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.
Its pretty much par for the course.That is nonsense unworthy of you.
Subjectivity does NOT mean that all people can do whatever they want whenever they want. It means society negotiates what one can do and not do.
There has been no new ”points” made for many many posts.Hmm, didnt know this was one more time around picadilly circus.
But why. I am only applying the same logic that is used for subjective thinking to morality. If peoples preferences and feelings for TV shows and food is not right or wrong but merely expressions of they subjective state. The if we applied this to moral situations then someones preference for rape is not wrong. Its justa different opinion to other people.That is nonsense unworthy of you.
I never said that. I am merely pointing out that under a subjective system it allows for the view that rape is ok to stand equal with rape not being OK. If under a subjective moral system views about morals are like views for TV shows and food then no one can be wrong for thinking rape is ok just like no one can be wrong for thinking Star Trek is ok.Subjectivity does NOT mean that all people can do whatever they want whenever they want. It means society negotiates what one can do and not do.
When a person commits an act, I may judge it wrong by my standards. Then you may judge it wrong by your standards. And the majority of people in our circle may judge it wrong each by their own standards. Then society has judged them wrong. If that person wishes to continue in our society, he/she will stop doing that. If not, he/she will either be punished or leave.I never said that. I am merely pointing out that under a subjective system it allows for the view that rape is ok to stand equal with rape not being OK. If under a subjective moral system views about morals are like views for TV shows and food then no one can be wrong for thinking rape is ok just like no one can be wrong for thinking Star Trek is ok.
I never said that. I am merely pointing out that under a subjective system it allows for the view that rape is ok to stand equal with rape not being OK. If under a subjective moral system views about morals are like views for TV shows and food then no one can be wrong for thinking rape is ok just like no one can be wrong for thinking Star Trek is ok.
But why. I am only applying the same logic that is used for subjective thinking to morality. If peoples preferences and feelings for TV shows and food is not right or wrong but merely expressions of they subjective state. The if we applied this to moral situations then someones preference for rape is not wrong. Its justa different opinion to other people.
But why. I am only applying the same logic that is used for subjective thinking to morality. If peoples preferences and feelings for TV shows and food is not right or wrong but merely expressions of they subjective state. The if we applied this to moral situations then someones preference for rape is not wrong. Its justa different opinion to other people.
It seems that all this is being determined by reasong and argueing what is best. One person arguing their view with another and coming to some agreement. But that can only be done if we have some common basis ie raping harms people and society.When a person commits an act, I may judge it wrong by my standards. Then you may judge it wrong by your standards. And the majority of people in our circle may judge it wrong each by their own standards. Then society has judged them wrong. If that person wishes to continue in our society, he/she will stop doing that. If not, he/she will either be punished or leave.
This is the whole of morality.
If I think something is right/wrong, I will try to convince my society of it. If they agree, good. If not, I will either come up with better arguments or find a different society.
This is the whole of morality. We negotiate wrong/right. There is no absolute or objective standard.
Believe me I have thought long and deep about this topic. I understand what others are saying but am disagreeing. But it seems that because of that disagreement you are implying that I must be wrong ie "why don;t you listen to what everyone is saying". Which is a logical fallacy of ad populum anyway. I could use the fact that the majority of philosophers agree with my position moral realism.Im really sorry you cant work this out in your mind, and wont pay any attention to the things others say, that could help.
Notice plz that i pointed out how ten feet ( or less,
since its a border with different laws on each side)
and ten minutes ( girls age ) make the difference between
Felony Rape, and, good fun.
Think that over.
You really dont understand even the basics of moral philosophy.It seems that all this is being determined by reasong and argueing what is best. One person arguing their view with another and coming to some agreement. But that can only be done if we have some common basis ie raping harms people and society.
Otherwise an agreement of subjective personal opinions alone without any qualification cannot be a basis as it holds no weight, its just an opinion. Even if 1,000s of opinions agree. They could also agree and be wrong because there is no need to reason over subjective views.
If they do argue and reason about what behaviour is better/best then they have abandoned their subjective thinking and are now taking an objective position about morality because reasoning implies some objective basis for moral behaviour that is not based on subjective thinking.
The point is its impossible to argue and disagree under subjective morality as no one is technically wrong. They just have a different view.
Of course it has weight. It has the weight and force of society. Just because a view is subjective doesn't mean there aren't reasons. And when I try to convince others of my position, I use my reasons and I try to convince my interlocutor that they should adopt my reasons.Otherwise an agreement of subjective personal opinions alone without any qualification cannot be a basis as it holds no weight, its just an opinion. Even if 1,000s of opinions agree. They could also agree and be wrong because there is no need to reason over subjective views.
Long but maybe not so deep.Believe me I have thought long and deep about this topic. I understand what others are saying but am disagreeing. But it seems that because of that disagreement you are implying that I must be wrong ie "why don;t you listen to what everyone is saying". Which is a logical fallacy of ad populum anyway. I could use the fact that the majority of philosophers agree with my position moral realism.
But nevertheless you seem to be saying you hold the truth to this matter. But what if I am not wrong, what if both sides are wrong. You seem to be making an objective determination that you are right on this and I am wrong. What if its a case that people are not listening or acknowledging my truth.
As to your post itself I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that different states or cultures have different moral views and that this shows that morals are not absolute/objective. That one person or culture may see immoral acts like rape differently. So its hard to make an act like rape an absolute or objective moral truth.
lol So first you say it can be interpreted in different ways, and now you point to you saying the word could be replaced. Bologna. Just own a mistake for once.Once again if you read the entire post you will see I clearly clarified what I meant by saying you can replace the word "Tasty" with other subjective words.
Unfortunately the word "Tasty" is a reflection of the subject. You could replace that word with "Not tasty, tastes horrible , tastes delicious ect with other subjective terms.
What I meant by interpret was that the subjective state "Tasty" could be interpreted by other subjective states like "Not Tasty, tastes horrible , tastes delicious ect. So maybe the word interpret was a bit misleading. But that should have been cleared up if you read my whole post in context.
Neither of them are true, period. There is no other sense for "true" other than "real and objective".So neither of them are true in any real objective sense.
Thats right morality is not determined the same way as science determines facts. BUt it works the same way inthat moral truths are facts like in Math which also cannot be verified through scientific tests. When someone says "Rape is wrong" that is stating a moral truth that the act of rape is objectively wrong.
No if you make an objective statement the truth of this has to be beyond the subject. Otherwise they are just make any statement. Otherwise about the subjects state of mind and nothing actually beyond the mind that is a fact. So when you say 2+2=4 its an objective fact beyond the subject. We can know by looking at the equation that is adds up correctly.
But if someone said 2+2=5 we can say this is not objective beyond the subject but rathe rits just how the subject personally views things. It may be an objective truth for the subject but its not an objective truth beyond the subject.
Like I said objective morality has no scientific test to prove it. It is like a law of nature, just like Maths is a law or fact. We know moral laws just like we know Math laws. 2+2=4 is the same as rape = moral wrong. Saying rape is morall good is like saying 2+2+5.
I have given this information many times. I just did it again above. Thats all there is and if your waiting for some lab test verfication its not going to happen. But we can look at human behaviour as I have mentioned and see that moral language is like Math, and is about facts.
Your right that science is about desriotive statements and morality is prescriptive. Moral norms are a good example of prescriptive language that is about "Oughts". You "ought not rape" for example.
No it would be like a Star Wars fan raving on about how "Star Wars is the best movie ever" and someone saying but thats just your opinion. It doesnt mean Star Wars is actually the best movie ever. Thats why I keep saying your examples of subjective preferences for TV shows doesnt work for moral situations. If someone said Star Wars is full of space ships then this is an objective claim. JUst like someone says "Rape is wrong".
But how do people reach that agreement. How do they determine that which is agreed on is the best way to go. When people do disagree what are they disagreeing over and how do they sort out that disagreement.
There is also no complete agreement about scientific objectives. But when agreement is reached it is complete agreement that there is an objective. When people agree on a moral value they obviously have a shared basis like say rape is wrong because it harms women. If someone subjectively disagrees they are just mistaken just like they would be mistaken of they disagreed that 2+2=4.
But its not and I keep showing you how its not. How we act and converse with preferences for TV shows is descriptive (it describes something about the subject. Morality is different as its prescriptive. It tells us how something is outside the subject. How the act of "Rape" is wrong beyond the subjects preferences. Just like the Math equation 2+2-4 tells us a fact beyond the subjects personal view that 2+2=5.
I am only explaining the difference in how morality works compared to subjective thinking. Lets just get how morality works right first.
Its funny when I explain thiongs logically rather than address this you fall back on saying it all doesnt matter as I haven't proved objective morality to your satification.
What I am explaining is the support for objective morality. EXplaining that we don't act or converse like morals are subjective is part of the support which you keep fobbing off.
I'm not saying that. I am asking So do people’s preferences for TV shows have equal status in the world as yours even if they have the opposite view ie (they like Star Wars and not Star Trek).
But when people march and protest these morals they are not some new subjective moral view they want to impose on others. When people protest about the treatment of women as we have seen with the "Me To" movement or above domestic violence or about BLM these are already established moral truths.
People are just making it known that these moral truths are basic natural rights that we all agree should be upheld. BUt this doesnt happen with preferences for TV shows. We don't march in the streets or sack people for preferening Star Wars. So what I am saying is that people do treat moral issues differently to subjective thinking.
So therefore if a person had the subjective view that rape is morally ok where do they stand.
No I am using logic. I am questioning how we determine moral judgements. Is it best to use subjective thinking or objective thinking when making moral decisions about what is right or wrong.
I am questioning whether subjective thinking is the right way to determine such important matters that need to be correctly decides as to what is the better/best moral behaviour. Like I said I am now trying to breakdown how subjective and objective morality works.
Yes thats what Ive been trying to point out.
If you base your decision on an objective fact then it cannot be subjective thinking. As soon as you appeal to some objective outside your subjective mind/thinking as the measuring stick for your decision you give you subjective thinking. We can then point to that fact outside the subject and say this is the truth and any personal opinion is wrong factually.
That is why I am pointing out that we cannot help but use objective reasoning/language for moral issues as you have just demonstrated in that you acknowledged that we need some fact to base moral decisions on and not subjective opinions.
But as you have been shown it doesnt matter what example is used be iut extreme or non-extreme.
It only has to be shown (extreme or non-extreme) that absolute morals exist. If its accomplished by an extreme example to it doesnt matter as an absolute moral truth has been shown. Using more complicated examples is not going to deminsh the fact that an absolute moral truth has supported.
And saying "but there are more complex situations that are harder to find those moral truths" does not negate that there may be a moral truth to find. It just means some moral situations are harder to work out.
Your logic would be like saying 2+2=4 is too obvious for proving that Math truths. I want to see this Math truth applied to more complex equations before I accept that there are Math truths. But thats irrelevant as the Math truth has already been supported by the simple equation. Any more complicated equations that the average person would not be able to work out would have to be reagrded as false.
But thats illogical as we have already supported there are Math truths. So it follows that if there is a Math truths for obvious/simple equation then there will be a truth for more complicated Math equation even if we cannot work them out and find them at the time.
But giving reasons that adds weight to an arguement require an objctive basis. The moment you appeal to that objective basis you have abandoned subjective morality.Of course it has weight. It has the weight and force of society. Just because a view is subjective doesn't mean there aren't reasons. And when I try to convince others of my position, I use my reasons and I try to convince my interlocutor that they should adopt my reasons.
That's all morality is.
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?