morality” so I can know where you views are coming from.
Perhaps things are different in your country, but when I worked at McDonald, there was nothing about bringing the company into disrepute.
Or they might even create a hostile work environment by arguing over SSM
Depends on the company. At the company I work at, I don’t think anything would happen unless your views cause a hostile work environment of other people. The reason I say this is because last election our Union supported a Democratic candidate, and lots of Republican workers expressed outrage and spoke out against this. Because their outrage did not cause a hostile work environment, nothing happened to them. I assume the same would happen if the issue were SSM
Right now there is empirical evidence that it is raining outside. What’s the evidence? The ground is wet, and people are walking with umbrella’s. You gonna call that science? Not all empirical evidence is science.
So anybody who disagrees with you are objectively wrong? Got it!
Psychology, biology, and medical do not determine right vs wrong.
What independent facts do you have that show SSM to be wrong?
200 years ago, it was perfectly legal to kill someone so long as he was a slave, and you were his master. In Nazi Germany, it was perfectly legal to kill a person so long as he was Jewish and you were Aryan. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
| Sorry have been busy with some things ... and having computer problems Law is regulated by external sources …. Ie rules and regulations set forth by governing authorities. Morality is regulated by internal sources by the conscience of a person. Every law made by a governing authority doesn’t necessarily contain the element of morality. But there are some laws created by governing authorities which contain law and morality in one statute. Morals, aka your conscience, are your personal beliefs, standards, and rules you hold yourself accountable to ... they vary from person to person. Where one's conscience comes from is debatable ... some believe it evolved ... some believe it is from a divine source. |
But a person who supports the idea of moral truths is not going to have any moral truths they disagree with as for the simple fact they are 'moral truths'. That's why its the wrong sort of question for a moral objectivists. That question should be asked of someone who disagrees with a set of moral objectives. But then that would make them a moral subjectivists. See how its not only a wrong sort of question its not a question you can even ask coherently.
So murder is wrong because I feel its wrong and that's my opinion. How is that any different to “in my opinion, I feel murder is ok because that’s my opinion.” How do you separate the two. Which one do we go with. If they are both opinions and opinions are equal why did we go with “in my opinion, I feel murder is wrong because that’s my opinion.” and not other opinions.
If the Nazi's won the war killing the Jews like they did would still be morally wrong. We would just not be in a position to prosecute them because we lost the war. But sometime in the future the truth will come out and the Nazi's would have their day in court and we will have prosecuted them.
But its the type of evidence you assume in the first place is what I am saying has no basis. Your assumption that my claim is false according to the evidence that you have chosen to use is based on an assumption.
But we don't know that our senses give an accurate picture of reality.
It could be a mass illusion that we create which represents some deeper aspect of reality as explained in the article above.
But how can it be logic and reason when if we were a brain in a vat the logic and reason we think we are using to convince us that we were not a brain in a vat would also be something we were programmed with to believe it can help us sort out the real from the unreal.
If it was completely illusionary, then why would different people see it the same way? Surely one person would see it as a bright red Ferrari, and another person would see it as a camel.
I think we do. Objects are given a realness by the light that reflects. The shade of red will depend on the vantage point a person takes in relation to the red object. So it may be that this difference in perception is support that there is not fixed objective world out but rather is what our sense organs are designed to do to navigate the surface reflection of a deeper reality.0
Actually I think it makes Mind fundamental. Its the fact that the Mind created that representation of reality. If we take away the objective reality we have created with Mind/consciousness then we are only left with Mind and consciousness. The same analogy with how information or Mind creates the images on a computer screen. Mind creates reality and that seems to be what the science says.
Ah, so what I see as bright yellow, you might see as (what I would call) dark blue. And white I see as black, you might see as (what I would call) dark red.
OK so you agree that there are things in the world that are real besides the objective world. Then why have an issue with other things like transcendent phenomena being facts or real in the world. They also have application, can be demonstrated in the objective world. The only difference is one has mass and occupies space and the other doesn't. So we can measure objective things with science and we can measure transcendent phenomena through our direct experience of them.
I haver provided evidence maybe not in this thread but in another I think you were involved in. Nevertheless here's a couple of links.
The greater moral is always about life, the taking of life. That's permanent and ultimately what all morals are based on. Its not something any individual decides but rather I think something that we all intuitively know is a truth which is supported by science.
I agree with this dictionary meaning
Did you sign a work agreement. I'm pretty sure workplace agreements have been around for some time. MacDonald's have led the way in having agreements and protections for both their employees and themselves.
That would only happen if the workplace was not open and transparent where people felt uncomfortable about speaking their mind.
That's why I think religion and politics should stay out of the workplace. Your there to do a job not win the election or convert people. Its when a company publicly aligns themselves with certain political or moral views that it causes division because its no longer about work but personal.
That's what science is based on, empirical evidence is observational evidence through the senses. You see the rain, can touch it, hear it and do tests to verify this. You can't do that with say consciousness or morals. But you can get evidence other ways such as with consciousness we can ask the conscious subject what it is like to have that experience and compare them. Or look through our history of experience and see what truths can be derived from this.
Yes but not because its my moral truth but because it is the moral truth. So they are not disagreeing with me but the truth of the matter. Its the truth because it stands independent of me or you or anyone and we can reason that truth.
It does when we we are talking about 'life' being sovereign. This is the basis for all morality. We intuitively know this and were born with this knowledge. Its the basis for all our laws, morals, ethics and Human Rights. So if psychology can show that certain acts harm or threaten wellbeing and life then that contradicts the preservation and respect of life.
I am not sure we should go into that in this thread. But it doesn't matter the point is just like DV we could find some facts either way and its in finding those facts that we can build a case to say its good or bad. Even when we look at single parents, or unmarried couples and non religious married couples we can draw out some facts about the good and bad aspects which can help us understanding whether its good or bad.
But saying it was perfectly legal to kill these people 200 years ago doesn't mean it was morally OK. The fact that we can stand here today and say that it was morally wrong means it was morally wrong back then as we have discovered the truth by living out slavery and WW2 the hard way through actually experiencing the Nazi's and slave owners view of things and it showed that it was bad and wrong.
I think you might be talking about color inversion. When the photo effect flips colors to their opposite hue on the color wheel. This has a basis in that the receptors are different and is rare. But the interesting thing about our experience of this is I think that even though they are the opposite the experience of them is still real like there are two sets of facts in the world for the same thing.
OK so you agree that there are things in the world that are real besides the objective world. Then why have an issue with other things like transcendent phenomena being facts or real in the world. They also have application, can be demonstrated in the objective world. The only difference is one has mass and occupies space and the other doesn't. So we can measure objective things with science and we can measure transcendent phenomena through our direct experience of them.
I haver provided evidence maybe not in this thread but in another I think you were involved in. Nevertheless here are a couple of links.
The greater moral is life itself. All morals are based on respecting and protecting life. That is what all ethics, laws, norms and Human Rights are based on. We are born with this knowledge and that is our experience of 'life's' value throughout history.
The dictionary seems to be a good definition for morality
Did you sign a work agreement. As far as I understand a work agreement is a Human Right.
A hostile work environment can be caused by arguing any issue even a work related one say over safety or conditions. That will only happen if the workplace is hostile to begin with. A workplace should be open where workers are not judged on their personal views. They should not come into it as its got nothing to do with work.
In theory people should be able to express their personal views without fear or favor. But that is not what happens. We hear of many people being sacked or biased against because of their personal political or moral views.
Empirical evidence is the science method. It means based on observation through the senses. The observation is its raining, the sense date seeing, hearing and touching rain and then testing it is the evidence. But we know that there are phenomena in the world that we cannot see, hear, touch and test that is still real and a fact in the world.
Actually they are not disagreeing with me but disagreeing with the truth of the matter. Its not my determination but one that is based on independent support beyond me or you or anyone.
But they can be used to measure when an act is wrong or not against the truth of respecting and protecting life. So psychology can measure the damage to a persons psych which affects their ability to thrive. Medical studies can measure the damage to someone physically that affects their wellbeing.
Without going into the whys and wherefores of SMM it doesn't matter. The point is its possible to find some facts about SSM as to whether its good, beneficial or not through the sciences and our experience of it. Its the same for single parenting, heterosexual co-habitation and marriage. We can derive some facts about what effects these situations have which can help inform us about whether they are good or bad situations morally just like we can for DV.
No I don't get the picture if you saying because morals of some were different back then so there is no objective morals or truth to the matter I disagree as that is a logical fallacy I think.
I don't think the objective world is completely an illusion. It works for a certain aspect of reality, the physical interface that we navigate the world with. But its illusionary as far as what fundamental reality is, what's at the bottom underpinning objective reality.
Yes that 'more to it' is called consciousness IMO. We can make mental concepts about reality but our consciousness seems to tell us something directly about reality.
(Ken)
Yes
They are opposing views.
You go with the one you agree with.
They would have been wrong according to our subjective beliefs, but not according to theirs. This is the case regardless of who wins the war.
Assumptions? The evidence I have chosen to use is the dictionary definition of words. I’m asking what evidence are you using?
To “Know” means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt.
(Ken)
You’re taking the opinions of Philosophers as evidence of what happens in the real world? There is no empirical evidence that what this guy is saying is true. Philosophy is not about getting to the truth of the matter, Philosophy is about questions; often that can never be answered.
If morality were objective, there could be no greater moral to over-ride it when someone deems necessary. Gravity is objective; do we get to over ride the effects of gravity if say…. a life is at stake? No.
I see. I think our disagreement is based on whether morality is based on facts or not. I say it is not, you say it is based on the subjective opinions of a couple of Philosophers.
So if a worker has the view that his race is superior to all others, he should be allowed to express it free of judgment, and his views should not in any way hinder him when he is considered for promotion over other people; is this your view?
Then save up your money, start your own business, and you can invite an environment where people can express all of their views; even the ones that harm your business.
If we can’t hear, taste, or touch it, how do we know?
But if your opinion is 100% truth, how is this different than what I just said?
Wellbeing does not determine right vs wrong.
There are plenty of facts concerning SSM, but none of them determine right vs wrong unless you subjectively decide those facts determine right vs wrong in your view.
We also stand here and say SSM is right! Does that mean we have moved closer to the truth in that regard? Or is that issue an exception because you personally disagree with it?
No, I'm saying that if our perception of colour is completely subjective, then what appears to me to be a high contrast yellow/black could appear to you to be a low contrast dark blue/dark red. Since our ability to detect contrast can be objectively tested (a simple measure of how quickly we can determine if a series of lines is two different colours or not), this suggests that there is some objective thing that we are perceiving.
Even if this is true, it still doesn't change the fact that what we perceive of the world is based on something that is objectively real.
That's not what I was talking about. Allow me to rephrase what I said earlier:
It depends on the moral situation that's why. If its a specific situation then we can talk.
Then what is the difference between your feeling or opinion that something is morally wrong and someone else's feelings and opinion that the same moral situation is morally right.
Yes so how do you work out which opposing view is the right one.
So do you agree just for the sake of agreeing or is there something that causes you to agree.
But you said in the last post
The evidence from our experience of morality. As mentioned we lived out these morals and tried different ways according to peoples subjective views such as slavery and killing Jews or many other ways were tested out these morals and they didn't work for many reasons.Assumptions? The evidence I have chosen to use is the dictionary definition of words. I’m asking what evidence are you using?
To “Know” means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt.
IOW just because you “know” doesn’t mean you are right.
If you are unwilling to accept what your 5 senses tell you, what evidence would you be willing to accept?
