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.
So it's all based on what individuals prefer? How does that differ from subjective morality?
I thought you were attempting to create some sort of framework for an objective morality in that post of yours to D-Wood. Was I mistaken?It doesn't. It effectively is subjective morality.
I thought you were attempting to create some sort of framework for an objective morality in that post of yours to D-Wood. Was I mistaken?
Why?Something is wrong if there are negative outcomes (or intended negative outcomes).
Why?
It isn't in the definition of "wrong". "Wrong" is what you shouldn't do, "right" is what you should do. Whether or not there is a positive or negative outcome is something that you want to make a part of how we determine what we should and shouldn't do. So why should we do things with a positive outcome? Why shouldn't we do things with a negative outcome?Whut? It's the definition of wrong.
It isn't in the definition of "wrong". "Wrong" is what you shouldn't do...
That's not what I said. I said something is wrong if it's something you shouldn't do. I'm asking you why I shouldn't do wrong things. Why shouldn't I cause negative outcomes?You shouldn't do it because it's wrong? You sound like a bad parent.
'Don't do that, young man'.
'Why?'
'Because...well, because it's...wrong'.
Why shouldn't we act in an unsuitable or undesirable manner?Is that it? Or should you should tell the kid not do it because to do it is to act in an 'unsuitable or undesirable manner'.
You were just scolding me for answering in a manner like saying, "Just because!". But when I ask you "why?" you blow me off. There is no answer to "why". You just feel like it's obviously true. If it was factually true that "one shouldn't cause negative outcomes" then morality would be objective. So can you demonstrate that it's true, or do expect me to accept it on faith?Thanks for your input.
Our self-proclaimed luminary on the objectivity of moral subjectivism fled the thread when his lamp failed to light.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?
If it was factually true that "one shouldn't cause negative outcomes" then morality would be objective.
Nope. I stopped replying to you because the subject went over your head. Brad still has hope of grasping all the implications of a subjective morality so I haven't "fled the thread".Our self-proclaimed luminary on the objectivity of moral subjectivism fled the thread when his lamp failed to light.
Well then just say you're using "right" and "wrong" in the colloquial sense if that's how you meant it. Since we're specifically trying to delineate between subjective and objective, it's a lot less confusing if you avoid those terms in this context.Some acts are ones that we would all agree are wrong. That doesn't make the act objectively immoral on that basis. Otherwise all acts that we agree are wrong would be objectively wrong. That's plainly nonsensical.
When the father says 'You shouldn't hit your sister', there's no 'ought from is' implied. He's not making a philosophical point. He is using common parlance to persuade his kid that hitting his sister is an act that has a negative outcome for her - she'd prefer not to be hit. And the father would prefer it. And the kid better learn to prefer it or he'll suffer an act himself that he'd consider a negative result.
It's the same as if he'd said 'You shouldn't get your nose pierced'. Not because it's objectively immoral, but because he believes that there are negative implications. Everyone might agree. But that doesn't then make it objectively immoral.
Well then just say you're using "right" and "wrong" in the colloquial sense if that's how you meant it. Since we're specifically trying to delineate between subjective and objective, it's a lot less confusing if you avoid those terms in this context.
You stated that you were taking a crack at crafting an objective morality. That's where this exchange started. I don't know why you'd attempt anything of the sort if you thought it impossible. I wouldn't assume you were using "right" and "wrong" in the "ought" sense if you weren't trying to make a model for objective morality.I stated right at the outset that objective morality doesn't exist, so my use of those terms should have been clear from the start. Especially as I've spent a few posts explaining exactly what I mean by them.
Something is wrong if there are negative outcomes (or intended negative outcomes). It cannot be wrong if there aren't.
You stated that you were taking a crack at crafting an objective morality.
Since "wrong" only means "undesirable" and "negative" only means "disliked", then what you meant is that:
Something is undesirable if there are outcomes I don't like (or intended outcomes I don't like). It cannot be undesirable if there aren't any outcomes I don't like.
So you think that you are the "self-proclaimed luminary" that fled the thread? OK. Tell us your argument that proves objectively that moral subjectivism is true. Do you know why you won't? It's because you can't. Just admit it and you can go back to your therapist and argue about your feelings on chocolate ice cream.I stopped replying to you because the subject went over your head. Brad still has hope of grasping all the implications of a subjective morality so I haven't "fled the thread".
Sure. Just as soon as you demonstrate that you even understand what moral subjectivism is.So you think that you are the "self-proclaimed luminary" that fled the thread? OK. Tell us your argument that proves objectively that moral subjectivism is true.
Summing up the progress so far:Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?
The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:
1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality
Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?
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?