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.
Justify your definition or "rational."Particular:
If I was to say thatharm should be avoided wherever possiblethe earth is spherical, then that would disappoint a lot ofpeople who enjoy being spankedflat earthers.
General:
If I were to say something rational then that would disappoint a lot of irrational people.
Based on my definition of "rational":
ra·tion·al
/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective: rational
1.1 People who believe as I do.
You didn’t ask me if slavery should exist or not, you asked if I believed slavery was wrong. I said I believe it was wrong, and explained why.
If you wanted me to answer whether or not slavery was wrong, you should have asked; but you did not, you asked if I believed it was wrong. I said I believed it was and explained why I believe it is wrong.
My opinion doesn't apply to other people.
If Abaxvahl wants to think that slavery is fine, he can.
But if he starts forcing people to be slaves, then I'm going to have a problem with it.
That's not the approach you were taking in the other thread. You seemed to think he was wrong and that he should change his mind to agree with you.
You're contradicting yourself. Now your opinion applies to Abaxvahl. A second ago it didn't. You can't have it both ways. Either your opinion applies to him or it doesn't.
I do think survival is better ojectively because I think human life is precious objectively. But I am not sure it makes sense to anyone who believes that morality is only subjective. Using evolution (survival of the fittest) or any feeling or preference as the basis for why something is morally good or bad is subjective and therefore has no ultimate truth about morality beyond human opinion.Well, I guess that if you don't think that surviving is objectively better compared to not surviving then none of this will make any sense. And it would be a waste of my time explaining any further.
Thanks for your input.
If subjective morality is like preferences for say chocoalte cake then how is survival truly morally good.
I may have overspoke before. When I said I believe slavery is always wrong, I was referring to chattel slavery. There are some forms of slavery; or at least things put under the category of slavery that I think may be perfectly acceptable; especially when agreed by all parties involved; even the slave.Do you think things that are wrong should be done?
Yeah... Not sure what to do with this sort of thing.
So why do you assume something that does not appear true, for no reason?I don't know, and for that I have no answer.
The erroneous definition of "rational" given is the only one possible for one who holds that "the Earth is spherical" is an objective claim and that "rape is immoral" is a subjective claim.Justify your definition or "rational."
Can you refer me to your post in which you answered these questions:I'm not. I answered it sufficiently.
If all moral issues are subjective then rape is not objectively immoral. Yes?
Leaving out irrational persons (as we did with "Flat Earthers"), what rational argument can you offer to conclude that rape is ever a moral act?
No, just explaining that being moral isn't contingent on someone being moral to you. What you are talking about is more likely group survival behaviour.So you think morality means that every single animal must be looking to help out every single other animal?
OK so basically the subjective morality examples you use within a social group don't truly explain morality because it is not about moral behaviour/claims when it’s subjective. It’s just personal opinion or preferences about the subject and the subject’s personal views are not moral truths for others outside them.What I've said is entirely consistent with subjective morality between members of the same social group.
Why you take that to mean that it must prove objective morality between members outside the same social group is beyond me.
My point is you can only have objective "oughts". You cannot have subjective oughts beyond the subject. You can say "I ought to do that" or "in my opinion you "ought to do that" to another person. But you cannot say "you ought to do that" full stop as now you are making a moral claim outside yourself.I think it was quite clear I was saying there are no objective oughts.
You can make the objective claim and hold the belief truth that you are married because you have independent evidence (a marriage certificate).Ah yes. Kylie doesn't think there is objective morality, so she isn't allowed to make any objective statements at all! She isn't allowed to believe that it's an objective truth that she is married!
But I am not using that to support God or any god or transcendental being as the ultimate moral stoppage point. That argument doesn’t need to prove a particular god. All I need to do is argue the type of god needed to be the ultimate stoppage point i.e. all knowing, perfectly good by nature, rational, necessary.You don't expect me to find the "God works in mysterious ways" argument to be convincing, do you?
So by what basis do you determine that the rat behaviour is moral besides your personal opinion? If you say there is no objective morality then isn’t the rat behaviour just an expression of subjective morality which isn’t really about morality but preferences.Where in the world do you get such a harsh black and white view of this? You need to learn to see the subtleties of all the shades of grey.
Rats help each other out. This is morality for them. That does not mean that the python must say, "I won't eat the rat because it is immoral." The python is not part of the social group the rats are a part of.
Yes and they are not about morality but preferences. They only explain the subject’s psychological state and not any truth or anything including morality outside them.There are no OBJECTIVE oughts. But there are plenty of subjective ones that apply to individuals in social groups.
No we should still have consequences for immoral behaviour and that is also part of morality because there has to be consequences for immoral behaiour to incur moral duties. But what I am saying is morality is also about helping those who are in need without getting any return or benefit.Morality is about helping those who don't reciprocate? So I guess all of those people who think rapists should just be locked up forever are immoral?
Socialisation is not always about morality especialy for animals. A zebra will face a lion running across the open to cut it down and rip its throat open. Should be charge the lion with murder or inhuman treatment. If a human did that to another human in the street they would be locked up and morally condemned.Are you seriously saying you disagree with the claim that other animals do not face the same social requirements as us?
You think a herd of zebras on the Serengeti is going to face the same social pressures as people living in New York?
OK I thought that was a given. Are you seriously saying they are not moral values? Are you saying the opposite of honesty and truthfulness such as deceit, lying is not immoral. Didn’t you use an example of dishonesty to show how people can get around honesty as a moral value?You have not shown that truth and honesty are moral. You gotta stop acting like you have shown that, because you haven't.
But they determine the truth which is a moral and you have to be Honest to find the truth which is also a moral as shown above from Wikipedia. So therefore 'Honesty and Truth' are indespensible in cases that determine the truth.Courts do not determine morality.
OK so now that I have shown that 'Honesty and Truth' are moral values and are necessary for finding truth I rest my case.Perhaps, but since they are not aspects of morality, it doesn't prove that morality is objective.
OK so you have just given a good example of evolution by natural selection. But someone could then ask why it is morally wrong for one group to kill babies and morally good for the other group to allow babies to live. What is the moral basis for this if morals are only subjective? Nothing tells us why something is right or wrong and it only tells how babies will die in one group and live in another.Okay, let's do a little thought experiment.
Let's say there was a social group that decided that killing babies was okay. What would happen to this group? They'd die out, wouldn't they? After all, how could it keep going? Each member would get older and older until eventually they died, but where are the new members coming from? They aren't getting any, because every time a baby was born, it would be killed. So the group and it's "It's okay to kill babies" idea would die out.
Now let's look at a group that had the exact opposite idea. Babies should be nurtured. This group will have lots of babies, and will likely grow. This group will last. And so the "Let's nurture babies" idea helps the group survive.
The group that believes that nurturing babies will survive and the group that believes killing babies is right will die out. Thus, I'm sure you can see, the idea that nurturing babies is best is going to become the most common position.
And yes, there is no independent grounding of morality through evolution, but that's fine. Because if there was independent grounding, then that would make it objective, and I'm not arguing for objective morality. But this evolutionary explanation works just fine for SUBJECTIVE morality.
You’ve missed the point again. I am not using a non-sequitur of like for like actions but rather the moral value being a necessity for meaningful human interaction. According to the logical argument for objective moral values of using 'Truth' and 'Honesty'Acting like something is objective doesn't mean it IS objective. I've said this many, MANY times.
Yes of course they are because subjective moral claims are not about morals but rather likes and dislikes or opinions. As far as I understand subjective 'like' and 'dislikes' or opinions are all equal because they are only about the person (subject) and nothing else. A preference for coke is not better than a preference for Pepsi, Fanta, milk, water ect.You think all subjective claims are equivalent now?
OK sorry. But let’s say it wasn’t about that. Are you saying your husband’s opinion is objectively right just because it’s his opinion?Yes it was just his opinion, but I hardly think a discussion about my sex life is appropriate here.
Exactly, therefore how a subjective moral claim would be measured.Let's redirect this to a discussion about food and say my husband was trying to get me to try a new food that I had previously been averse to trying. Do you think he's going to pull out charts and say, "As you can see, Kylie, scientific research indicates that this new food is 31.7632% tastier than the food you currently eat." I mean, how would such subjective things be measured?
OK sorry about that. I just re-read your post 800 and yes you did say moral good does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'In post 800, directly responding to you, I wrote:
'But that, as I said very recently upstream, does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'
So I've explained that more than once. In the last few posts. And you have simply ignored it. Is there any point in me directing any post to you? You are simply ignoring whatever I write. I am literally wasting my time. And running out of patience...
OK sorry about that. I just re-read your post 800 and yes you did say moral good does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.'
Its not a case of ignoring you but misunderstanding what you meant which is a miss on my part as I assumed what you meant.' in their engagement.
Me stopping someone from applying their morality to another and me applying my morality to another are two different things.
I may have overspoke before. When I said I believe slavery is always wrong, I was referring to chattel slavery. There are some forms of slavery; or at least things put under the category of slavery that I think may be perfectly acceptable; especially when agreed by all parties involved; even the slave.
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?