Just a reminder, arguing that premarital sex is morally permissible is forbidden on these boards.
Its not absurd regarding the consequences. Its absurd that we cannot know right and wrong in matters that require right and wrong answers.
except that moral objectivism is not determined by people. Its independently determined whereas subjective morality is determined by who is in powers personal views of right and wrong.The one with power always decide, even if there where such a thing as objective morals (wich there arent).
Yeah. I'm not getting into the middle of your debate with Steve, I just want to make sure folks don't get reported or the thread shut down.Really?
Let's say someone offers you a hamburger or a hotdog. You like both of them, but there's no objectively correct choice in this situation. Since you don't know what you should do, you just starve to death.There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do.
However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now
Thats not how it works.Do you have any evdience that there are no objective morals.
Who gets to decide who gets their way? Always the ones with power.except that moral objectivism is not determined by people. Its independently determined whereas subjective morality is determined by who is in powers personal views of right and wrong.
Its not absurd regarding the consequences. Its absurd that we cannot know right and wrong in matters that require right and wrong answers.
There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do.
However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now
If we use human "Life" as a basis then its not a matter of consequence but what obligation that means. Under that meaning all appeals to human wellbeing, happiness ect are arguements from consequence.Reality has no "requirements" for right and wrong answers. And it is still an argument from consequence.
Reasoning about something isnt determined by human subjective thinking but is measured against some objective basis that takes subjective opinions out of the equation. This same reasoning is done by people such as Sam Harris who uses human wellbeing as the basis. If something deminishes human wellbeing then it determined by reason against human wellbeing and not personal opinions.Who gets to decide who gets their way? Always the ones with power.
Also, its not ”independently decided”, its still people so it isnt objective.
No because the choice in Hotdog or hamburger doesnt matter, there is no wrong answer with subjective preferences. Morality is different and needs a right and wrong answer. Otherwise we would have to say that someone presents a scenario where there are 2 choices "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" or "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK".Let's say someone offers you a hamburger or a hotdog. You like both of them, but there's no objectively correct choice in this situation. Since you don't know what you should do, you just starve to death.
No, its not.Not when someone claims there are no objective morals. Then the onus is on those who make this negative claim.
Thats not how it works.Reasoning about something isnt determined by human subjective thinking but is measured against some objective basis that takes subjective opinions out of the equation. This same reasoning is done by people such as Sam Harris who uses human wellbeing as the basis. If something deminishes human wellbeing then it determined by reason against human wellbeing and not personal opinions.
He's actually right about that. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to support it.No, its not.
Learn basic debating.
Special Pleading fallacy ^No because the choice in Hotdog or hamburger doesnt matter, there is no wrong answer with subjective preferences. Morality is different and needs a right and wrong answer. Otherwise we would have to say that someone presents a scenario where there are 2 choices "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" or "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK".
If we cannot say that "Torturing a child is not morlaly OK" in a truthful way then we are in trouble as then we are more or less saying we cannot know how to act in these vital situations that affect others and society. Not only that we are saying that "Torturing a child is morlaly OK" because we cannot say its really wrong. The wrong food choice as far as taste is concerned does not have that sort of seriousness in a way that the behaviour needs to be stopped in any normative way.
He's actually right about that. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to support it.
Sigh... No, that's wrong. The burden of proof falls on anyone making any claim they make. There is nothing special about negative claims.If one makes a positive claim, yes (objective morals exist).
If one makes a negative, no (there is no god(s)).
Sigh... No, that's wrong. The burden of proof falls on anyone making any claim they make. There is nothing special about negative claims.
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?