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.
It's the loving or hateful interaction between two or more objectively existing beings.
From a Christian perspective, God is referred to as the first being to act in a purely loving way towards other objectively existing beings.
From a certain perspective, everything is subjective. I absolutely want to go there ... There is only one thing that I hold as an absolute truth: that something exists instead of nothing.
Great -- my ex-girlfriend objectively exists. As do I. She said eating meat was wrong. I said it was not.
Objectively speaking, is eating meat wrong or right?
From a Biblical perspective, if you're causing someone to sin because of what you eat then you should stop eating it for their sake. Paul wrote about that issue.
1 Corinthians 8:13
"Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."
Now I don't know if your girlfriend is sinning because of what you eat, maybe if she's lashing out in anger at you and threatening you then yes, but I doubt that's the case.
Eating meat -- right or wrong?
I'm asking for some objective morality here -- you claimed it existed.
What do you mean by substantive? My sympathies are for Neo-Aristotelianism, where form is at least as crucial as matter. Rationality can be seen as transforming the human experience of life--we develop elaborate rituals for something as simple as eating food. A new dimension of existence has emerged, so to speak, where artistically designed French dessert plates are now possible, which can be judged on any number of intersubjective criteria. The term "aesthetic" refers to this rather than to the taste of brussels sprouts.
None at all? Is it not an objective fact that brussels sprouts taste bitter
I am unaware of any theory of moral realism that would actually attribute moral agency to a tsunami. If your stance is that only a subjective actor can be a moral agent, I would agree. A tsunami cannot be a moral evil, but a nation that sits back and does nothing in the wake of a natural disaster most certainly can.
If you think that outside of a moral context, good/bad can be objective values, I would certainly like to hear more. I do not see how you can hold that a tsunami is objectively bad without opening the door to moral facts.
Well, so much for moral realism then.
What is all this bafflegab? Your statement was "I don't consider aesthetics to be subjective either."
Aesthetics relates to beauty. If aesthetics is objective, then statements like "This painting is beautiful" would be a fact claim about reality. Or "This painting is more beautiful than that painting." If people differed, one would be really factually wrong, and the other factually right. Is this your position? There is, objectively, a most beautiful person in the world?
Sure. We can look at tastebuds and see how they react. But tasting bitter is not the same as tasting bad. Some people, with straight faces, have said that Brussels sprouts taste good. Conversely, I enjoy a good pint of bitter, but others do not.
The door to moral facts cannot be opened, because you yourself have declared that no theory of moral realism would allow tsunamis to be morally anything.
Eating meat -- right or wrong?
I'm asking for some objective morality here -- you claimed it existed.
It depends on the objectively existing being that you’re interacting with, in this case your girlfriend. If she’s sinning because of what you eat then it’s wrong for you to eat that. There is an objectively correct answer here, but I don’t know it because I don’t know your girlfriend.
Where does the meat come from? If you think there's no problem whatsoever with the food industry and the way it tortures animals, that says something. Primarily that you view animals as objects whose suffering is irrelevant.
Other situations are much more ambiguous, but unless you're the type of person who likes pulling legs off spiders (in which case, you have bigger problems), this one really is not.
is eating meat a sin?
sounds like your answer is "yes, it's objectively wrong."
is eating meat a sin?
For me it’s not, but I don’t know anyone who sins because of what I eat. Maybe you do, again I don’t know.
This is an important issue and I hope you find the right answers that you can accept.
Sounds like there's one objective morality for you, another objective morality for me, and yet another objective morality for my ex-...
I never knew objectivity could sound so subjective.
If objectivity moral exist, who/what determine what moral/amoral?
False equivalence. Also way to dodge my question by going off a tangent.Who determines the structure of an atom?
False equivalence. Also way to dodge my question by going off a tangent.
You respond with a tangent. I call that a dodge. Give me a direct answer next time ok?Literally the rest of my post was a response to your question.
Yes it is, you compare abstract thinking (that is not measurable) with reality (which it IS measurable).And no, it isn't a false equivalence.
You respond with a tangent. I call that a dodge. Give me a direct answer next time ok?
Yes it is, you compare abstract thinking (that is not measurable) with reality (which it IS measurable).
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?