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.
Verify that a moral position is the correct position to hold, or verify that someone holds the moral position that they claim to have? If you're speaking of the former, me neither. You're not assuming I've taken the side of moral objectivity just because I disagree with Ken are you?I'm not aware of any method we can use to verify a moral position.
Verify that a moral position is the correct position to hold, or verify that someone holds the moral position that they claim to have? If you're speaking of the former, me neither. You're not assuming I've taken the side of moral objectivity just because I disagree with Ken are you?
Because subjective morality doesn't have "shouldn't, should and ought and ought not" that apply to others. They can only apply to yourself. When you say to someone you shouldn't do something or you ought to do something then you are taking an objective moral position. You are saying that you know objectively that the other person's moral position is wrong. But you are also implying that you know better as to what is the right thing for them to do in that situation and they ought to do that which is also an objective position.See how you're saying that we "shouldn't" force our views onto others? "Should" and "ought" are moral words. Under subjective morality, why shouldn't we?
"I'm not supposed to"??? Under subjective morality, there is no "should" and "should not", remember? I can tell people "do" and "don't" all I please. If I have the means to force them to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I? If I can coerce or persuade them to believe they want to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I? There is no answer to those questions because under subjective morality, there is no "should not". Neither the other person or I am "correct" because there is no "correct", why should I care about that?Because subjective morality doesn't have "shouldn't and ought not" that to apply to others. They can only apply to yourself. When you say to someone you shouldn't do something or you ought to do something then you are taking an objective moral position. You are saying that you know objectively that the other person's morals wrong. But you are also implying that you know better as to what is the right thing for them to do in that situation which is also an objective position.
You are not supposed to say anything that denies the other person their right to have and express their moral position because it is just as right as yours or anyone else's. No one has any reference point to objectively measure any moral values under subjective morality.
Saying a moral position is correct or incorrect is like saying a color is correct or a flavor is incorrect. It's a category error. I'm arguing with Ken because even though he says that correct/incorrect are inappropriate, he still seems to think right/wrong are appropriate. I thought it was a mere semantic distinction at first, but now...I do not believe there is any way to objectively say that a particular moral position is correct and a different moral position is incorrect.
No, you are forcing them to only have two choices which are not how real situations pan out. Unless in some situations where a person just freaks out and freezes up, they are screaming and yelling to get out of the way. The workers here the screams and look up and see a trolley heading their way. You saying they are not even allowed to scream thus contributing to ensuring the workers don't have any chance of the trolley sneaking upon them. Anyway, I've answered your scenario.But they still only have two choices. Throw the switch or not. Your complaining about it doesn't change that.
But now your just admitting that the driver can in no way be responsible for the accident anyway so that defeats the purpose of your example in trying to lay blame on a driver of an autonomous or manual car. The pedestrian is at fault for stepping out so close to a fast-moving car and from in between parked cars rather than at a crossing. Pedestrians are not meant to be on the road and when they are they need to use the proper places to cross.Cars don't stop instantly, you know. They take time to stop. If a car is driving at 60kmh and someone steps out from behind a parked car five meters in front, do you think the car is going to be able to stop in time?
Ok so why didn't they send a warning to evacuate the people in those houses.You think they didn't already know about the houses?
I already have. I said it would be more morally right to send the trolley down the track with the one person as there is less risk of killing more people. Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person that 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.Please answer the question.
No I'm not. I am not saying all moral acts are objective. I am saying there are objective morals. People can still have subjective morals if there are objective morals. If someone says killing in a particular situation is objectively wrong. A person can still say I subjectively think it is OK to kill in that situation. It doesn't mean they are right but they can still hold that subjective position.No.
You are making an argument of the form "All X is Y."
I don't even know what this means. Do you means X is subjective morality and Y is the objective? If so you can still show Y at the same time X is held. Remember subjective morals don't say anything objective so people can hold them anywhere and everywhere. But in among that, I can still show a particular act is always wrong in that situation even if someone says I think it is subjective (in my personal opinion).Specifically, you are saying X is morality, and Y is objective.
But all X isn't Y.My example is the same. All X is Y, I'm just using "sheep" for X and "black" for Y.
OK, let's make it real. Are you saying that sexually abusing a child for fun can never be objectively wrong because you can show a situation where there are subjective morals? So though we know its always wrong and cannot come up with any reason why it is ever right, it is still not an example of objective morality.In both cases, a single example of X that is NOT Y will disprove the claim.
But I don't have to convince you about how I know God is the moral lawgiver for objective morality or how I know that objective morals exist to show that there are objective morals. That is more of a question about epistemology, the study of how we know things. Establishing if there are objective morals themselves is more about moral ontology, whether objective morals exist or not.Of course, as an atheist, I do not believe that there is a God, so that argument isn't going to convince me.
Yes it is. Scientists cannot fully verify that there is no immaterial aspects of existence. So they have to assume that everything is material and then base their predictions and testing on this. This fundamentally how it works. Scientists cannot see macroevolution at work. So they have to make assumptions that based on the micro examples they see that this can be used for how species evolve. I just posted the link for Berley one of the top Universities for the teaching of science and that is what they are saying. Did you look at the link? IEThat's not relevant to what we were discussing.
I'm pointing out that your idea of science is wrong. You claimed that science makes an assumption and then tries to find evidence to support that assumption. This is wrong. Science is not scientists saying, "I think this is how things are, so let's go and find evidence to support that conclusion."
So why do scientists talk about the evidence for something and not the lack of evidence for something? Like evolution, they talk about the fossil record, microevolution, transitional forms, etc. They don't go looking at all this evidence that shows evolution didn't happen. You cannot prove something through a negative (a lack of evidence). That is not science.No they don't. The evidence comes from the attempts to disprove the idea.
You really don't know how science works, do you?
You think so. So let's apply both to the situation. An objective moral position would establish that there is only one moral position to take in that situation. Though sometimes hard to establish it still upholds there is only one best moral position which is based on a morally right value.And yet, morality being subjective explains it very nicely.
Subjective morality explains people's moral behaviour much better than objective morality.
Please refer to the above.Yes it does. And no you haven't.
That's what I said in my first sentence Because subjective morality doesn't have "shouldn't and ought not" that to apply to others."I'm not supposed to"??? Under subjective morality, there is no "should" and "should not", remember?
No that's just another way of saying "should and should not do" or "ought and ought not to do". You are insisting the other person doesn't do something "obviously because it is wrong". That is saying that you know it is objectively wrong. Likewise, if you telling someone to do something as opposed to not do something then you are dictating what the other person should do. Therefore insisting that you know what is best objectively.I can tell people "do" and "don't" all I please.
First you are implying force like the other person has no choice. That what they are doing is not just wrong to you but wrong objectively because you are saying their behaviour which is the result of their subjective moral beliefs is objectively wrong. But then you switch to coerce which is more about cooperating and not forcing others to behave in a certain way you think is wrong but they may think is OK.If I have the means to force them to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I? If I can coerce or persuade them to believe they want to behave in a manner I like, why shouldn't I?
That is what I have been saying all along. So taking this to the next point which I have been trying to say is that what we see with individuals, groups, organizations and even societies is that they live out their morality like there are objective moral values. They claim they are morally correct and others are wrong and that others "should and should not" do certain moral acts. I have already given examples.There is no answer to those questions because, under subjective morality, there is no "should not". Neither the other person or I am "correct" because there is no "correct", why should I care about that?
It doesn't really matter, forcing people to kill or to be kind to each other. You are imposing your subjective moral position onto others who have their own subjective moral position. You are more or less saying my position is ultimately the correct one because you and everyone else I encounter should be doing what I do or say with morality.I know, I know, that makes me sound like a monster. But that really depends on what I'm forcing/coercing/persuading people to do. If I'm getting people to kill each other, you'll say I'm abominable. If I get people to stop killing each other, you'll say I'm heroic. See where this is going?
Yes not apparent to you and therefore you are not in a position to make these judgments. I would rather trust a scholar who understands the original language, times, and context to get the right application. The Bible does repeat itself and knowing and understanding the surrounding text and how that fits in with the whole book is important.Only if you think the Bible is repeating itself. That's not apparent from reading it.
There are some inconsistencies but these are not to do with God's divine word but more about how humans are describing something through their eyes associated with times, peoples, and places.You think there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?
Yes, I agree just like ISIS or a Dictatorship. But usually, people who believe this are usually being immoral such as killing innocents, forcing people to do things they don't want.What? I'm saying that people can believe that their moral views are objective even if those views are really just subjective.
Ah, you asked me how do you or others impose their subjective morality onto others. The list I linked were examples. Are you saying these aren't examples of people pushing their subjective morals onto others?I've already dealt with the teacher example.
That is not why I am claiming they are taking an objective moral position. I am claiming that people who support subjective moral positions are taking an objective moral position because they are pushing their moral position onto others. Protesting there is no excuse for viewing and acting in a certain moral way, demanding that certain morals be pushed in society and on others, saying you should not have taken something. These are objective claims.The second example is just a case of people with a shared subjective opinion. You can't claim that lots of people having that opinion makes it objective, just as the fact that you can get a room full of Star Trek fans saying Trek is better than Star Wars makes that an objective fact.
It does when it is imposed on others. Whoever has posted that "Don't Steal" is saying you should not steal. You out to not steal. They are objective statements.In the third example, the existence of laws that cover moral issues again does not make those morals objective.
Its not certain views but certain morals which are denying peoples the right to their subjective moral position. In other words, they are dictating what morals are OK or not. That's an objective position.Guidelines imposed by companies does not equate to forcing morality on others. It is simply a case of companies not wishing people to use their companies as a billboard for certain views.
Thank you. It is good when someone can at least acknowledge the argument being made as it can get to a point where you run out of ways to explain things. But I don't know your reasoning for saying its invalid.I see the argument you are trying to make. It just isn't valid.
Exactly, but to defeat the logical arguments you have to show these things. If you cant then we can be justified to go with what we experience being that our physical world is what it is and our moral lived experience is what it is IE it shows that people know that certain things are always wrong regardless of subjective morality. This is observed and supported by the way they react and act morally as with all the examples I am showing where people claim, demand, and impose certain moral values when under subjective morality they cannot do that.You can't show objectively that we aren't brains in a jar, and you can't show the existence of objective morality.
Yes, but what does the circumference represent. Take away the circumference measurement that can determine an angle and you're only left with a straight line. Remember we are in a world where there are no crooked/angled lines. Just straight lines, any notion of crooked lines will never be discovered or invented.You know the circumference is not a straight line, right?
Don't worry you have already addressed this above already.What question?
Because subjective views say nothing about moral values remember. They are personal opinions similar to "likes and dislikes", "fashionable and unfashionable" behaviors. Only something that grounds moral values outside humans can be used to measure moral values. Subjectivity is too unreliable and untrustworthy to measure moral values.Why do you think we need objective morality to give empathy meaning? Why can't subjective morality give it meaning?
Under objective morality, you are being morally wrong. But not under subjective morality. Because of theres no distinction (no way to objective measure) whether someone stopping to help (Empathising) or someone taking advantage and robbing them while their hurt or someone kicking them for being in the way and killing them. All these different positions are just different views of what the person thinks is right, and OK to do.So if I see someone who is badly hurt but I do not help them because I lack empathy towards them, I'm not being morally wrong?
Because you have taken an objective position. A "should" is an objective position. You think a person "should do something, "should not do something' "should be more like you and "should not hold their subjective moral view as they are wrong. You can only say in my opinion I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to hold that moral position if that's their view. I cannot say they are wrong because then I would be imposing what I view onto them.Why not? Why can't we say things like, "I think this is the way things should be," if there's no objective morality?
But the scenario is not saying the teacher has taken an objective position. The teacher has taken the same position as the student so he can prove to him a point. The student said there are no rights and wrongs and everything is subjective. So the teacher copied the student's moral position that there were no rights and wrongs by saying I will mark you down because you have a blue folder. The student protested and said that's not fair.Yes you are. Your example specifically said that the prof marked the student down because he didn't like blue folders. What is that if not personal taste?
No, it cant. I thought I had just spent time going over this again. You cannot impose your morals on another person under subjective morality. You are saying my morals are ultimately the right one for you and everyone else. You are no longer making it your personal view but also making it other people's morals. That is objective morality IE there is only one set of morals and everyone must conform to that.Because for the most part we share moral views. That can happen with subjective morality, you know.
How does reacting to someone who steals from you when you previously said it was OK for them to steal showing empathy. It is showing hypocrisy. You have reneged on your own moral position.No, it just shows that some people lack empathy.
It doesn’t say subjective can never be verifiable, it says doesn’t have to be verified. But objective does have to be verifiable.No, actually, I find it sloppy. For instance, "beliefs" are in the subjective category. I can believe objective facts.
Okay; yours say subjective is based on thought, where as objective based on something non thinking. I can agree with that!Try these, I find them more accurate and precise:
Objective
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Subjective
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Fair enough.When you mean "correct" please say "correct" instead of "right". Don't use the same word to mean different things interchangeably.
So getting back to post #1553 when you said:So you're asking what's the difference between, for instance, feeling happy and feeling correct? I don't "feel" correct. I feel happy because it's a sensation like touch and smell. I believe I'm correct because I have evidence to consult.
Yes. The claim is unverifiable, but I believe that to be true based on what I consider to be fair.Do you believe you are correct that "murder is wrong"?
Yes, it can. And you have not spent any time going over it again, all you have done is repeat your error that the only alternate to objective morality is moral nihilism--over and over and over--without once attempting to justify it.No, it cant. I thought I had just spent time going over this again.
You can try, but it's better if you convince them to volunteer.you cannot impose your morals on another person under subjective morality.
No, not ultimately; that's your schtick.You are saying my morals are ultimately the right one for you and everyone else.
No, that is not "objective morality." At least, it is not the objective morality you have been arguing for. Just because a moral precept is universally shared doesn't make it objective.You are no longer making it your personal view but also making it other people's morals. That is objective morality IE there is only one set of morals and everyone must conform to that.
Not really. Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning. If you want to dispute this then you are shooting science in the foot and undermining one the best theories at the moment to dispute Dr. Craig.Number 1: he continues to trot out the Kalam argument after is has been throughly deconstructed. The Kalam cannot get us to a god, but he ignores the clear logic which is unkind to his claim. No expert, active in the field of philosophy (actively publishing) uses the Kalam or a version of it. If someone can find one community college professor out there doing it, I wouldn't be too surprised.
WLC's version of the Kalam looks like this:
(P1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist.
(C) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Clearly P2 is not accepted by everyone. It is often argued that all matter and energy could have always existed based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. This is not my opinion by the way; I bring it up merely to show that WLC did not consider other options for P2. There are other models of how the universe may have occurred in its current presentation. P1 and 2 are highly problematic.
I am not concerned with proving God in this thread or any thread as that would be impossible directly. I think it may be reasonable support indirectly but that's for another thread.Even if one grants the Kalam argument; it still does not get us to a god. All it would do is show the universe had a root cause.
I think Lawrence Krauss's "nothing form something idea" has been well refuted. Even he admits that.Lawrence Krauss shows that the universe could have it cause in negative energy. Maybe, I don't know. But it is plausible giving the scientific work Krause presents--again, not necessarily my position.
But none of this is to do with what I have posted from him which is directly related to this thread about objective and subjective morality. You need to read or view what WLC says on the subject and then address what you think he got wrong. Here are some links to make it easier.There are problems with Premise 1 and 2, and, even if grated, the conclusion does not get us to a god--just a cause. Using occurs razor--that cause is likely natural since we don't have examples of the supernatural.
There are foundational problems with his other arguments also.
Yes. Craig proceeds by mischaracterizing his opponents position and you fall for it hook, line and sinker, just as you have with his arguments about morality.Not really. Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning. If you want to dispute this then you are shooting science in the foot and undermining one the best theories at the moment to dispute Dr. Craig.
I told you at the beginning of this it had nothing to do with this thread--you wanted reasons of WLC's bad arguments anyway. I gave them, and now you say this isn't the place to discuss it. Wow.Not really. Craig is relying on science and the well-accepted theories by most scientists namely "The Big Bang Theory and "Inflation Theory. Even the scientists who discovered inflation Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin support the idea of the universe having a material beginning. If you want to dispute this then you are shooting science in the foot and undermining one the best theories at the moment to dispute Dr. Craig.
I am not concerned with proving God in this thread or any thread as that would be impossible directly. I think it may be reasonable support indirectly but that's for another thread. I think Lawrence Krauss's "nothing form something idea" has been well refuted. Even he admits that.
But none of this is to do with what I have posted from him which is directly related to this thread about objective and subjective morality. You need to read or view what WLC says on the subject and then address what you think he got wrong. Here are some links to make it easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvhGsEsVda4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxwjTcPW_78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA
Saying a moral position is correct or incorrect is like saying a color is correct or a flavor is incorrect. It's a category error. I'm arguing with Ken because even though he says that correct/incorrect are inappropriate, he still seems to think right/wrong are appropriate. I thought it was a mere semantic distinction at first, but now...
No, not "based on thought"; based on human perception. I perceive this fire to be hot, I perceive this ice cream to be sweet. The sensation you feel when interacting with the outside world is your perception. I feel happy when I watch comedies, I feel sad when I watch dramas. Those are your perceptions. "Based on thought"? We can objectively analyze objective things without perceiving anything in the outside world. I can conceptualize the equation "2+2=4" in my mind without interacting with the outside world, but I bet you'd call that "thinking" and "based on thought".Okay; yours say subjective is based on thought, where as objective based on something non thinking. I can agree with that!
I'm saying it's just feelings and preferences, you're saying that you think you might be correct about what is right and wrong. You're an objectivist. Hate to break it to you.
You were saying you believe morality is just about what makes you feel good, whereas I was believing it is about what is correct concerning right and wrong? If correct in this context means what comes from thought rather than what is objectively proven as fact; I would agree with that statement.
If you believe it to be true, then you believe in objective moral truths.Yes. The claim is unverifiable, but I believe that to be true based on what I consider to be fair.
I don't, but you do.Again; do you believe there are objective moral truths?
No, you are forcing them to only have two choices which are not how real situations pan out. Unless in some situations where a person just freaks out and freezes up, they are screaming and yelling to get out of the way. The workers here the screams and look up and see a trolley heading their way. You saying they are not even allowed to scream thus contributing to ensuring the workers don't have any chance of the trolley sneaking upon them. Anyway, I've answered your scenario.
But now your just admitting that the driver can in no way be responsible for the accident anyway so that defeats the purpose of your example in trying to lay blame on a driver of an autonomous or manual car. The pedestrian is at fault for stepping out so close to a fast-moving car and from in between parked cars rather than at a crossing. Pedestrians are not meant to be on the road and when they are they need to use the proper places to cross.
But nevertheless, driverless cars have automatic braking systems based on a radar that can pick up an object in front of the car faster than a human can. So they are actually a lifesaving device rather than a hazard in that situation. But either way, the person will be in trouble as that is an unavoidable accident.
Ok so why didn't they send a warning to evacuate the people in those houses.
I already have. I said it would be more morally right to send the trolley down the track with the one person as there is less risk of killing more people. Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person that 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.
No I'm not. I am not saying all moral acts are objective. I am saying there are objective morals. People can still have subjective morals if there are objective morals. If someone says killing in a particular situation is objectively wrong. A person can still say I subjectively think it is OK to kill in that situation. It doesn't mean they are right but they can still hold that subjective position.
I don't even know what this means. Do you means X is subjective morality and Y is the objective? If so you can still show Y at the same time X is held. Remember subjective morals don't say anything objective so people can hold them anywhere and everywhere. But in among that, I can still show a particular act is always wrong in that situation even if someone says I think it is subjective (in my personal opinion).
But all X isn't Y.
OK, let's make it real. Are you saying that sexually abusing a child for fun can never be objectively wrong because you can show a situation where there are subjective morals? So though we know its always wrong and cannot come up with any reason why it is ever right, it is still not an example of objective morality.
But I don't have to convince you about how I know God is the moral lawgiver for objective morality or how I know that objective morals exist to show that there are objective morals. That is more of a question about epistemology, the study of how we know things. Establishing if there are objective morals themselves is more about moral ontology, whether objective morals exist or not.
Yes it is. Scientists cannot fully verify that there is no immaterial aspects of existence. So they have to assume that everything is material and then base their predictions and testing on this. This fundamentally how it works. Scientists cannot see macroevolution at work. So they have to make assumptions that based on the micro examples they see that this can be used for how species evolve. I just posted the link for Berley one of the top Universities for the teaching of science and that is what they are saying. Did you look at the link? IE
Science relies on the basic assumption that the reason an object falls to the ground is caused by a natural process called gravity. But scientists can only describe gravity. They don't know what gravity is in the greater scheme of things. So they assume it is caused by a natural process. It could be some strange invisible force put there by God for all we know or some immaterial force we are yet to realize.
So why do scientists talk about the evidence for something and not the lack of evidence for something? Like evolution, they talk about the fossil record, microevolution, transitional forms, etc. They don't go looking at all this evidence that shows evolution didn't happen. You cannot prove something through a negative (a lack of evidence). That is not science.
But it seems that you got your sheep example around the wrong way.
The statement that "you can't prove a negative" applies to exclusionary inductive arguments, i.e., arguments that posit the nonexistence of some condition in a sufficiently intractable universe of possibilities. For example,
I have never been to Ashtabula, Ohio.
To prove this, I would have to provide evidence that for every moment of my life, I wasn't in Ashtabula. The inverse argument
I have been to Ashtabula, Ohio
on the other hand, it is relatively easy to demonstrate. I only need evidence of one moment in my life, the one in Ashtabula. If the universe of the claim is sufficiently limited, then it is possible to prove a negative:
Replace the above with
There are no objective moral values
To prove this, you would have to provide evidence for every moral lived experience ever in the world that there wasn't or isn't a situation where there was an objective moral value. The inverse argument
There are objective moral values
On the other hand, it is relatively easy to demonstrate. I only need evidence of one example of objective moral values. If the universe of the claim is sufficiently limited, then it is possible to prove a negative:
Argumentation fallacies: Impossible to prove the non-existing
You think so. So let's apply both to the situation. An objective moral position would establish that there is only one moral position to take in that situation. Though sometimes hard to establish it still upholds there is only one best moral position which is based on a morally right value.
But the subjective moral position cannot determine what is the best moral position to take as there are no moral values. What is right and best is a matter of opinion, a "like or dislike" a preference. So someone may run the single person down, another may run the 5 people down, someone else may run the five people down while taking a shot at the single person to try and wipe them all out, another may just jump off the trolley because it's all too hard. It doesn't matter because each action is just as likable or unlikeable as the other because there are no really really right or wrong actions to do.
who would you want driving the trolley someone who is guaranteed to do what is morally right and best or someone who you cannot have confidence in that will do the right thing.
Please refer to the above.
They aren't even correct/incorrect for us. "I should do this because it makes me feel good" and "I should not do this because it makes me feel bad" is all we're ultimately saying.It's correct to say that moral positions are correct or incorrect IF morality is objective. Objective statements are either correct or incorrect.
Since I do NOT believe morality is objective, I agree with you. At best, we can say a moral position is correct or incorrect for ourselves, but we can't say it's correct or incorrect for others.
No, it's not. If a bank robber says, "Give me all the money out of your register or I'll shoot you" he isn't telling the teller that giving him the money is the objectively correct thing to do. He's telling her to do something, and threatening force if her behavior doesn't comply with what he wants.No that's just another way of saying "should and should not do" or "ought and ought not to do".
Yes not apparent to you and therefore you are not in a position to make these judgments. I would rather trust a scholar who understands the original language, times, and context to get the right application. The Bible does repeat itself and knowing and understanding the surrounding text and how that fits in with the whole book is important.
There are some inconsistencies but these are not to do with God's divine word but more about how humans are describing something through their eyes associated with times, peoples, and places.
Yes, I agree just like ISIS or a Dictatorship. But usually, people who believe this are usually being immoral such as killing innocents, forcing people to do things they don't want.
Ah, you asked me how do you or others impose their subjective morality onto others. The list I linked were examples. Are you saying these aren't examples of people pushing their subjective morals onto others?
That is not why I am claiming they are taking an objective moral position. I am claiming that people who support subjective moral positions are taking an objective moral position because they are pushing their moral position onto others. Protesting there is no excuse for viewing and acting in a certain moral way, demanding that certain morals be pushed in society and on others, saying you should not have taken something. These are objective claims.
They are saying that everyone should agree and do what they are claiming and protesting about. Saying that we objectively no what is right and wrong and that everyone should agree and do it. That is an objective position because they have moved from a personal view to pushing that view onto others and saying all other personal views are wrong and not allowed.
So if we applied this to Star Trek fans it would be like them walking down the street protesting and claiming that "Star Wars is morally wrong and people shouldn't watch Star Wars. We objectively know that Star Trek is correct and Star Wars is wrong. We demand Star Trek and there is no excuses for people watching Star Wars. People should watch Star Trek and not Star Wars.
It does when it is imposed on others. Whoever has posted that "Don't Steal" is saying you should not steal. You out to not steal. They are objective statements.
Its not certain views but certain morals which are denying peoples the right to their subjective moral position. In other words, they are dictating what morals are OK or not. That's an objective position.
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?