- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,393
- 20,703
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
So you would say there is nothing objective about the relation between the user's manual and the vehicle?
And there are other service manuals--not written by Ford--with slightly different instructions which if followed will give pretty much the same result. In general, a person with a reasonable understanding of automotive mechanics can use and maintain the vehicle successfully without a manual.
The most common argument against objective morality is made on the basis of moral disagreements. This common argument will no doubt permeate this thread. From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Moral Disagreements
The simplest and most common argument for moral skepticism is based on observed facts: Smart and well-meaning people disagree about the moral permissibility of abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, active euthanasia, nuclear deterrence, welfare reform, civil rights, and so on. Many observers generalize to the conclusion that no moral claim is or would be accepted by everyone.
However, all of these disagreements together still do not exclude the possibility of agreement on other moral beliefs.
Maybe nobody denies that it is morally wrong to torture babies just to get sexual pleasure.
Moreover, even if no moral belief is immune to disagreement, the fact that some people disagree with me does not prove that I am unjustified in holding my moral belief. I might be able to show them that I am right, or they might agree with me under ideal circumstances, where they are better informed, more thoughtful, less partial, and so on. Moral disagreements that are resolvable do not support moral skepticism, so any argument for moral skepticism from moral disagreement must show that moral disagreements are unresolvable on every issue. That will require a separate argument.
Sure we do. We have ways to assign people to self-identified racial categories.
And we have ways of measuring wealth or loan approvals or what have you. And it is an objective measure whether one correlates with the other to some level of statistical significance.
Eh. I think you're dodging. Your implicit idea that the creator does not understand the creation better than others is not at all convincing.
Would you say that the user's manual that Ford distributes with their vehicles is an objective measure of how to use the vehicle?
No, just making fun of your claim that the owner's manual you are trying to sell me is really an authentic manual published by the Ford company.Eh. I think you're dodging.
What I said before: Declaring a particular moral code to be objective doesn't make it one. In fact, all it really does is reveal an entirely subjective self-interest.
Why would a creator understand his or her creation better than others?
But this is just a strawman. No one has claimed that the declaration makes it so.
What does make it so?
I have no intention of defeating objectivity. I regard the existence of objective morality as unfalsifiable.But this is just a strawman. No one has claimed that the declaration makes it so. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself, for you seem to think that your declaration to the contrary defeats objectivity.
My objective morality is better than your objective morality.And of course it is patently false that declaring something to be objective "reveals an entirely subjective self-interest." It's no accident that you have failed to provide an argument for that absurd claim.
I have no intention of defeating objectivity. I regard the existence of objective morality as unfalsifiable.
My objective morality is better than your objective morality.
False. Come on, man. You've around here long enough to know what falsifiable means. A stance, e.g., objective morality exists, is falsifiable if it makes predictions that could prove the stance false if they failed to occur.Logically, if objective morality exists then it could not be proven false.
False. Come on, man. You've around here long enough to know what falsifiable means. A stance, e.g., objective morality exists, is falsifiable if it makes predictions that could prove the stance false if they failed to occur.
@ottawak's statement is that (I hope I represent you here correctly) there is nothing that could occur in reality that would require one to give up the position "objective morality exists."
If this is true, I speak for myself here, then the position itself is of no consequence, no meaning.
If something is falsifiable, we can, at least in principle, determine whether it is true. (The stance makes a prediction that could turn out to be false.) If "objective morality exists" is UNfalsifiable, then we can't, even in principle, determine that it is true.
My favorite treatise on knowledge is the Theaetetus.
My favorite treatise on objective morality is "A Modest Proposal".
I know this doesn't prove objective morality but I was speaking as far as Christain belief is concerned. Isn't Christianity based on there being one moral truth. I know its just a claim in the secular world but for Christians its not just a claim. It seems everything goes back to one truth.Declaring a particular moral code to be objective doesn't make it one. In fact, all it really does is reveal an entirely subjective self-interest.
I know this doesn't prove objective morality but I was speaking as far as Christain belief is concerned. Isn't Christianity based on there being one moral truth. I know its just a claim in the secular world but for Christians its not just a claim. It seems everything goes back to one truth.
As moral and rational beings we believe there are certain moral truths.
This is a fundemental axion all civilisation is built on.
Jesus is making the bold claim that His truth or way is the only truth.
That the truth humans seek leads back to Christ. Its a challenge to us in that we seek truth and argue for truth as though there is one truth.
Christ is sending out the claim that he is that truth we are looking for.
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?