But they may not relate to morality. Not sure if farting is a moral issue. May more about ettiquette. But when it comes to mormal norms which most Nations have these are not stupid but actually about protecting and respecting human "LIfe" and even you acknowledge the objective basis ie to stablize society. They are not stupid as without them society would lose order and become choatic.
Once again you are creating a logical fallacy by trying to make out that some laws are stupid so all laws are stupid.
No, not at all.
You are the one who made the connection between laws and morality. I'm just showing you how objective morality is not determined by the laws a country makes.
So are you saying the only reason we have Human Rights is because people agree and theres no basis for why we have HUman Rights. Remembering that Human Rights was born out of a response to the atrocities of WW2. As an example at the Nurenburg trial the German officers were charged with crimes against humanity (which is an objective basis) because otherwise if relative morality is true then what the Germans did was just acting from their relative moral position and not really wrong to them.
They acted in a way that most people agree was wrong, thus they made laws regarding it.
This isn't that difficult to understand.
But a united nations determination said that they were objectively wrong regardless of their relative view. They could only do that if they had some objective basis to say that the Germans were wrong regardlerss of culture. We cannot avoid appealing to objectives and in most cases its about protecting and respecting human "Life".
Got a source for that claim?
And even if true, I've already told you so many times I've lost count that people can act as though widespread agreement on a subjective issue means it's objective, even though that's not a correct conclusion.
How does the non-extreme examples prove my point fails. In fact when it comes to Human Rights it covers everything from the extreme wrong to less extreme like the Right to hold a belief or political view or to not be descriminated against.
But once again you creating a logical fallacy which seems to just about every reply now. Your saying that we have to disregard obvious wrongs that clearly have an objective basis because there are others that may be harder to determine. That doesn't follow. The extreme and obvious wrongs are just as valid for supporting moral truths. Showing one obvious example is enough to support moral truths.
I'm talking about extreme examples of moral situations, not the Human rights violations. Stop trying to derail the thread.
You ALWAYS resort to extreme examples like rape and murder and child abuse to show that morality is objective, yet if morality really was objective, you could use examples such as a child who throws their dinner to the floor because they don't want to eat their vegetables. Yet you NEVER use these examples. Why not? I suspect it's because if you do, you'll never be able to prove your point. After all, how could you say, "It's an objective moral fact that the only appropriate punishment for a child who throws their dinner to the floor because they don't want to eat their vegetables is to not let them have desert for a week"? Such a claim is obviously a statement of opinion, and you'll get lots of people showing that other punishments are also suitable, or that a week is not long enough, or that it's too long, etc. And so you resort to the extreme examples, hoping to use the widespread agreement regarding such examples to trick people into thinking that they are objective.
That is irrational as saying something is "wrong" is normative and preferences for TV shows is not a normative issue. So once again a logical fallacy of a false analogy. You talk about you having to repeat things. How many times have I said this.
Say it as many times as you like, you'll still be wrong.
And yet you claim that morality is subjective because people disagree and not objective because people agree. You are inconsistent with your reasoning. So I will ask you again "is there a basis for those laws of not". Or are laws and codes or norms just determined by agreement along.
Yes there is a basis. And I'll point out again that some objective components does not mean the end result is objective.
If I found it was a simulation then everyone would know its a simulation. It would change our reality as it would be affected by the glitches in the system. That would come from some glitch in the matrix. Therefore there would be other glitches that affect reality.
Finding that our reality is not real but the product of some experiemnet would bring all science under question. We could not be confident about anything. At the same time it would make ID a plausable option for reality. God is just another version of the simulation. Because of the glitches unreal things could happen like people disappearing before our eyes as the programmer deletes individuals or changes our physics. Think the "Trueman Show".
This does not answer my question. What would you differently? Would you decide to stop breathing, since breathing is just part of the simulation and you don't actually need to do it? After all, if it's just a simulation that has been programmed, then the designer could just as well have programmed you to not need to breathe.
Its still a logical fallacy because it doesn't follow that objective fact/truths mean that everyone should come to the same conclusion. People can still disagree even if there are objective facts/truth.
Very well. Please tell me how anyone can disagree with the claim that 1+1=2 in Base ten.
I just gave you several examples of how we cannot make moral determinations without having an objective basis ie moral norms use an objective basis beyond mere agreement, dog walking appeals to some objective measures, when people argue about morality they appeal to some objective measure.
And I showed how your examples failed.
And its not just a case of mere agreement as we know that mere agreement without an objective measure is dangerious as we can agree that even immoral acts are good based on subjective thinking.
So your argument is, "If people can have subjective opinions, those opinions will be subjective, and since I might disagree with those opinions, subjective opinions must be wrong."