What does "We all agree X is wrong -> objective morality" actually mean

[partinobodycular]

Okay, it is a moral standard, with no credibility, and you are applying it to "we" not simply yourself. You're trying to convince me to behave in a manner that I don't try to convince others to behave in ways I don't like.

Another moral standard you want others to subserviently live up to.

Your position is inherently contradictory and hypocritical.

Except that I don't expect you to subserviently live up to my moral standards. In fact I simply don't care. But this is a discussion about objective morality, and seeing as how I'm allowed to have an opinion and hopefully the freedom to express it, that's what I'm here to do.

My whole point is that you and I have different morals. On that point there doesn't seem to be any disagreement. As to whether or not you accept mine...I don't care. It's enough for me to simply establish that they're different. And by now it should be obvious that I'm right...you and I have different moral standards. Which would seem to make the notion of objective morality misguided. There would seem to be no such thing.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for the non sequitur. The fact that I don't see the immorality in torturing children doesn't mean that I'm therefore going to torture children. There are lots of things that I don't do and it has nothing to do with your opinion about them. I couldn't care less. I simply have no desire to do them.

The fact that you don't see the immorality in torturing children means that you have no desire to not torture children. You have no aversion or objection to children being tortured.

 

[Moral Orel]

Except that I don't expect you to subserviently live up to my moral standards. In fact I simply don't care. But this is a discussion about objective morality, and seeing as how I'm allowed to have an opinion and hopefully the freedom to express it, that's what I'm here to do.

You care enough to tell me how I ought to behave. And apparently, the way you're telling me I ought to behave is to not tell people how to behave. Inherently contradictory and hypocritical.

 

[partinobodycular]

You care enough to tell me how I ought to behave.

Please point out for me where I told you how you ought to behave.

 

[partinobodycular]

The fact that you don't see the immorality in torturing children means that you have no desire to not torture children. You have no aversion or objection to children being tortured.

There you go with the non sequitur again. The fact that I don't care if you torture children doesn't mean that I'm going to torture children. Just as the fact that I don't care if you run around naked doesn't mean that I'm going to run around naked. Or the fact that I don't care if you're gay doesn't mean that I'm going to be gay. Or the fact that I don't care if you're Catholic doesn't mean that I'm going to be Catholic. It just means that I don't care what you do. It has absolutely no bearing on what I'm going to do.

 

[Moral Orel]

Please point out for me where I told you how you ought to behave.

Really? Okay...

Right here:

But one things for sure, everyone's moral standards aren't the same and we should stop trying to convince people that they are, or should be.

 

[zippy2006]

The fact that you don't see the immorality in torturing children means that you have no desire to not torture children. You have no aversion or objection to children being tortured.

There you go with the non sequitur again. The fact that I don't care if you torture children doesn't mean that I'm going to torture children. Just as the fact that I don't care if you run around naked doesn't mean that I'm going to run around naked. Or the fact that I don't care if you're gay doesn't mean that I'm going to be gay. Or the fact that I don't care if you're Catholic doesn't mean that I'm going to be Catholic. It just means that I don't care what you do. It has absolutely no bearing on what I'm going to do.

Goal-post shifting and equivocation.

When you say, "Torturing children is not immoral," you are not saying, "I don't care if you torture children." The latter is an implication, not a representation of the former. Another implication of the former is, "I don't care if I torture children." If you don't think torturing children is immoral, then you are not opposed to the torture of children (whether by yourself or by others). So what I said is perfectly true: "You have no desire to not torture children. You have no aversion or objection to children being tortured."

Your equivocation is as follows: "You have no desire to not torture children" does not mean "You have a desire to torture children."

• Zippy: You have no desire to not torture children.
• Partino: I don't have a desire to torture children!
• Zippy: Do you understand how to read English?

You said a dumb thing in order to try to be provocative. You said that it is not immoral to torture children. Now you are backpedaling, dissimulating, and equivocating in order to try to avoid the obvious consequences of that dumb statement. You fell headlong into the practical dilemma described in post #108, and ever since you have been trying to combat the obvious fact that you are a sociopath.

 

[partinobodycular]

Right here:

But one things for sure, everyone's moral standards aren't the same and we should stop trying to convince people that they are, or should be.

Awesome!!!!

You got it. Everyone's moral standards are different. Hence there's no such thing as objective morality.

Beyond that, this discussion would seem to have no further educational or entertainment value, so I'm outta here. Feel free to continue as you were.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hence there's no such thing as objective morality.

Well, except for the one rule you apply to everyone that no one should try to convince others to share their morals. Your statement:

"We should stop trying to convince people that they are, or should be."

Is either true or it is false. If it is true, then there is at least one objectively true moral. If there are no objectively true morals, then your statement is false and you spoke in error.

Trying to maintain that there is no objective morality and that your statement is true is what makes your position inherently contradictory and hypocritical.

Here's another contradiction:

Everyone's moral standards are different. Hence there's no such thing as objective morality.

Since when does majority rule have anything to do with objectivity?

In [Quote 1] you conclude that morality is not objective because there is not a unanimous belief on what is moral. In [Quote 2] you rhetorically point out that majority belief has nothing to do with objective morals.

And here's another contradiction:

So some people believe that it's objective...so what? IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

LGBTQ is immoral only if you think it's immoral.

In [Quote 1] you declare that what people think doesn't affect whether something is true or not, and in [Quote 2] you declare that something is true if people think it is true.

I don't usually encounter so many directly contradictory statements. It must stem from a lack of understanding as to what 'objective' actually means.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We differ on the things that affect us emotionally.

Right, emotions are subjective. People experience them differently.

I would be affected emotionally by tortured children.

If the emotional response is the evidence that something is moral or immoral, then it seems to be inherently subjective. This would be true even if everybody on earth was in agreement about how they feel.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, emotions are subjective. People experience them differently.

If the emotional response is the evidence that something is moral or immoral, then it seems to be inherently subjective. This would be true even if everybody on earth was in agreement about how they feel.

Don't assume I'm arguing that morality is objective simply because I criticized the posts of someone trying to argue against morality being objective.

 

[partinobodycular]

Don't assume I'm arguing that morality is objective simply because I criticized the posts of someone trying to argue against morality being objective.

So if I choose to torture a child you would or wouldn't consider that to be an immoral act?

Why?

 

[Moral Orel]

So if I choose to torture a child you would or wouldn't consider that to be an immoral act?

Why?

I thought there was no more education or entertainment left to be gotten from conversing with me on this matter.

 

[partinobodycular]

I thought there was no more education or entertainment left to be gotten from conversing with me on this matter.

I'm improvising, and I'm curious as to whether you'll actually answer the question.

So if I choose to torture a child you would or wouldn't consider that to be an immoral act?

Why?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm improvising, and I'm curious as to whether you'll actually answer the question.

When folks make assumptions about my position, I enjoy letting them run with it. It makes them look foolish.

 

[partinobodycular]

When folks make assumptions about my position, I enjoy letting them run with it. It makes them look foolish.

I can definitely understand that, but at the moment you seem to be doing a good job of avoiding the question.

But you're probably just taking the time to compose a well reasoned answer...right?

I'll wait.

 

[Moral Orel]

When folks make assumptions about my position, I enjoy letting them run with it. It makes them look foolish.

I can definitely understand that, but at the moment you seem to be doing a good job of avoiding the question.

But you're probably just taking the time to compose a well reasoned answer...right?

I'll wait.

If you can't understand why I'm doing it right now, then you'll be waiting a long time. lol

 

[partinobodycular]

If you can't understand why I'm doing it right now, then you'll be waiting a long time. lol

I wouldn't want to risk making an assumption, but it seems to me that taking a definitive stand on questions such as the one I presented above leaves one open to having to defend it, which can be quite problematic.

So I'll just leave it for you to ponder, if I choose to torture a child, would you or wouldn't you consider that to be an immoral act?

Personally, I say no, it's not, unless one has made the subjective choice to label it as such. I see no "brute fact" which would lead me to do that, so I don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wouldn't want to risk making an assumption, but it seems to me that taking a definitive stand on questions such as the one I presented above leaves one open to having to defend it, which can be quite problematic.

So I'll just leave it for you to ponder, if I choose to torture a child, would you or wouldn't you consider that to be an immoral act?

Personally, I say no, it's not, unless one has made the subjective choice to label it as such. I see no "brute fact" which would lead me to do that, so I don't.

I'm pondering ...

 

[Moral Orel]

I wouldn't want to risk making an assumption