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.
The statement, "No one should rape" is deduced as a conclusion certain from the premises
Dont know about objectively immoral tho. Still trying to figure out the full meaning of that.So do I.
Who are these "many people"? Do they have expertise in the field? Does the opinions of the "International Flat Earth Research Society" throw the spherical earth theory into the subjective realm?These premises are assumed. Many people deny the first one. There is no way to objectively determine whether the assumption is warranted.
I think the best you can do for objective morality is make statements like: humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed. If true, this can be demonstrated to some objective standard.Who are these "many people"? Do they have expertise in the field? Does the opinions of the "International Flat Earth Research Society" throw the spherical earth theory into the subjective realm?
No, that's the best you can do.I think the best you can do for objective morality is make statements like: humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed. If true, this can be demonstrated to some objective standard.
Following on my post you quoted, would this be enough ought for you?...No, that's the best you can do.While what you post is declarative and true, it is not prescriptive, ie. there is no ought in it.
Defeat my argument, if you can. I'm listening ...
Who are these "many people"?
Does the opinions of the "International Flat Earth Research Society" throw the spherical earth theory into the subjective realm?
Shoehorned that "ought" in, did you? The restatement is better ... now drop the conditional (it's a given for a rational, emotionally stable person) and you're getting even closer.Following on my post you quoted, would this be enough ought for you?...
"....therefore, if you value happiness, you ought not rape nor permit others to."
Spare me. That's nonsense.'Pro-lifers' for one.
Well, what's good for the goose ...No, because the shape of the earth is an objective fact in the world of objective reality. The shape of the earth does not depend on any human opinions.
Well, what's good for the goose ...
Because the immorality of rape is an objective fact in the world of objective reality. The immorality of rape does not depend on any human opinions.
Not sure what you mean. Does the ought not belong there?Shoehorned that "ought" in, did you?....
The conditional is needed to ground the ought in some objective context. I agree that its a given for typical humans. But its the objective basis that the ought comes from. The ought doesnt live in some contextless moral realm.Shoehorned that "ought" in, did you? The restatement is better ... now drop the conditional (it's a given for a rational, emotionally stable person) and you're getting even closer....
Dont want to distract too much. But the social ought (what we permit others to do) emerges from the same place as the personal one. In my words that was: "humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed" which you agreed was true. This means we ought to outlaw it. As how much personal risk you should assume in an intervention.... I dont know, and I didnt intend to open that topic.....I have not made an argument that one is obliged to actively stop a rape. Do you have an argument for the claim?
I prefer my syllogism that establishes the foundation for the conclusion that is certain.But its the objective basis that the ought comes from. The ought doesnt live in some contextless moral realm.
While I don't disagree with the conclusion to outlaw acts of rape, I don't see an argument to support it. But OK, where are you going with this line of thought? Are you simply claiming humans are generally happier when others respect their rights, eg., they don't get raped?In my words that was: "humans are happier when they dont get raped and live in societies where rape is not allowed" which you agreed was true. This means we ought to outlaw it.
I dunno, I think I agree with you mostly, and I don't think there's much of an argument to be had here. Making distinctions by arbitrary differences is a non sequitur. When culture has no effect on the act itself, there's no rational reason to take it under consideration at all. We're on the same page with that.
What I'm saying is that if "Only ancient Aztecs should cut off heads" is a moral statement relative to time and culture, then "Only trained professionals should perform CPR" is a moral statement relative to skill level. The first is arbitrary, we agree on that. You seem reluctant to acknowledge that the second is relative in the same sense as the first simply because it isn't arbitrary.
If different groups have different rules to follow and yet these distinctions aren't arbitrary and follow from reason, then we have objective rules that are relative to who we are speaking about.
You may not have said it, but your views appear very similar to some of those who do say it.I havnt said that as far as I recall.
Each person will likely say the other is not entitled to his wrong moral view.So let me know if I am wrong on this. Under subjective morality if two people are at a table and they have different moral views is each person entitled to their own moral view.
There may be, but the other person will not respect that which is in place if he doesn’t agree with it; this is regardless of subjective or objective morality.With all things being equal is there something that states when a person cannot have that view.
Morality does not exist outside of sentient beings; so what do you mean by outside of the person?Does the idea of subjective morality mean that its a personal view of the person. Does that personal moral view say anything about the ultimate truth of morality outside the person or does this view only apply to the person.
If the persons personal view on morality doesn't say anything about ultimate morality
My dislike of certain foods does not affect other people; my views of morality does so the two can’t be compared.does that mean any personal subjective moral view is just like an expression of likes and dislikes for food.
Subjective morality is not about likes vs dislikes, it’s about right vs wrong, and moral values.If that is the case does that mean if two people sitting at the table had different views on chocolate where one person likes chocoalte and the other doesnt are each person entitled to their likes or dislikes for chocolate. If subjective moral views are 'likes and dislikes' and not really about moral values then does that mean under subjective morality there is no moral right and wrong for society in an ultimate truthful kind of way.
I did not say they were objectively immoral, I said they were immoral. Do you know the difference?So we agree that universally acts of Dkaih and Saobi are objectively immoral.
The fact that we have empathy and a conscious does not make the moral principles of right and wrong(morality) objective, the principles are still subjective and vary from person to person, even the origin of moral principles objectively exists.
Post #419 is you misrepresenting what I actually said. Again; what makes one objective and the other subjective?See post #419.
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?