- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,055
- 15,668
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
So give me a moral position which you say is objectively determined with which you subjectively disagree.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Then how do you explain thisNo, people who know the difference between objective vs subjective know morality is not objective.
this is an even bigger logical fallacy that the previous one. I havnt said anything yet about my moral position and you are doing my thinking.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 it
Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational. For example we all intuitively know that torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong. Those who disgree are irrational.And? Do you think not accepting objecive morality is a rational position?
But human beings are capable of detereming facts/truths about moral acts through reasoning. Facts are not dependent of the subject.If moral "facs" have something to do with humans being humans (whatever that would mean) then its not objective, as its then dependent on subjects.
Their not my core morals. They are a common core set of morals. For example people in Sweden like most countries agree that tortuting a child for fun is morally wrong. Those same people say that anyone who thinks torturing a child for fun is good is objective wrong. So those same people will also think that ISIS or Iranians in torturing or killing innocent women and children are objectively wrong.Not all humans accept your "core morals" just look around the world. You think ISIS shares your "moral truths"? Or Iranians? Or the remote people in amazonas? Or we here in secular Sweden?
OK So I disagree that a person has to be married before they can have sex. Thats the only one I can think of at the moment.So give me a moral position which you say is objectively determined with which you subjectively disagree.
You could have used scientists. That would have been a better arguement as the majority are atheists and most atheeists are materialist and science is basically about verifying physical reality. So the logic would be scientists know what they are talking about when it comes to evidence and so they should know best and better than philosophers.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.
Thats a different arguement. You have to support that there are objective morals without using God to be able to use objective morality as an arguemnet for God. Otherwise its a circular arguement.Of special note, philosophers find the Argument from Objective Morality faulty when used to prove the existence of God.
OK So I disagree that a person has to be married before they can have sex. Thats the only one I can think of at the moment.
The objective moral is about being in a committed and monogamous relationship and I think that doesnt always require marriage. But I do recognise some of the arguemnets for why marriage as a symbol of committed can help. So there is still an objective moral truth that couples should be faithful, and committed.So how is it objectively wrong? We both think that in some circumstances there is nothing wrong with it. So how can something we think is perfectly acceptable even be described as immoral? Let alone objectively immoral.
Sounds like somebody is expressing their personal opinion here.Then how do you explain this
The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry
Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
Even if there were those who think their moral beliefs were objectively true, it doesn’t mean that they are.
But every moral situation you know of, your views aligns perfectly with objective morality; is that correct? When it comes to issues like abortion, the Israel Palestine conflict., Nuclear weapons during war, Death with dignity, all of these issues, you are objectively right, and anyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong; is that correct?As I said originally I would not even know all the moral situations to be able to know that my morals align with them.
Yet is it argued through rationality and logic. Thats why most philosophers agree that objective morality is a rational position because it is reasoned out and logically stands.Sounds like somebody is expressing their personal opinion here.
But its not just based on agreement for the sake of it. Its a reasoned and logical position which makes it independent from subjective views and opinions.Even if there were those who think their moral beliefs were objectively true, it doesn’t mean that they are.
No thats whay you are saying. I don't know, there are some moral objectives I sort of disagree with like having to be married to have sex with your partner. I mean I would love to be able to get rich and live the high life literally. So I sort of agree with it but know its not right. Not as a Christian anyway. So there maybe morals that Christians have that non-Christians don't live by.But every moral situation you know of, your views aligns perfectly with objective morality; is that correct?
So is that how it works? You just label those who disagree with you irrational? To what end?Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational. For example we all intuitively know that torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong. Those who disgree are irrational.
Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational. For example we all intuitively know that torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong. Those who disgree are irrational.
But human beings are capable of detereming facts/truths about moral acts through reasoning. Facts are not dependent of the subject.
Their not my core morals. They are a common core set of morals. For example people in Sweden like most countries agree that tortuting a child for fun is morally wrong. Those same people say that anyone who thinks torturing a child for fun is good is objective wrong. So those same people will also think that ISIS or Iranians in torturing or killing innocent women and children are objectively wrong.
Just because some minority of people oppose thse core morals doesnt mean there are no objective core morals we all agree on. It just means those who disagree and act in contravention of those core morals are mistaken and wrong.
I do think we can find somewhere to agree in most cases or in general though maybe anyway, or some in general guidelines maybe anyway, what we share in common as a people or a world or a race, etc, but then you have to get into law and how that works, most especially when rules are broken, etc, and those "degrees" also, etc...It's difficult, at least in the moral sense, with any of it being objective, because that basically means "always", and is an absolute...
But the law is and exercise in exceptions...
Why it gets so incredibly long and complex over more and more time...
Anyway,
God Bless!
So there is still an objective moral truth that couples should be faithful, and committed.
No, we're using philosophers because that's the group you chose. Philosophers are the experts on logic and reason, I'll grant that, so you have a slight lead for the reasonableness of Moral Realism, and we have a big lead for the lack of reasonableness of believing in God.You could have used scientists. That would have been a better arguement as the majority are atheists and most atheeists are materialist and science is basically about verifying physical reality. So the logic would be scientists know what they are talking about when it comes to evidence and so they should know best and better than philosophers.
No, I'm talking about theists using that argument to prove God, and it is found faulty by a majority of experts on arguments and reason.Thats a different arguement. You have to support that there are objective morals without using God to be able to use objective morality as an arguemnet for God. Otherwise its a circular arguement.
Okay, now look back at what you said previously to notice your double-standard:Well if objective morality is based on rational thinking then those rejecting that would be irrational.
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.
We're irrational for disagreeing with you. But you think we consider you and your position to be rational even though you've reasoned incorrectly. Can't have it both ways, bub.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 being faithful and committed relates to the moral wrong of sex outside marriage. Can't you see that.That wasn't the example that you used. You said that sex outside marriage was objectively wrong. But that you think it can be OK.
Most behavioural sciences have objective evidence that being in a monogamous stable marriage is better for you across a number of areas. Being monogamous and committed such as in a marriage is betetr for kids as well which is better for families and society. There are other supports such as through anthropology, sociology, biology, that also lend support.So how is it objectively wrong?
Well they may not trump the idea of marriage. I just think people can be in a committed and monogamous relationship without the piece of paper. But as I said I do understand the logic that having that bit of paper is like a symbol of that commitment and thus can show a deeper commitment.You obviously think that the reasons you believe it can be OK trump any reasons for it being wrong. But that you still maintain it's OK.
ITs not being cognitively dissonance at all and is rather not unusual to be in 2 minds about what one should do. Look at issues like abortion or the death penalty.Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? This is a classic example.
-snip-
In fact look at what I have been saying about the subjective and relative position and how people claim morals are subjective/relative but then act like morals are objective.-snip-
Not sure what you mean. I have maintain a consistent position.Okay, now look back at what you said previously to notice your double-standard:
I never said anyone is irrational for disagreeing with "Me". I have said they would be irrational to disagree with objective morals. Thats a different thing. If morality is determined to be a truth/fact then it has been determined by rationality. It is logical that someone disagreeing with it will be irrational by the fact that the moral objective was determined rationally.We're irrational for disagreeing with you. But you think we consider you and your position to be rational even though you've reasoned incorrectly. Can't have it both ways, bub.
Brass tacks: your position is irrational. Are you personally an irrational person? I dunno. I haven't talked to you about anything but this topic. On this topic though, your points are almost entirely irrational.
And I bet you say the same about me. And that's fine.
No its not 1 non-realist but the majority in the survey done. It wasnt a personal guess but an academic survey. But this is not the only support if you read the mainstream general articles they will all say that we all agree that there is a small core set of objective morals we agree on and think are objective regardless of peoples subjective views. So its pretty musch the majority view even if your an atheist or non-objectivists as its also a commonsense view.But let's stop cut-n-pasting that bit about how moral non-realists think your position is rational, because they don't. You've got one moral realist making that claim with nothing to support it but his personal guess.
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?