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.
Again, better for whom? By what authority?We can determine a better/best way to behave morally by using rationality and logic. We can reason why some behaviours are better than others. Our intuitions tell us that certain actions are wrong or that there are moral truths (like laws) that stand independent of humans.
So for example take "Truth" as a moral value. In finding the truth of a matter the moral "Truth" becomes necessary and independent of peoples subjective views, preferences feelings because we cannot engage as humans in that situation if we disregard the "TRuth". So its self-evident. Its objectiveness is by its own authority, because its status as an independent necessary value is made by humans whether they know it or not.
Sorry, what i meant was refute my argument, not me personally.I have not attacked you.
Learn what the terms mean.
I did. Do you know what a ”objective agent” means?Sorry, what i meant was refute my argument, not me personally.
I assumed you meant i was not an objective person or poster when you said i wasn't an objective agent. If that's wrong please give me the definition. From what i know so far you have refuted my person not my argument. Anyway, this is really going no where. Its been fun but i gotta run.I did. Do you know what a ”objective agent” means?
Read some moral philosophy.I assumed you meant i was not an objective person or poster when you said i wasn't an objective agent. If that's wrong please give me the definition. From what i know so far you have refuted my person not my argument. Anyway, this is really going no where. Its been fun but i gotta run.
What you just described is not about morality, it's about recognizing what behaviors is/is not in your best interest act upon.If you kill all the healthcare workers who would take care of you? If you steal you will go to prison. You can objectively decide that its immoral to kill your doctors and steal.
For that which is objective, it is regardless of the views of any sentient being. Since God is described as a sentient being, God’s views cannot be labeled objective any more than mine, yours, or any other sentient being. Example; if God said I were a biological female, God would be as wrong. If God said 2+2=5, he would be as wrong as you or I saying it. IOW In order for morality to be objective, it cannot be based on whatever God says, any more than it can be based on what I or anyone else says. Assuming God made us and could kill us does not make him objectively morally right.Likewise if God exists you can objectively decide that its just as morally wrong to disobey him because its he who gives you life and can take it away.
Your example only applies to legislation; not morality.The same applies to some other laws as well, not just stealing or killing.
You implied that morality and law are not the same, as if morality cannot be legislated but it is. You wont agree because your reasoning is subjective i suspect.
It was a four act play and it's over. Remember in Act II where you reported that the girl was "fed and watered, for 10 years". A human act is immoral if there is a defect in any of the three sources of judging. No need to go to the circumstances or even the moral object of the act if the actor wills a bad intention.
Moral judgements are made on principles. Prudential judgements are that which a reasonable, ie., rational actor, would hold. Next?
Any two acts that have different morality.
For example, which is morally worse, stealing a chocolate bar, or hitting a child? If you claim that morality is objective, you should be able to clearly define which is worse and by how much (for example, is the worse act twice as bad as the other? Three times?).
But isn't subjective morality about "Likes and Dislikes", opinions, feelings. If so how does saying "I don't like rape" or "in my opinion rape is OK" inconsistent with subjective morality.It may seem that way to you, but only because of your dogged insistence that morals must have an objective grounding, unsullied by mere human judgments.
I am not saying there are no morals. I'm trying to explain what kind of a thing morals are. They are judgments by human judgers. Like matters of aesthetics or taste.
I don't know this. However, what is your objective way of determining right from wrong? Many of us have been desperate to hear of this thing.
We use analogies to compare things that are similar in some way.
Things that are identical are identical in all respects.
I could make the analogy that 'a spinster is like a bachelor'.
If someone responded "But a bachelor is defined as an unmarried man! It's absurd to say a spinster is a man." she would be missing the point of the analogy and insisting on some kind of identity between the two things.
Similarly, you are misinterpreting my analogy if you insist I have to slap the Brussels sprouts off other people's forks. (Or that I must allow rapists to enjoy their rape.)
But this is not objective morality or what is also known as moral realism. Each scenario has an objective moral truth so each has to be determined. Intuitively we would act as if stealing a chocolate bar or hitting a child as something wrong. In each case we can reason an objective.Any two acts that have different morality.
For example, which is morally worse, stealing a chocolate bar, or hitting a child? If you claim that morality is objective, you should be able to clearly define which is worse and by how much (for example, is the worse act twice as bad as the other? Three times?).
If i choose not to steal your money because you need it to live, how is this subjective?
But isn't subjective morality about "Likes and Dislikes", opinions, feelings. If so how does saying "I don't like rape" or "in my opinion rape is OK" inconsistent with subjective morality.
Which humans? Who gets to chose?Its better for humans and there is no authority as the moral value becomes like a law. Do physical laws need an authority.
Quoting my question again: what is your objective way of determining right from wrong? Many of us have been desperate to hear of this thing.
Of course there is a better way to behave; but that is not the question! The question is which behavior is worse? Why can't you just answer the question?Assaulting a child is strange behaviour towards another person. So we could reason a better way to behave. It doesnt matter at this point if there is an objective truth or not. We should be able to investigate if there is a better way to behave towards a child.
But this is not objective morality or what is also known as moral realism. Each scenario has an objective moral truth so each has to be determined. Intuitively we would act as if stealing a chocolate bar or hitting a child as something wrong. In each case we can reason an objective.
Assaulting a child is strange behaviour towards another person. So we could reason a better way to behave. It doesnt matter at this point if there is an objective truth or not. We should be able to investigate if there is a better way to behave towards a child.
The same with stealing a chocolate bar. If we seen this we would wonder what to do. We know its wrong. Is there a better way to behave in that moral situation.
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?