• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Angel said:
Good morning, gfm. I hope you had a quiet peaceful weekend.
Er, remember that stone you pushed uphill last week?
It's rolled back down.
Click to expand...

Moral of this story...it's best to leave some stones unturned...lol...
 
Angel said:
So instinct is an innate, universal and objective ("built into all animal life, of which human beings are a part") reaction to a stimulus.
And self-preservation is the survival instinct at work in an animal, the animal's biological mandate, "a reaction to threat or perceived threat to life."
I appreciate the thoroughness. But just to avoid confusion as we proceed in our exchanges, this instinctive reaction -- is it voluntary or involuntary?
Click to expand...

The instinct is initially involuntary. As the situation develops further, voluntary choice can enter. Fight can turn to flight, struggle can turn to surrender, etc. This is true of all instinctive actions in all animal life. But the instinct to survive remains primarily involuntary. It is a reaction to potential harm, like raising your arms in a defensive position.
 
LaylaWindu said:
That's not an "argument" at all. It just unsupported feelings claimed as fact and trying to be sold as rational.
Click to expand...
Okay.

LaylaWindu said:
Also where does this come up often? I doubt there's many that think morals are anything but subjective for it to come up often.
Click to expand...
It's been brought up and debated in numerous threads that I've been a part of, so I created this thread so that it could have focused discussion and so it wouldn't keep making other threads go off topic.

LaylaWindu said:
Here on planet earth the fact is morals are subjective. I have believes that are mine and they will be confirmed or denied when(if) I met my maker but that won't impact morals being subjective here on earth.
Click to expand...
About objective morality, you said, and I quote "It just unsupported feelings claimed as fact and trying to be sold as rational." ... Is that not what you're doing here when you make these claims about subjective morality? You're another person in the camp of "disagreements between people make morality subjective"... I've refuted that claim numerous times in this thread, as that claim is nothing more than a failed attempt to "connect the dots" ... If I choose to believe that 2+2=22, does that suddenly make the solution subjective? Or is the solution still objective and my belief is flat out wrong?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Quag said:
I gave you an example, this isn't about ontology vs epistemology it is about you defending your claims.
Click to expand...
And I have been defending them. But I'm sensing that you want to keep going down the epistemological rabbit hole instead of keeping focus on the ontological grounding of morality. I did address your example afterwards, saying that some moral duties are much more "black and white" than others.

Quag said:
So some morals are objective but some aren't? Is that your claim?
Click to expand...
Nope. My claim is that all of morality is objective. My claim there is that moral epistemology varies in degree of "clearness"... some moral duties are much clearer than others, and in order to support my belief that objective morality exists, I only need the existence of the "much clearer" examples, such as "it is wrong to cut off someone's leg with a chainsaw". That is something that is objectively wrong, therefore, the "gray areas" just fall into line with that objectivity (even though those moral duties may not be clear in certain situations as opposed to the others which are glaringly clear). That is what moral epistemology is, and quibbles over the epistemology of the "gray area" morals has no effect on the objective nature of morals.

Quag said:
Actually you are appealing to universality you just wont admit it.
Moral experience works the same as beauty experience.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Quag said:
I am refuting it because feeling something is sticky isn't objective it can be universal, something you admit isn't the same yet you confuse the two.
Click to expand...
So one does not have good reason to believe their sensory experience (that honey is sticky from rubbing it in their fingers)? Is this what you are asserting?

Or are you asserting that honey is sticky for some people, but not for other people?

I feel like you want to have it both ways...
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Well officially over the 1000 post mark and the claims in the OP are still losing to facts.

Can anybody name one objective moral and factually prove it....anybody? one? thats all that is needed....

until the the fact remains morals are by definition and proven by facts subjective. Let us know, thanks!
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

AGENT J said:
Well officially over the 1000 post mark and the claims in the OP are still losing to facts.

Can anybody name one objective moral and factually prove it....anybody? one? thats all that is needed....

until the the fact remains morals are by definition and proven by facts subjective. Let us know, thanks!
Click to expand...
Morals were subjective before this thread started.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

zyzygy said:
Morals were subjective before this thread started.
Click to expand...

100% true, just like the are subjective today :)
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Angel said:
Good morning, gfm. I hope you had a quiet peaceful weekend.
Er, remember that stone you pushed uphill last week?
It's rolled back down.
Click to expand...
Good morning, Angel. I did have a very nice weekend observing God's beautiful creation through hiking and photography.

hahaha I see that it's rolled back down... I see that many of my direct refutations of bad assertions are going mostly unaddressed, and the same bad assertions keep getting repeated and repeated and repeated ad nauseam...
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

devildavid said:
Angel said:
So instinct is an innate, universal and objective ("built into all animal life, of which human beings are a part") reaction to a stimulus.
And self-preservation is the survival instinct at work in an animal, the animal's biological mandate, "a reaction to threat or perceived threat to life."
I appreciate the thoroughness. But just to avoid confusion as we proceed in our exchanges, this instinctive reaction -- is it voluntary or involuntary?
Click to expand...

The instinct is initially involuntary. As the situation develops further, voluntary choice can enter. Fight can turn to flight, struggle can turn to surrender, etc. This is true of all instinctive actions in all animal life. But the instinct to survive remains primarily involuntary. It is a reaction to potential harm, like raising your arms in a defensive position.
Click to expand...
We're making progress.
Instinct is an innate, universal and objective reaction to a stimulus that appears to be operative in all animals, including the human animal, and one of the forms of instinct is the survival instinct, a reaction to the threat to life -- a primarily involuntary reaction which triggers initially upon the threat, but which may then be modified voluntarily. The involuntary reaction of the first instance gives way, or may give way, and therefore can give way, to voluntary action.

The above by common agreement between us.

Penultimate Question:
You include the possibility of surrender in your post. So the natural question is: Can the voluntary action (which can succeed the involuntary reaction) override the involuntary reaction?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

devildavid said:
The second line makes the claim you are supposedly arguing for. That is not an argument for ojective morality. It is not even a valid argument for the existence of god. If objective morality depends on god you cannot claim it proves god's existence. It is circular reasoning. First you need to establish god's existence. Next, you need to establish god's nature. There is no reason that a god could be completely indifferent toward its creation.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Good morning, Angel. I did have a very nice weekend observing God's beautiful creation through hiking and photography.

hahaha I see that it's rolled back down... I see that many of my direct refutations of bad assertions are going mostly unaddressed, and the same bad assertions keep getting repeated and repeated and repeated ad nauseam...
Click to expand...

God's beautiful creations surrounds us all.
I better be careful or I'll get sanctioned.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

PTF said:
God's beautiful creations surrounds us all.
I better be careful or I'll get sanctioned.
Click to expand...

Sir David Attenborough receives many letters from creationists who ask him why he doesn’t give credit to a Creator for the wonderful design features he demonstrates on his shows. He answers:

‘When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things.

‘But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’ going to make him blind.

‘And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all- merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’ full of mercy.”
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

zyzygy said:
Sir David Attenborough receives many letters from creationists who ask him why he doesn’t give credit to a Creator for the wonderful design features he demonstrates on his shows. He answers:

‘When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things.

‘But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’ going to make him blind.

‘And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all- merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’ full of mercy.”
Click to expand...
Sorry but I am not allowed to respond to your posts.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

PTF said:
Sorry but I am not allowed to respond to your posts.
Click to expand...

How convenient and impossible. Why did your god create that worm? Does he get a kick out of it?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Angel said:
We're making progress.
Instinct is an innate, universal and objective reaction to a stimulus that appears to be operative in all animals, including the human animal, and one of the forms of instinct is the survival instinct, a reaction to the threat to life -- a primarily involuntary reaction which triggers initially upon the threat, but which may then be modified voluntarily. The involuntary reaction of the first instance gives way, or may give way, and therefore can give way, to voluntary action.

The above by common agreement between us.

Penultimate Question:
You include the possibility of surrender in your post. So the natural question is: Can the voluntary action (which can succeed the involuntary reaction) override the involuntary reaction?
Click to expand...

It appears that it can move more toward voluntary as the situation develops.. It is a matter of choosing a slow or quick death. But pain avoidance is instinctive as well. So it is not always a matter of pure instinct or pure choice. Initial reactions tend to be more instinctive, while later reactions add less instinctive choices. But the degree of choice has nothing to do with morality when it comes to self preservation and pain avoidance.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

devildavid said:
Angel said:
We're making progress.
Instinct is an innate, universal and objective reaction to a stimulus that appears to be operative in all animals, including the human animal, and one of the forms of instinct is the survival instinct, a reaction to the threat to life -- a primarily involuntary reaction which triggers initially upon the threat, but which may then be modified voluntarily. The involuntary reaction of the first instance gives way, or may give way, and therefore can give way, to voluntary action.

The above by common agreement between us.

Penultimate Question:
You include the possibility of surrender in your post. So the natural question is: Can the voluntary action (which can succeed the involuntary reaction) override the involuntary reaction?
Click to expand...
It appears that it can move more toward voluntary as the situation develops.. It is a matter of choosing a slow or quick death. But pain avoidance is instinctive as well. So it is not always a matter of pure instinct or pure choice. Initial reactions tend to be more instinctive, while later reactions add less instinctive choices. But the degree of choice has nothing to do with morality when it comes to self preservation and pain avoidance.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
The only question left is whether taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct?
 
Angel said:
Fair enough.
The only question left is whether taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct?
Click to expand...

It is neither right nor wrong as far as being an event in the natural world. Man and man's cultures, tribes, societies, groups, etc may have a generally accepted view that they subjectively call right or wrong when it comes to taking a life, which varies according to that particular group.

If one human attacks another human being under any circumstance it is to be expected that the one who is attacked may fight back, regardless of how their particular group sees their actions.
 
devildavid said:
It is neither right nor wrong as far as being an event in the natural world. Man and man's cultures, tribes, societies, groups, etc may have a generally accepted view that they subjectively call right or wrong when it comes to taking a life, which varies according to that particular group.

If one human attacks another human being under any circumstance it is to be expected that the one who is attacked may fight back, regardless of how their particular group sees their actions.
Click to expand...
Ever, never, or always was the question, David.
 
Angel said:
Ever, never, or always was the question, David.
Click to expand...

I noticed his evasion also... To me, it seemed like he ultimately answered with a "never" (at least that's what he started off with), but then he tried to fluff it up with irrelevant filler as an attempt to make his proposed view sound more palatable.
 
gfm7175 said:
I noticed his evasion also... To me, it seemed like he ultimately answered with a "never" (at least that's what he started off with), but then he tried to fluff it up with irrelevant filler as an attempt to make his proposed view sound more palatable.
Click to expand...

Maybe the answer isn't what Angel is trying to shoehorn it into.
 
devildavid said:
You ask the wrong question.
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Maybe the answer isn't what Angel is trying to shoehorn it into.
Click to expand...
No shoehorning, David. My question to you covers every logical possibility -- is taking a human life ever, never, or always right or wrong. A simple straightforward question which you evade answering by dismissing the question as irrelevant. I could pursue that evasion and demonstrate how it is merely a reductive materialist dodge absurd on its face, but I'm no longer in play mode with you. Maybe Quag will pick up the torch for you. I'll ask him.
 
Angel said:
No shoehorning, David. My question to you covers every logical possibility -- is taking a human life ever, never, or always right or wrong. A simple straightforward question which you evade answering by dismissing the question as irrelevant. I could pursue that evasion and demonstrate how it is merely a reductive materialist dodge absurd on its face, but I'm no longer in play mode with you. Maybe Quag will pick up the torch for you. I'll ask him.
Click to expand...

You are not including every logical possibility at all. You left out that logically it could be amoral.
 
devildavid said:
You are not including every logical possibility at all. You left out that logically it could be amoral.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't amoral fall under never right/wrong?

I think Angel has every logical possibility covered in his ever, never, always question...

I'm also, like Angel, interested in hearing how you'd answer... you seemed to initially go with never, but didn't want to fully commit to that it seemed... so is that your answer? Just trying to clarify...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom