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.
I'm not a Christian, so I have to ask rather than to presume to know.This seems to closely associate a couple of things for you then.
1. Morality is a result of social interaction. I would guess this holds true even for the Christian who believes in an actor observer relationship with God.
So if we can say that torturing an innocent child is objectively wrong beyond any individual subjective or cultural relative view and that anyone who claims its OK to torture an innocent child is mistaken and objectively wrong how is this not stating an objective fact.You give a lot of weird arguments that are supposed to prove morality is objective without demonstrating an actual moral fact.
Can you demonstrate one moral fact, through a purely logical non-fallacious argument, without having to assert that some other moral fact is self-evident?
So if we can say that torturing an innocent child is objectively wrong beyond any individual subjective or cultural relative view and that anyone who claims its OK to torture an innocent child is mistaken and objectively wrong how is this not stating an objective fact.
I dont know how many times I have to repeat that for me objective is a meaningless term. When will you accept that? Yes I keep forgetting as most people are relativists. Even so as I pointed out being a relativists leads to no objective morality and thus no morality.Indeed, but its you who claim that there are such a thing as "objective morality" so the burden of proof is on you. [/qupte] Yes I have been posting evdience for this but people are refuting te evidence with evidence claims themselves that morality is only relative or subjective or in your case there are no morals at all. So likewise if people want to refute my evdience with claims about what morality really is then they need to provide evidence as well. You caný refute objective morality by making claims to objective facts about morality.
What do you mean arbitrary in many cases. Are you saying that in some cases its not arbitrary.We sure do. Look at morality around the world, most of it is because of how it makes us feel and it sure is arbitary in many cases.
It works like morality as in its abstract yet states facts. We intuitively know 2+2=4 without having to reflect on it. We intuitively know that when we see a person being mugged it is wrong without needing to reflect on it.Morality is a formal logical system? I dont know anyone who says that.
I have already. I thought some evidence may help to show that I am not making this stuff up. It's actually the most common moral position to take among philosophers. Though I realize this is a logical fallacy it also lends some weight in that experts in a specific field usually know what they are talking about as well.Try using your own words, I wont read your links.
I have provided independent support for this many times. For something to be intrinsically valuable it has to be objectively determined to have value in and of itself without anything else making it valuable. Humans are rational beings and they can reason that life has value not because they say so but because it does in itself.You have not supported that life is intrinsically valuable. And valuable for who? A value has to have an agent to appreciate the value. And by what metric? Who gets to decide?
I have already answered this. If we understand that life is intrinsically valuable then we are oblighed to not devalue life as it is. Each person has a right to life and this is like a law that we ought to uphold.Who obligates us? By what authority?
Harm is determined by science. WE now know how certain harm not only affects us physically but also the brain. We can see how this causes people to suffer and deminish their ability to flourish.You have not supported that harm is "bad by definition". Also, bad for whom? who gets to decide? How is it measured? Who has the authority?
Yes I have. We intuitively know that torturing a child is wrong. We can be justified to believe that this is a moral truth that applies to all because thats how morality works. We don't live in a world where torturing children is morally good. WE condemn this practice and others like it as a matter of fact. We don't allow views that think torturing kids is good.You have not supported that its "objectively wrong", just asserted it (as an emotional argument at that).
Yes I have. We intuitively know that torturing a child is wrong. We can be justified to believe that this is a moral truth that applies to all because thats how morality works. We don't live in a world where torturing children is morally good. WE condemn this practice and others like it as a matter of fact. We don't allow views that think torturing kids is good.
Until someone can defeat our moral intuition that torturing innocent children is truthfully wrong with an arguement that shows that torturing little children is morally good we are justified to go with our moral intuition as the best way to act morally.
Not accepting a "objecitve morality" is not the same as not having a moral stance (which would be impossible for a moral agent). Seriously, learn the basics of moral philosophy.Yes I keep forgetting as most people are relativists. Even so as I pointed out being a relativists leads to no objective morality and thus no morality.
What do you mean arbitrary in many cases. Are you saying that in some cases its not arbitrary.
I cannot believe that we treat important moral decisions arbitrary. The meaning of "Arbitrary is as follows
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
Are you saying important moral decisions like whether torturing a child for fun is wrong or not is random and based on a "whim". That is counter intuitive to how morals wrork.
It works like morality as in its abstract yet states facts. We intuitively know 2+2=4 without having to reflect on it. We intuitively know that when we see a person being mugged it is wrong without needing to reflect on it.
I have already. I thought some evidence may help to show that I am not making this stuff up. It's actually the most common moral position to take among philosophers. Though I realize this is a logical fallacy it also lends some weight in that experts in a specific field usually know what they are talking about as well.
I have provided independent support for this many times. For something to be intrinsically valuable it has to be objectively determined to have value in and of itself without anything else making it valuable. Humans are rational beings and they can reason that life has value not because they say so but because it does in itself.
That is why UN Univseral Human Rights state that the right to "LIfe" is inalienable which means that no indiviudal, culture or government can deminish the right to life.
I have already answered this. If we understand that life is intrinsically valuable then we are oblighed to not devalue life as it is. Each person has a right to life and this is like a law that we ought to uphold.
Harm is determined by science. WE now know how certain harm not only affects us physically but also the brain. We can see how this causes people to suffer and deminish their ability to flourish.
Actually they were mentioned in the definition I used under verb hereYou defined "effective" and "successful". Both of which are not mentioned in the definition of "harm". Sometimes harm is good, sometimes harm is bad. Sometimes we dislike being harmed, sometimes we like being harmed. Harm is not always "wrong".
AS I mentioned "Life" is intrinsically valuable in and of itself and not because anyone makes it that way. This is the basis for Human Rights and the value of life as upheld in the constitutions of nations. This is classed as inalienable rights which means their value is upheld regardless of individuals, cultures or nations opinions.Then show me a good basis that you can answer "why" it is a good basis. If I claimed that "Blonde hair and blue eyes is intrinsically valuable" we would have a basis for a morality that we can make objective facts about. But so what?
-snip-.
Life as an intrinsic value is a First Principle that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. From this certain obligations need to be upheld to ensure life has value such as dignity, respect, happiness ect come.
"Life" as an intrinsic value is regarded as a "First Principle" so it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. This has been supporte rationally. We know that life needs a certain state as to constitutes "Being" as in Human being (conscious experience). We understand our own worth independent of oursleves and that there are certain obligations to experiencing "LIfe".No, thats not how it works. You cant just assert something to be true, you have to in some way support it and you dont. You just say "we intuitively know" whch is just an empty statement.
Why.And you still dont understand what not accepting a "objective" morality entails. Hint; it wont mean that I have to accept torturing children for fun.
"Life" as an intrinsic value is regarded as a "First Principle" so it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. This has been supporte rationally. We know that life needs a certain state as to constitutes "Being" as in Human being (conscious experience). We understand our own worth independent of oursleves and that there are certain obligations to experiencing "LIfe".
We know the consequences of not valuing "Life" for itself when we put that determination in the hands of humans who are morally fallible. Therefore it is protected and this is seen in the HUman Rights and laws that make "LIfe" valuable. We know and understand both intuitively and rationally that "LIfe" is valuable in "itself". This is seen in the way we treat life. Just like it is seen in the way we act like there are additional moral values which all trace back to "Life" being intrinsically valuable.
Why.
That's the definition you made up. I already cited an actual dictionary describing how people use the word "harm" and your made up definition ain't it. So no, we won't use the definition you made up to justify your arguments.Actually they were mentioned in the definition I used under verb here
VERB
To harm a thing, or sometimes a person, means to damage them or make them less effective or successful than they were.
Right, we just have to assume there is a moral fact, and then you can prove that there are moral facts.AS I mentioned "Life" is intrinsically valuable in and of itself and not because anyone makes it that way. This is the basis for Human Rights and the value of life as upheld in the constitutions of nations. This is classed as inalienable rights which means their value is upheld regardless of individuals, cultures or nations opinions.
Life as an intrinsic value is a First Principle that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. From this certain obligations need to be upheld to ensure life has value such as dignity, respect, happiness ect come.
How do you know it's an objective fact? You say that morality is arrived at through reason, show me the reasoning process. Produce an actual logical argument.So if we can say that torturing an innocent child is objectively wrong beyond any individual subjective or cultural relative view and that anyone who claims its OK to torture an innocent child is mistaken and objectively wrong how is this not stating an objective fact.
Humans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We are capable of rationalizing something as valuable in itself just as we are able to recognise and rationalize Math or scientific facts.If its "we" as in humans that think this, then its not objecitve. Objective means that its not dependendant on humans at all.
Yet despite you rejecting these truth values in Human Right laws and the constitutions of nations that make explicit the intrinsic value of human "Life". These truth values still stand and your personal opinion cannot change that. Its bigger than you and stands independent of you, me and everyone.No, "we" dont understand this. I certainly reject any ideas about objective values. And you still just assert things.
So obviously having different moral stances implies there is disagreement. How do we sort which moral stance or aspects of that moral stance are better/best than others.Because every moral agent have moral stances.
You say rational, then go straight in second paragraph to somethingHumans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We are capable of rationalizing something as valuable in itself just as we are able to recognise and rationalize Math or scientific facts.
That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking. If any individual or culture claimed otherwise we can refer to these values or moral truths like they are natural laws.
For example if anyone claimed that torturing a child for fun was morally ok they are shown to be objectively wrong because we can stand on those moral laws or truths and claim they stand regardless of personal moral opinion. The fact that we can make this law stand independent of human or cultural view makes it objective as it stands independent as a fact or truth. No one can devalue that status.
Yet despite you rejecting these truth values in Human Right laws and the constitutions of nations that make explicit the intrinsic value of human "Life". These truth values still stand and your personal opinion cannot change that. Its bigger than you and stands independent of you, me and everyone.
Let someone try claiming that torturing children is morally ok as a personal truth and see how far anyone gets. They would certainly be hels to account by the Human Rights. But most people would say that this person is mistaken and wrong and in fact is untrustworthy to be near children and thus a member of society. We don't do that with subjective feelings, preferences and opinions about food or other everyday things.
So obviously having different moral stances implies there is disagreement. How do we sort which moral stance or aspects of that moral stance are better/best than others.
Sigh.Humans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We are capable of rationalizing something as valuable in itself just as we are able to recognise and rationalize Math or scientific facts.
That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking. If any individual or culture claimed otherwise we can refer to these values or moral truths like they are natural laws.
For example if anyone claimed that torturing a child for fun was morally ok they are shown to be objectively wrong because we can stand on those moral laws or truths and claim they stand regardless of personal moral opinion. The fact that we can make this law stand independent of human or cultural view makes it objective as it stands independent as a fact or truth. No one can devalue that status.
Yet despite you rejecting these truth values in Human Right laws and the constitutions of nations that make explicit the intrinsic value of human "Life". These truth values still stand and your personal opinion cannot change that. Its bigger than you and stands independent of you, me and everyone.
Let someone try claiming that torturing children is morally ok as a personal truth and see how far anyone gets. They would certainly be hels to account by the Human Rights. But most people would say that this person is mistaken and wrong and in fact is untrustworthy to be near children and thus a member of society. We don't do that with subjective feelings, preferences and opinions about food or other everyday things.
So obviously having different moral stances implies there is disagreement. How do we sort which moral stance or aspects of that moral stance are better/best than others.
How is the second paragraph taliking about something "completely irrational". I see no mention of anything irrational. I said "That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking".You say rational, then go straight in second paragraph to something
completely irrational.
Well theres a number of reason for how it has authority over you. If a moral value stands independent of anyone then it has authority. Its not something subjectively determined but is a fact. Just like 2+2=4 is a fact and has authority in that it stands and people have no choice but to uphold this in their daily lives. Try disregarding Math for a day and see how it is necessary.Sigh.
You just kerp repeating the same assertions without understanding the issues. Its like trying to argue partial differential equations with someone who barely understands basic arithmetics.
Lets try something else.
Explain why this objective morality has authority over me. Who/what gives it the authority to tell me how to behave?
How is the second paragraph taliking about something "completely irrational". I see no mention of anything irrational. I said "That rationalization tells us that there are certain values that stand independent of human subjective thinking".
Its the same process that rationality that tells us that there are Math equations that have certain answers independent of human subjective thinking.
Its a fact because there is no alternative. There is only one alternative and that is that Torturing a child for fun is morally wrong when we reason things.How do you know it's an objective fact? You say that morality is arrived at through reason, show me the reasoning process. Produce an actual logical argument.
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?