childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 5,869
- 3,304
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There is no basics because there is no basis.Thats not how it works.
Learn the basics.
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.
There is no basics because there is no basis.Thats not how it works.
Learn the basics.
No, you're not. See, my premises are true. Your first premise is false. So your argument couldn't possibly be sound. Using an unsound argument isn't "using the same logic" as me, lol.I am using the same logic as you are using for if anti moralism is true.
I'm not going to bother responding to a post full of straw like yours. I'll phrase my claims myself. You can respond to my claims as I've worded them, or you can continue talking to yourself.Well, how exactly can a moral non-realist evaluate something that they're claiming is not there? If you deny morality exists objectively, then you deny honesty exists objectively.
And I asked then how do people and society work out what moral norms. How do they make some morals wrong even by law or by ethical codes. Surely they don't just say we cannot agree so lets just blindly make certain acts wrong and others OK.No, the "that way" I was referring to was the one I presented in post 1079, when I said, "Because when people treat their subjective opinions as objective fact, you get people who disagree with each other and insist that they are right and the other is wrong, and neither of them can provide any actual testable evidence to support their position."
You said it doesn't work that way in real life (post 1088), and I said it does indeed work that way.
So what happens when they not only act that way but actually make it that way in reality (real life). Are you saying they are being hypocritical and inconsistent with their subjective moral position.I can't remember how many times I've pointed out to you that just because a person acts like their subjective opinion is objective, doesn't mean it IS objective.
Ok then show me how descriptive language can be normative. Give an example like with morality in how people can say that if someone likes Star Wars that they are objectively wrong to the point that we can say they need to be ostrasized and people will condemn them and cause them to lose their jobs.So what? I've seen Trek vs Wars debates that do the same thing.
Thats not a moral issue though. Its to do with workplace health and safety. You don't get a Google doctor to fix your health problems. Its to stop potential harm by unqualified people messing around with stuff that may need a qualified person .In Victoria Australia, there is a law that says you are not allowed to change a lightbulb unless you are a qualified electrician. Does that mean the Melbournian who changes their own lightbulb is behaving in a way that is morally wrong?
Once again someone has made an objective determination that Dogs need walking to be healthy. Sure they may be wrong but that will be because someone has shown that walking a dog 3 times a day does not make any difference. They didn't just come up with the 3 times a day by picking a number out of a hat or by asking someone if they prefer a particular number or by asking someone what number they feel is best.In Turin, Italy, dog owners are required to walk their dogs three times a day. If a person walks their dog just twice a day, are they abusing the dog?
Most laws are based on some objective measure in reality. Primarily its about "Not harming humans or keeping society in law and order so that things don't get out of control. These are objective measures and not left to the whims of subjective thinking for which any subjective determination is just as relevant as the next. Not any laws will do but rather specific laws relating to reducing harm and chaos for which society has decided is an important basis for right and wrong.Or maybe legal laws don't determine the objective nature of reality.
Once again a logical fallacy that because someone has not stepped in it must not be a moral truth. The UN has stated its wrong through Human Rights that applies to all cultures. Nations like ours have made trade sanctions and other penalties for cultures that engage in these practcies. You cannot do that with subjective preferences for TV shows.So what?
That's little different than saying that everyone who joins the "Star Trek is best" club has to agree that Star Trek is best. There are plenty of cultures in the world that still consider women inferior to men. Why doesn't the UN step in and stop that?
So are you saying these laws and Rights are irrational and there is no good basis for them.Nah, we don't just get to say things are objective because everyone agrees that they should be objective.
It would mean everything I thought was real is not and its just a computer program attempting to make things real. That there is some reality beyond us like the one that the super intelligent beings who created the simulation live in that we are missing out on. Nothing we do or say can be regarded as real or true as the programmers can make us think anything is real when its not.So what? If it were proven that we lived in a simulation, how would your life change?
Another logical fallacy. If we apply this to science then every person should agree that the Big Bang is fact. Any disagreement means its not fact. But any disagreement doen't lead to there being no facts as I pointed out earlier. So under that logic because everyone agrees that our physical world is what it is then there can be no simulation. Yet that is a fallacy as there could be a simulation. Its faulty reasoning.I would count it as evidence if what we saw actually matched what we would see if morality was indeed objective.
Everyone reaching the same conclusion about a particular moral situation, for example. But we don't see that.
When it comes to proving something that is beyond our ability to prove we have to make some assumptions. We can then test those assumptions by experience. We experience the world as thought its the only reality. We don't see glitches in the matrix or have any evdience that its a similation even though the evdience would be impossible to show. So we are justified through experience to believe that reality is what we experience through our senses.Yet if the real world is just a simulation, then our intuition about the real world is WRONG. So don't tell me that intuition about morality being objective counts as evidence that morality is objective when your own example of intuition shows that it can be mistaken.
You premise is not true you are only assuming your first premise is true just like I am assuming moral realism is true. The premise of your arguement is "If" anti realism is true. "If" and only "if" its true. Therefore I can do the same by taking out the "non"part of your arguement.No, you're not. See, my premises are true. Your first premise is false. So your argument couldn't possibly be sound. Using an unsound argument isn't "using the same logic" as me, lol.
You (again) are in error.There is no basics because there is no basis.
This is a circular reasoning:I'm not going to bother responding to a post full of straw like yours. I'll phrase my claims myself. You can respond to my claims as I've worded them, or you can continue talking to yourself.
I'm in error because I know honesty is a moral virtue, a good quality in mankind?You (again) are in error.
The term absolute when applied to morality/immorality is seen as binary. Morality/immorality is like Light/dark. The degrees are between sacrificing oneself to save all others, and sacrificing all others to save oneself.How can morality be 100% completely objective/absolute if it is situational/circumstantial, etc...?
Just a few points/comments real quick, as I find your comments nonsensical and irrational and do not wish to debate or argue with you, etc...The term absolute when applied to morality/immorality is seen as binary. Morality/immorality is like Light/dark. The degrees are between sacrificing oneself to save all others and sacrificing all others to save oneself.
Objective simply means existing as a factual reality. Compassion is an absolute morality in that it's never immoral. And it is observed happening in reality because it is an action taken in response to the suffering of others so as to give comfort and aid.
This is classed "Error theory" mainly proposed by John L. Mackie. But this has been argued against. It makes something we live our lives by as a sham and error in our thinking and yet we use that type of thinking for making moral norms as though there is no error and morality is not a sham. Once again reality speaks for itself.You (again) are in error.
Morality is not a human construct becauseFirst one is: Morality is not like light/dark, and as far as it applies to humans is human construct that has been learned or has grown over time and with advancement, etc...
philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world objective realitySecond one is: That's is not what objective means... Look it up...
Compassion is an action that is observed in reality, it's never immoral in its intention and goal.And the third one is: Acting on compassion sometimes can be wrong and/or immoral, etc...
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Morality is not a human construct because
philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world objective reality.
Compassion is an action that is observed in reality, it's never immoral in its intention and goal.
I thought objective morality is always 100% determination. Its ether right or its wrong. Even saying something is not objectively wrong is an objective claim. Like in Math where there is only an objective determination either 2+2=4 or it doesn't. Either the earth is flat or its a sphere ect.I'm not saying that deciding morality is "wrong", but just only that it's not 100% completely objective, and never is/was, etc...
God Bless!
Morality is about caring about how our actions affect others. One can't reason right from wrong in any faithful manor without that.The second morality is based on or is decided by how a person or a group of people "feels", or "thinks because of how it feels", etc, it is no longer objective and never was, etc...
An objective view of reality is what you're talking about, as in no one can see all of reality. No one can disagree with that.Because that is part of the definition of objective and is part of what it means, etc...
I'm here defending the Word of God as the light of mankind. Morality is the same as godliness. Either I know God is love or I don't know Him. And that goes for every Christian on this forum. I don't take credit for His existing in me, or at least I try not to.@childeye 2
Changing or altering your post and adding scripture to it that has nothing at all to do with the subject does not make you any more morally superior and/or right, but just shows your desperation in trying to prove you are, etc...