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.
So according to the logic of "its all in the eye of the beholder" abusing little kids is a perfectly OK moral position because the "beholder" determines its OK. There is no truth to the acts wrongness or rightness. It would be a strange old world that we thought that was true.Its all in the eye of the beholder.
Doesnt something like the US consititution and the UNited Nations Human rights say all life is equal. Or all have the right to life. IEYou think that values are objective? No wonder you have difficulty with moral concepts.
And one person's right to life doesn't eliminate another person's right. The value each put on their rights is different. The value I put on them is different.
I really have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that I have to state this so baldly. Maybe it's just said because it's so easy to say. 'All lives are equal'. A nice sound bite that'll get a smattering of applause from the audience. But it ain't true. And when the chips are down, it's so obviously true.
If you're trying to build an argument on it then you won't get past that first premise.
Doesnt something like the US consititution and the UNited Nations Human rights say all life is equal. Or all have the right to life. IE
Introduction
Article 6 of the ICCPR states:
I think "arbitrary deprived" is pertinent. The value of Human life shouldn't be deprived based on subjective feelings, opinions or preferences.
- Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Killing little children is wrong. Do you disagree?By what basis do you use to determine God was wrong.
what discussion.You're dragging me back into this discussion...
What does equal mean. There is natural (intrinsic) rights, whats also known as God given rights or birth rights. They are more about valuing human life as intrinsically valuable, to respect life and have dignity and I think they are more absolute values.Neither says anything about one life being equal to another.
Yeah Australia has a constitution and I keep getting them mixed up. But most western countries at least have some law/right about humans have natural rights because humans have a certain value that needs to be upheld. Even people with a bad character are valued as humans and still have these rights to certain things like justice, health, education, shelter.And it's the Declaration of Independence (not the constitution) that you were probably thinking of when it said that all men are created equal. And I have no argument with that. We are. We're all a tabula rasa.
Yes thats our character. There can be a moral or virtious character as opposed to a devious or untrustworthy character.But how we turn out - that is, how we stand in comparison to our fellow man (can't help but use the male term) is another matter.
I think the there is still an objective measure (score) of character. We attribute certain good and bad characteristics like the villian or hero. So there is a scale we use to value the person.Then we start to determine value. And how we all stand relative to any other is a determination that we all, individually, have to decide. Hence it is subjective.
So according to the logic of "its all in the eye of the beholder" abusing little kids is a perfectly OK moral position because the "beholder" determines its OK. There is no truth to the acts wrongness or rightness. It would be a strange old world that we thought that was true.
But without some objective basis for arguing that something is wrong its impossible. All you would be doing is arguing that your personal opinion should be taken as fact. Thats normally not how truths/facts are determined.Every moral position is as good as the arguments for/against it. I have no problem to argue against abusing kids without using any notion of objective morality.
Of course not. But that does not negate there are moral truths. The moral arguement doesn't say that atheists don't know whats right and wrong. It only questions what the grounding is for the morals being claim to be wrong under subjective morality.Would you suddenly think its ok to abuse kids if you lost your faith in god?
Actually I see it the opposite way around. Under a subjective moral system moral behaviour cannot improve or evolve into anything because its just about feelings, preferences, opinions and they cannot be right or wrong.The thing is that in fact its a lot more positive to not have the notion in an "objective morality" as that makes it ok to let morality evolve, to move with the times. If morality was "objective" then the answers would never change and slavery would still be ok, women would be opressed etc.
I am trying. I covered Ethics 101 such as deontology, teleology, Utalitarianism, Consequentialism, Kant and all that. Studied Mills, Ross, Parfit some others. Most articles regardless of moral position will cover arguements for and against each position i.e, moral antirealism. But its a big topic with lots of sub topics so I will keep reading and learning.You should really try to learn what the differnet wievpoints represent intead of making strawmen all the time.
But without some objective basis for arguing that something is wrong its impossible. All you would be doing is arguing that your personal opinion should be taken as fact. Thats normally not how truths/facts are determined. Of course not. But that does not negate there are moral truths. The moral arguement doesn't say that atheists don't know whats right and wrong. It only questions what the grounding is for the morals being claim to be wrong under subjective morality.
The point is we make child abuse an objective wrong and thats our measurement. You don't need to be religious to do that. We all intuitively know child abuse is wrong. It would be counter intuitive to say "child abuse is morally ok". We would think anyone who thought it was OK was objectively wrong and there was something wrong with them.
Actually I see it the opposite way around. Under a subjective moral system moral behaviour cannot improve or evolve into anything because its just about feelings, preferences, opinions and they cannot be right or wrong.
But appealing to improvement and progression of morals is also appealing to an objective measurement that can tell us when things improve or even find better/best ways to act morally. I found this articles explanation of how subjective morality is hard to apply and doesn't really fit with how we treat moral matters.
No Room for Social Reform and Progress
One of the strongest objections to relativism is the idea that if relativism is true, then there can be no such thing as social reform or moral progress. If each culture’s ethical code is equally good and right, then when a country changes its ethical code from being pro-slavery to being anti-slavery this moral change is merely a change rather an improvement. Moral improvement and progress require that there be some standard toward which a society or an ethical code are approaching; they also entail that the subsequent morality is better than the prior morality, but again this is not something that can be said if relativism is true.
When the United States abolished slavery and segregation, and gave women and minorities the right to vote, its ethical code underwent a change. But to say that it underwent an improvement requires saying that enslaving African Americans, segregating Whites from Blacks, and preventing women and minorities from voting are objectively worse, morally speaking, than their opposites. Relativism cannot consistently support such a position for relativism entails precisely the opposite, namely that there are no objective standards for morality and morality is relative to communities. If a community decides that it wants to endorse X and then later decides to morally condemn X, then both moralities are equal. No morality is superior to another.
Aren’t Right and Wrong Just Matters of Opinion? On Moral Relativism and Subjectivism – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics
I am trying. I covered Ethics 101 such as deontology, teleology, Utalitarianism, Consequentialism, Kant and all that. Studied Mills, Ross, Parfit some others. Most articles regardless of moral position will cover arguements for and against each position i.e, moral antirealism. But its a big topic with lots of sub topics so I will keep reading and learning.
Yes. It is my opinion that it is wrong. Do you think killing babies is wrong?But thats just your opinion.
Why isnt an objective elevated like a law. If there are moral truths they have to stand independent of human opinions and preferences. So they have to have elevated status.Learn to write shorter, and stop spamming links, I dont read them.
You arguments are severly lacking. You just keeep asserting the same faulty logics and strawmen without understanding the subject. There need not be any "truth" to moral arguments, and you can still use facts. That does in no way make morality "objective". That is not a weak point, quite the opposite.
You also seem to think that making something "objective" somehow elevates it. It doesnt.
Yes and I would like to say that anyone who thought killing babies was OK is objectively wrong. If someone said "they liked killing babies" people would find that counter intuitive and that there was something wrong with the person who expressed that. We can say that person is objectively wrong.Yes. It is my opinion that it is wrong. Do you think killing babies is wrong?
God has killed babies. Is God being objectively wrong when he did so?Yes and I would like to say that anyone who thought killing babies was OK is objectively wrong.
Well, I don't think it's possible for an act not to have a context, so how much of a role that should play in our judging might be something we could maybe talk about I guess...?Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, I may never come upGod has killed babies. Is God being objectively wrong when he did so?
-snip- If there are moral truths they have to stand independent of human opinions and preferences. -snip-
Do you have to adjust any of it/that in the context of Him/him being God maybe...?God has killed babies. Is God being objectively wrong when he did so?
No. I would have no problem saying that killing babies is objectively wrong. Am I right in thinking that statement surprises you?Yes and I would like to say that anyone who thought killing babies was OK is objectively wrong. If someone said "they liked killing babies" people would find that counter intuitive and that there was something wrong with the person who expressed that. We can say that person is objectively wrong.
The point is I can say that killing innocent babies is objectively wrong as its consistent with my position of moral realism. But the subjectivists cannot reconcile that under their moral system there is nothing morally wrong with killing or torturing babies.
That’s great. Without God we can agree on a right or wrong.I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, I may never come up. We don't need to involve God to know that certain things are morally wrong.
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?