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.
Do you have objective evdience for this
By that standard of a person dying being because God made them to die....well....God murdered children when he order a few genocides and dashed skulks and great floods etc.
I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion. I have already shown that subjective morality is illogical and impossible to live out. If you are basing your determination on logic and rationality then we should go with objective morality. For exampleI'm just saying I see no valid reason to think that morality is objective, and what I do see of morality seems to me to fit much better into the idea that it's subjective.
If valuing X is part of being human, then anyone who does not value X is not human.well as I was trying to say it would be something like
P1 humans typically value life as a natural feature of the species.
P2 this makes valuing life a part of being human
C therefore humans ought to value life.
If something is intrinsic, then nobody makes it intrinsic.Its quite simple. As I mentioned all the national and world bodies make life intrinsically valuable.
If the rights are inalienable, then those bodies have no choice but to recognize those rights, they don't give them.They give humans inalienable rights to certain qualities that value life.
You just got done saying that life is intrinsically valuable as a result of the actions of people, and now you say that they stand without the views of people.That makes these values and rights stand despite peoples and governments subjective views.
P1 If humans typically value life subjectively then humans will continue to existP3 Human life is intrinsically valuable
P4 if human life is not intrinsically valued then humans don't exist
C Therefore human Life is the sort of thing we ought to value
That doesnt follow. Its just stating a truth like eating food is part of being human.If valuing X is part of being human, then anyone who does not value X is not human.
If that was the case we could have no intrinsic things. Yet all ethical theories include intrinsic values.If something is intrinsic, then nobody makes it intrinsic.
Only after reasoning and recognising their inalienability. Alos the fact that the alternative is absurd. I guess that was part of the reasoning.If the rights are inalienable, then those bodies have no choice but to recognize those rights, they don't give them.
I never said because of the actions pf people rather the reasoning of people.You just got done saying that life is intrinsically valuable as a result of the actions of people, and now you say that they stand without the views of people.
The 1st premise can be quickly shown as false. valuing life subjectively can mean anything. Thats why it has to be intrinsically valuable independent of subjective views.P1 If humans typically value life subjectively then humans will continue to exist
P2 Humans exist
C Humans typically value life subjectively
No, it can't. Valuing life is valuing life. You think you value life for objective reasons, I know that we value life for subjective reasons. Value = desire.valuing life subjectively can mean anything
It does. If Y lacks a part of what defines X, then Y =/= XThat doesnt follow.
There ya go.If that was the case we could have no intrinsic things.
People believing there are intrinsic values does not prove there are intrinsic values.Yet all ethical theories include intrinsic values.
You said we "make" things intrinsically valuable and we "give" rights. "Make" and "give" are verbs, i.e. actions.I never said because of the actions pf people rather the reasoning of people.
That has never happened though, has it? You can’t say “yeah Gary died in agony but he’s still alive in Glory Land” and expect anyone to take you seriously.So... Consider: if you heard from Fred that Jane and her daughter where murdered, but then you learned later that Jane and her daughter are alive and living in New Zealand...
If valuaing life is subjective and based on desire then if someone feels life is not valuable then they cannot be objectively wrong because there is no objective way dispute them.No, it can't. Valuing life is valuing life. You think you value life for objective reasons, I know that we value life for subjective reasons. Value = desire.
You should change (C) to "Buster is not living like a human should". Valuing life is part of being human means it is the optimum state humans can take to flourish and if they don't then they will suffer and die. So Buster in not valuing life is not living up to what a human should be like. That doesnt mean hes not human. It just means he is not living to what is considered the best way to be human.It does. If Y lacks a part of what defines X, then Y =/= X
P1 Hydrogen is part of water (H2O)
P2 Salt contains no hydrogen (NaCl)
C Salt is not water
P1 Valuing X is part of being human
P2 Buster does not value X
C Buster is not human
Valid, but unsound because P1 is false. Valuing life is typical of humans. That's it.
There ya go.
Its a justified belief so it is supported by reasoning which makes it a fact/truth similar in Math.People believing there are intrinsic values does not prove there are intrinsic values.
Just like scientists make theories. That doesnt mean the things they are making are not representative of objective facts. We give rights based on the truth that humans have inalienable rights.You said we "make" things intrinsically valuable and we "give" rights. "Make" and "give" are verbs, i.e. actions.
I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion. I have already shown that subjective morality is illogical and impossible to live out. If you are basing your determination on logic and rationality then we should go with objective morality. For example
Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.
Thats seems logical and makes sense doesnt it.
Its like a self-evident truth because the alternative is absurd.
But under subjective morlaity the alternative is a subjetcive view that is just as valid a view as anyone elses by the fact there is no truth to the matter..
You say that you have no objective support for why you think subjective morlaity is the only alternative and say there is no valid reason for objetcive morlaity. That implies a valid reason for subjective morality. So you base your position on reasoning or that things just seems to fit better (make sense).
Yet when I use the same logic for arguements for objective morlaity you discount them. What this does show is that when it comes to morality there are certain truths we can reason about and that morality determining whats right and wrong can be reasoned as truths/facts.
Its just that the reasoning for subjective morality doesn't doesn't stand up.
To value life is to desire to live. That's what it means whether morality is objective or not. To value wealth is to desire wealth. To value a cheeseburger is to desire a cheeseburger. To value love is to desire love.We have to be able to define what valuing life means.
Then the argument would be invalid.You should change (C) to "Buster is not living like a human should".
That's not what "is a part of being" means.Valuing life is part of being human means it is the optimum state humans can take to flourish and if they don't then they will suffer and die.
It isn't justified by the fact that people believe its true.Its a justified belief so it is supported by reasoning which makes it a fact/truth similar in Math.
If morality is subjective, then it doesn't matter how extreme his examples are.I thought you'd know by now that I won't find that argument convincing unless you can do it for ALL moral positions, not just the extreme ones.
If morality is subjective, then it doesn't matter how extreme his examples are.
Subjective morality = "There are no moral facts"
Objective morality = "There are some moral facts"
If there is an example so extreme that it is a fact, then he wins.
That someone thought murdered had turned out alive? Of course that has happened. About your theory about the afterlife though, you do realize it's only a guess you are making, yes? You understand we cannot here typically see people that are in the afterlife? I can't say "I'll chat with mom at 3p." (Or at least most of us cannot). So that's similar to any unknown, such as "dark matter" in astrophysics.That has never happened though, has it? You can’t say “yeah Gary died in agony but he’s still alive in Glory Land” and expect anyone to take you seriously.
I never said it did. Why does it matter how extreme an example he chooses, then?Something doesn't become an objective fact just because lots of people agree with it.
It doesnt matter whether something is extreme or not to prove objective morlaity. The fact that you acknowledge that there is at least one moral situation where we can say that murder is objectively wrong is enough to support the argument that there are objective morals.I thought you'd know by now that I won't find that argument convincing unless you can do it for ALL moral positions, not just the extreme ones.
I have also explained to you a number of times that the idea that the "social conditioning arguement"has a number of problems (logical fallacy and incoherence). As this seems to be an issue that you cannot acknowledge I will spell the objections out clearly so you can address them 1 by 1.I've already explained so many times that I've lost count that our shared view that murder is bad stems from the fact that we are social creatures, and the moral viewpoints that are common among members of our society stem from the fact that those are viewpoints that we needed in order to keep that society going. Why do you keep making me explain it again and again?
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?