Morality is objective, except when it isn't

[All Becomes New]

So then why on earth should I believe it?

I believe if you seek after Spiritual things, you will gain understanding of Spiritual things.

 

[Chriliman]

I didn't say that either. With whom are you agreeing?

Earlier I asked you what objective morality would even be apart from a subject and you said I established why objective morality is nonsensical.(see post #249)

Therefore, we agree objective morality apart from a subject is nonsensical, but that’s not what I’m explaining.

You could use this incorrect logic to "conclude" that literally anything is both subjective and objective. This is saying nothing.

Not anything, just people capable of having morals.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Earlier I asked you what objective morality would even be apart from a subject and you said I established why objective morality is nonsensical.(see post #249)

Therefore, we agree objective morality apart from a subject is nonsensical, but that’s not what I’m explaining.

This doesn't imply that objective morality is sensical with a subject.

Not anything, just people capable of having morals.

I could prove that my subjective experiences objectively exist. This is what you're trying to do.

 

[Moral Orel]

There's no naturalistic was to verify what I am saying. That's exactly the point I am trying to make.

Then you concede that your argument fails because logic is a naturalistic way to verify things.

 

[All Becomes New]

Then you concede that your argument fails because logic is a naturalistic way to verify things.

I was thinking more scientific then logic.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was thinking more scientific then logic.

Science is also naturalistic.

 

[All Becomes New]

Science is also naturalistic.

Most science, yes.