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.
Wrong. To disprove Absolute Morality I need to prove that morality is relative. I do not need to make a case for Relative Morality.But as far as I understand it absolute is best understood through its opposite relative morality.
It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality, that you are the only one who knows the difference between what is objectively moral vs objectively immoral, you should be able to point to an objective moral issue that goes against your personal beliefs. Or….. you can recognize that your moral beliefs are completely subjective which would be the first step in recognizing everybody else’s is as well.Its a weird question as I don't think we all know our moral positions completely. They may not have all been tested. I can safely say that the core set of moral truths align with my views of morality. As for the rest thats up for debate. But I don't get why you are asking.
It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality...
then how come the majority of philophers who know this area think object moarality is rational position.It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality, that you are the only one who knows the difference between what is objectively moral vs objectively immoral, you should be able to point to an objective moral issue that goes against your personal beliefs. Or….. you can recognize that your moral beliefs are completely subjective which would be the first step in recognizing everybody else’s is as well.
I get you now. But proving morality is relative is impossible.Wrong. To disprove Absolute Morality I need to prove that morality is relative. I do not need to make a case for Relative Morality.
Just like how morality is objective if Moral Realism is true, but Moral Objectivity entails extra claims.
The same reason the majority of philosophers of 150 years ago who knew this area disagree with philosophers of today, and the majority of philosophers today will disagree with philosophers 150 years from now. Human morality is in a constant state of change, it's all subjective.then how come the majority of philophers who know this area think object moarality is rational position.
Proving morality is relative is trivial. For morality to be absolute it would have to be worthlessly vague. Every time you add detail to a moral statement, you add circumstances that moral statement is relative to. A purely 100% absolute morality would have to be, "One ought to act". That's basically the only way to write a prescriptive moral that applies to all people in all situations.I get you now. But proving morality is relative is impossible.
then how come the majority of philophers who know this area think object moarality is rational position.
THe point is the majority think objective morality is true not subjective.The same reason the majority of philosophers of 150 years ago who knew this area disagree with philosophers of today, and the majority of philosophers today will disagree with philosophers 150 years from now. Human morality is in a constant state of change, it's all subjective.
Some of the philosophers who are atheists must support objective morality because 2 to 1 phisplosophers support objective morality. In fact nearly all philosophers think there is a good case and reasons to support objective morality.``I could have sworn I answered this. But maybe it didn't send...
Anyway, you do realise that the percentage of philosophers who are atheist run into the high 70s? I'm not sure that this is a path that you want to take.
These are all logical fallacies. None of this disproves objective morality or supports subjective morality.It’s important because unless you are gonna claim that you are the first and only person ever to have all of their personal moral beliefs align perfectly with objective morality, that you are the only one who knows the difference between what is objectively moral vs objectively immoral, you should be able to point to an objective moral issue that goes against your personal beliefs. Or….. you can recognize that your moral beliefs are completely subjective which would be the first step in recognizing everybody else’s is as well.
Some of the philosophers who are atheists must support objective morality because 2 to 1 phisplosophers support objective morality. In fact nearly all philosophers think there is a good case and reasons to support objective morality.``
Even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
Why would that be the case.Then you must agree that there is a good case for atheism.
I thought I have answered this. Its just you don't like the answer. I cannot think of any. You have to remember that objective moral values are comon sxesne moral values so its not as if people disagree with them. I think most peoples morals align with moral realism.In any case, you haven't answered tbe question that has been asked a few times. Are there any acts which you say are absolutely wrong that you consider to be right. Or vice versa.
Any at all?
Why would that be the case.
I cannot think of any.
Then you must agree that there is a good case for atheism.
A compromise, fellas. By Steve's criteria, atheism is the most reasonable position. Philosophers are the experts on the logic and reasoning that supports the existence of God, and most of them find it faulty.Why would that be the case.
A compromise, fellas. By Steve's criteria, atheism is the most reasonable position. Philosophers are the experts on the logic and reasoning that supports the existence of God, and most of them find it faulty.
Of special note, philosophers find the Argument from Objective Morality faulty when used to prove the existence of God.
And they do. Those opposed to moral realism (objective morality) still thought it was a rational position and that objectivists were not horrible confused.Obviously because you are using the fact that a larger precentage of philosophers support objective morality. And so you must think that the huge percentage that are atheists would grant that position greater credibility.
Look at it this way our position isnt about our personal subejctive views but about moral truths/facts which are not derived by personal opinions but reasoned facts. Moral truths are also practcial, they help humans be humans.So the answers to all objective moral problems are the answers to which you'd agree. But...that's o_mlly's position as well.
If I agreed with him then we would have the same objective morals. But we all agree with o_mlly and my morality anyway as they are truths. All humans have acknowledged those truths (core morals) and say that they cannot be changed subjective or are not open for subjective determination.If you disagree with him, how do we tell who is right?
And they do. Those opposed to moral realism (objective morality) still thought it was a rational position and that objectivists were not horrible confused.
But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
The moral skeptic will certainly be able to find philosophers who agree with him that there aren’t any objective moral facts. However, he won’t be able to find many philosophers who agree with him that moral realists are all horribly confused. He might not be able to find any.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/
So at the very least we can say the real experts seem to disagree with you that my position is irrational and really says something about which is the real rational position objectivist.
Look at it this way our position isnt about our personal subejctive views but about moral truths/facts which are not derived by personal opinions but reasoned facts. Moral truths are also practcial, they help humans be humans.
If I agreed with him then we would have the same objective morals. But we all agree with o_mlly and my morality anyway as they are truths. All humans have acknowledged those truths (core morals) and say that they cannot be changed subjective or are not open for subjective determination.
No, people who know the difference between objective vs subjective know morality is not objective.THe point is the majority think objective morality is true not subjective.
No, because if you gonna make the claim that morality changes over time because mankind has failed to get it right, but can't point to a time you've gotten it wrong, you are basically saying objective morality only aligns with your moral views, and anybody who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. If that is your position, (as absurd as it sounds) go ahead and say itThese are all logical fallacies. None of this disproves objective morality or supports subjective morality.
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?