- May 20, 2021
- 3,136
- 574
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, I'll take that as progress.
Thank you. I thought my points were spot on, too!
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.
Well, I'll take that as progress.There might be objective morals.
Thank you. I thought my points were spot on, too!But it seems doubtful given that no one has been able to show them after all this time.
So then you understand why your previous objection fails, yes yes?For the third time, I know what it means.
No, for the third time we're discussing your claims. You asked whether everything is subjective or just morality, and I gave you an example of an objective fact. Now you want to talk about that instead to distract from your points failing.And for the third time, what we're looking for is your argument to support your claim that:
I do. I've posted that argument on more than one occasion here on these forums before. You didn't come across it while digging through my posts through the last three years to try and catch me flip-flopping?We have to assume that you really don't have an argument, do you?
I never said anything of the sort. Don't just make stuff up. Subjectivists aren't "just okay" with everything. Again, you don't understand subjective morality. Do you want to at least learn what it means before you whip up anymore objections that don't fit?So, let's sum up. You're OK with the Holocaust and slavery too. Is that right?
I said it's bad. I didn't say it's "objectively bad". Brussel sprouts are also always, under all circumstances, a bad taste.Well, your post from that thread sounds hard-core morally objective on the normal understanding of slavery as humans treated as chattel.
Good, then you understand why your first objection, that subjectivists believe things are both true and false, is wr-wr-wr-wr-wrong. (Fonzi reference)Matters of taste are subjective. Moral subjectivism feels morality is just a matter of taste as well.
Nope. This doesn't even make sense. Cognitive psychology isn't inherently about morality. It's rational discourse about how to change your emotions. Your emotions need not be rational. You said folks can't be talked out of their irrational feelings rationally, cognitive psychology does just that.I think you missed the point. The therapist who is treating a moral subjectivist cannot make any progress until the moral subjectivist departs from their emotion (feeling) driven conclusion to a rational attitude about morality.
... and I gave you an example of an objective fact. … it is an objective fact that morals are subjective.
If you objectively claim that morals are subjective then you have a rational argument in support. What exactly is that argument?
We have to assume that you really don't have an argument, do you?
No, this is number one:Number one:
Why are you trying to distract from this claim you made? Do you understand why you were wrong?Moral subjectivism assumes both positions on either side of a moral issue, are infallibly true.
I can't argue for something you don't understand.Be so kind as to now tell us your argument.
"Can't argue"? But you wrote that you already posted that argument. It's a "copy/paste" job.I can't argue for something you don't understand.
This is false. Do you understand that?Moral subjectivism assumes both positions on either side of a moral issue, are infallibly true.
I understand you feel that way.This is false. Do you understand that?
Then we're done. Subjective morality is too advanced a topic for you.I understand you feel that way.
Oh, dear ... don't flee the thread without at least letting us see your "phantom" argument. You know it will look like you never really had one to start.Then we're done. Subjective morality is too advanced a topic for you.
Nice try at goading. Trying to frame your deflection from your failed points as me running from an argument is cute. Get back to me if you're ever able to grasp the basic concepts of subjectivity and I'll continue the discussion. Ta!Oh, dear ... don't flee the thread without at least letting us see your "phantom" argument. You know it will look like you never really had one to start.
TTFN.
Are we having fun talking about objective-morality again?
Would I be wrong in thinking that "objective" implies something you can demonstrate, rather than taking on faith?
Well that my sense of what "objective morality " should mean: rules derived from the observable facts of how our actions affect things we naturally value.I might run with this waiting for my coffee.
I can't see a reason to argue against that. I was thinking that objective facts such as 'my car is red' are obviously demonstrable, but would it apply to morals..?
Let's take an example: Sex outside marriage is immoral.
Well, first up we need to agree on what 'immoral' actually means. The dictionary definition of moral is 'concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.' And I'm saying that right or wrong behaviour is behaviour that either results in a positive outcome or a negative one. So immoral behaviour is behaviour that results in a negative outcome.
So if someone thinks that sex outside marriage is immoral then they have to demonstrate it. It's not a consideration for personal opinion. It has to be wrong whether we think it wrong or not. So how can we demonstrate it? Well, we could show examples of where a one night stand led to an unwanted pregnancy or an std. But someone who argues that it's not always wrong can point to an example where a couple got together on the night before their wedding and there was no negative outcome. So it can be demonstrated in that case that it can't have been wrong (and hence immoral). Unless...
...one argues that it's immoral whatever the outcome is likely to be. Which makes no sense to me. It's saying 'This act is immoral even if there are no negative consequences'.
Now I can think of examples where there might be no negative consequences but an act can be deemed immoral in any case. Such as me shooting randomly into a crowd and missing everyone. But the immoral act wasn't injuring or killing someone. It was the act of firing into a crowd. So if the intent is to cause a negative outcome then we can class that as bein wrong, because the intent is demonstrable.
But unless there is intent to cause a negative outcome in having sex before marriage then it's only in retrospect that we can say it was wrong. Which is not to say that we can't advise against it because of very real potential negative outcomes. But that in itself makes it an unwise option in some circumstances rather than it always being a wrong one. Or one that some may class as immoral.
Ah, my coffee. Thanks.
What makes something a positive outcome or a negative outcome?And I'm saying that right or wrong behaviour is behaviour that either results in a positive outcome or a negative one.
They're on an equal footing with personal preference because it's still based on the personal preferences of a subject. All minds are subjects, human or not. Objective morality via a god is exactly the same as subjective morality except that folks defer their preferences to someone else's preferences.But there's this other mostly bogus definition of "objective morality" which is like: rules revealed to us from a supernatural source. Sure, they are proposed to be independent of human subjectivity. Buuut, since they cant be demonstrated at all, they are on an equal footing with personal preference.
Human behavior can be studied like any other animal behavior, and we can make statements about certain observable facts about what they value as a species.They're on an equal footing with personal preference because it's still based on the personal preferences of a subject. All minds are subjects, human or not. Objective morality via a god is exactly the same as subjective morality except that folks defer their preferences to someone else's preferences.
Aww, come on, man. You and I have been down that road before, and it doesn't address what I posted (a critique of objective morality via a god).Human behavior can be studied like any other animal behavior, and we can make statements about certain observable facts about what they value as a species.
Thats not to deny that some values we hold are personal and idiosyncratic.
What makes something a positive outcome or a negative outcome?
So it's all based on what individuals prefer? How does that differ from subjective morality?It'll be relative to the person making the call. But a positive outcome is generally one which will result in a preferential outcome to the person making that call. So if someone burgles my house and gets away with a chunk of money then it's a positive outcome for him and a negative outcome for me.
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?