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

[devildavid]

Yes, that's what you stated... but then you followed up that statement with "nor should it be", which is an objective truth claim claiming that morality should be a certain way (as in, not the morality of 500 years ago). How can your assertion be adequately grounded, especially given your Naturalism and Moral Relativism views? At most, you can claim that one morality is different from the other, but you have no adequate grounding, given your worldview, to claim that morality should be a certain way...


I'm not convinced, especially when you keep attempting to insert objective truth into morality, as I have shown above...


Again, I'm not convinced, as I have described above...

Morality should not be static because we learn from experience. Once again, I am talking about subjective human created morality. We sholdn't keep following outdated morality just because it was used 500 years ago. It's,no different than any other aspect of human society or behavior.

We no longer hang people in the public square. We don't call a priest to treat epilepsy. We don't flog people. We don't approve of any forms of slavery. We don't have debtors prisons. And we don't have the same exact moral codes. All because we learn from our past mistakes, many of which were caused by primitive religious beliefs. That is why subjective human created morality should change

 

[gfm7175]

I'm also responding to this post in this thread because my response deals with objectiveness of morality...

I do not see any evidence that people who claim to be 'filled with the holy spirit' are actually filled with the holy spirit. In fact, many of them are much more arrogant, obnoxious , judgemental and vindictive than the average person.

For someone who believes that morality is subjective, you sure are making a doozy of an objective truth claim here when you insinuate that the words I bolded above are objectively immoral ways of behaving... You're also making use of an objective moral standard when you measure "many people who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit" against "the average person", as if "the average person" is the objective standard for moral behavior. These type of claims seem odd for someone who believes that morality is subjective.

Those are symptoms that I would think would be the exact opposite of someone who is filled with the spirit of God.

Being filled with the Holy Spirit doesn't make a person 'morally perfect'... They still have a sinful nature that they regularly battle against...

In the New Testament, there is a statement about 'by their fruits you will know them' (Matthew 7:16). The fruits of those tend to be quite rotten.

Yes, by someone's fruits you will know whether they are a false prophet or not.

Since it seems to be the case that the really obnoxious ones whose actions and attitudes turn people off of Christianity very often are ones that claim that they are 'filled with the holy spirit', I can only assume that it is a false claim for everyone.

Maybe they're falsely claiming that the spirit filled them... maybe they were having a bad day/week/whatever... I wouldn't know without more details and sensing it for myself.

 

[gfm7175]

Morality should not be static because we learn from experience.

I agree that we learn from experience, but I don't think that fact implies that morality should or should not be static.

Once again, I am talking about subjective human created morality.

I know what you are talking about, and that you claim that morality is subjective, but your claim doesn't agree with other claims that you make, as I will once again show below because you keep contradicting yourself.

We sholdn't keep following outdated morality just because it was used 500 years ago. It's,no different than any other aspect of human society or behavior.

Once again, the bolded is another claim of moral objectiveness. You're claiming that we shouldn't follow a particular morality (that it's wrong) because it is "outdated". You must see how you are arguing against yourself when you make those claims...?? Please keep doing so because it makes defending my viewpoint effortless...

We no longer hang people in the public square. We don't call a priest to treat epilepsy. We don't flog people. We don't approve of any forms of slavery. We don't have debtors prisons. And we don't have the same exact moral codes.

Correct on all accounts.

All because we learn from our past mistakes, many of which were caused by primitive religious beliefs. That is why subjective human created morality should change

AND once again you make my position effortless to defend through means of self-inflicted wounds... You make the claim that all those examples are "mistakes", implying that they are objectively immoral actions, implying that morality is objective. It also implies that we have made "moral progress", which is an impossibility if subjective morality is true.


I really do urge you to reconsider the position you espouse, as you keep confirming through your exchanges with me that you deep down believe in objective morality, even though you keep espousing the position that morality is subjective. You seem to have an inner conflict about this...

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm also responding to this post in this thread because my response deals with objectiveness of morality...


For someone who believes that morality is subjective, you sure are making a doozy of an objective truth claim here when you insinuate that the words I bolded above are objectively immoral ways of behaving... You're also making use of an objective moral standard when you measure "many people who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit" against "the average person", as if "the average person" is the objective standard for moral behavior. These type of claims seem odd for someone who believes that morality is subjective.


Being filled with the Holy Spirit doesn't make a person 'morally perfect'... They still have a sinful nature that they regularly battle against...


Yes, by someone's fruits you will know whether they are a false prophet or not.


Maybe they're falsely claiming that the spirit filled them... maybe they were having a bad day/week/whatever... I wouldn't know without more details and sensing it for myself.

Why, yes I am. I am making the subjective observation. Just because I think things are subjective doesn't mean I can't use my intelligence and perception to make judgements and observations. To say I can't is just plan stupid.

 

[Angel]

Why, yes I am. I am making the subjective observation. Just because I think things are subjective doesn't mean I can't use my intelligence and perception to make judgements and observations. To say I can't is just plan stupid.

But you in turn are saying that your opponent cannot do the same thing you're doing without being called "stupid." Look to it.

 

[gfm7175]

Why, yes I am. I am making the subjective observation.

Yes, you are.

Just because I think things are subjective doesn't mean I can't use my intelligence and perception to make judgements and observations.

Go right on ahead, but those judgments and observations don't mean a darn thing if they are rooted in subjectiveness.

To say I can't is just plan stupid.

You can, but it holds no meaning, and is thus accomplishing absolutely nothing...

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, you are.


Go right on ahead, but those judgments and observations don't mean a darn thing if they are rooted in subjectiveness.


You can, but it holds no meaning, and is thus accomplishing absolutely nothing...

Of course they do. It is only your subjective opinion that it doesn't mean a damn thing. You might claim your opinion is based on objectiveness, but it isn't.

 

[Angel]

Of course they do. It is only your subjective opinion that it doesn't mean a damn thing. You might claim your opinion is based on objectiveness, but it isn't.

Why are your subjective opinions allowed by you to be objective?

 

[AGENT J]

This is still one of my all time threads where the suggestion in the OP instantly fail.

As anybody listed one objective moral and proved it yet........ONE........ ANYBODY
As anybody posted one fact that proves morals are objective and proved it . . . . ONE . . . . . .ANYBODY?

nope...... I didnt think so LMAO

Fact remains, by definition morals are subjective.

Please let us know when that fact changes, thanks!

 

[Angel]

Ah! Angel's Muse returns!

 

[Quag]

Yes, you are.


Go right on ahead, but those judgments and observations don't mean a darn thing if they are rooted in subjectiveness.


You can, but it holds no meaning, and is thus accomplishing absolutely nothing...

Subjective isn't the same as meaningless.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, you are.


Go right on ahead, but those judgments and observations don't mean a darn thing if they are rooted in subjectiveness.


You can, but it holds no meaning, and is thus accomplishing absolutely nothing...

Of course they do. It is only your subjective opinion that it doesn't mean a damn thing. You might claim your opinion is based on objectiveness, but it isn't.

Of course they don't. It is only your subjective opinion that your judgments and observations hold meaning. ... ... ... See how silly this exchange is?

Keep making subjective observations all you want, but when you start making objective truth claims (such as how certain behaviors are immoral, or how the average person can be a standard of proper/better morality), then you're arguing objectiveness no matter how much you stick the word subjective in front of what you are advocating for...

See to it

Best wishes,
gfm7175

 

[gfm7175]

Subjective isn't the same as meaningless.

True, but subjective holds no meaning outside of one's own mind, so externally, it's meaningless...

I find it interesting that posters like RAMOSS and devildavid keep making "subjective" assertions as if those assertions somehow apply to me also...

They slap the word "subjective" in front of numerous claims of objectivity and then they claim subjectiveness because they used the word "subjective".

If I am holding a ball, and claim that I am holding a cantaloupe, no matter how many times I say the word "cantaloupe", in the end, I'm still holding a ball...

 

[AGENT J]

.

If I am holding a ball, and claim that I am holding a cantaloupe, no matter how many times I say the word "cantaloupe", in the end, I'm still holding a ball...

100% correct which is exactly why no many how many times you claim morals are objective they are still subjective. :shrug:
facts dont care about your feelings or claims

 

[Quag]

True, but subjective holds no meaning outside of one's own mind, so externally, it's meaningless...

Subjective doesn't mean that either. Same with beauty or taste. If I find person beautiful it can have meaning to them as well as to me.
However when talking of societal morals as opposed to personal morals of course they have meaning to others. If your personal morals do not fit with societal morals you may fight to change the societal morals or hide them from others to avoid the consequences or even just ignore the societal morals. The consequences of each action will depend on the specific morals, it can range from acceptance to imprisonment. So yes subjective morals have meaning to others.

I find it interesting that posters like RAMOSS and devildavid keep making "subjective" assertions as if those assertions somehow apply to me also...

They slap the word "subjective" in front of numerous claims of objectivity and then they claim subjectiveness because they used the word "subjective".

If I am holding a ball, and claim that I am holding a cantaloupe, no matter how many times I say the word "cantaloupe", in the end, I'm still holding a ball...

I still think you are confused on the meaning of subjective, morals are of the mind, without humans to think of them they do not exist.
By definition that makes them subjective.

 

[gfm7175]

I still think you are confused on the meaning of subjective, morals are of the mind, without humans to think of them they do not exist.
By definition that makes them subjective.

I'm not confused on the meaning of the word... I do think that you are overlooking a whole realm of existence though when you claim that "without humans, morals don't exist".

 

[Quag]

I'm not confused on the meaning of the word... I do think that you are overlooking a whole realm of existence though when you claim that "without humans, morals don't exist".

No really. God is considered the perfect being, pure beauty but you admit beauty is subjective. So the existence of God has no bearing on whether beauty is subjective. Both beauty and morals exist purely in the minds of men. Even if God exists you cannot prove God is a perfect being or that God is objectively beautiful, you can only use your subjective opinion/belief on the subject. The same problems you run into with morals,
Thus like beauty morals exist only in the mind and are by definition subjective.

 

[blarg]

Of course they don't. It is only your subjective opinion that your judgments and observations hold meaning. ... ... ... See how silly this exchange is?

Keep making subjective observations all you want, but when you start making objective truth claims (such as how certain behaviors are immoral, or how the average person can be a standard of proper/better morality), then you're arguing objectiveness no matter how much you stick the word subjective in front of what you are advocating for...

See to it

Best wishes,
gfm7175

no your just talking about how you want others to act its not objective just because it matters to you

 

[AGENT J]

I'm not confused on the meaning of the word... .

post/thread history, definitions and facts prove otherwise...
you are confused/ignorant of the term or you just choose to ignore what it factually means. theres no other options.

 

[devildavid]

I'm not confused on the meaning of the word... I do think that you are overlooking a whole realm of existence though when you claim that "without humans, morals don't exist".

What realm of existence is that? Do you observe morals in action anywhere other than in relation to human behavior?

 

[gfm7175]

post/thread history, definitions and facts prove otherwise...
you are confused/ignorant of the term or you just choose to ignore what it factually means. theres no other options.

I wish I could have the deepest philosophical aspects of life as confidently figured out as you do...

 

[devildavid]

True, but subjective holds no meaning outside of one's own mind, so externally, it's meaningless...

I find it interesting that posters like RAMOSS and devildavid keep making "subjective" assertions as if those assertions somehow apply to me also...

They slap the word "subjective" in front of numerous claims of objectivity and then they claim subjectiveness because they used the word "subjective".

If I am holding a ball, and claim that I am holding a cantaloupe, no matter how many times I say the word "cantaloupe", in the end, I'm still holding a ball...

I am making observations of what is subjective, not assertions. Morality, because it is a concept that comes from human beings, is subject to a human view. Morality is invented by humans. It is not observed, like a rutabaga. A rutabaga is observed and described, it is not a concept. Morality is a human created concept dealing with how humans should behave, according to humans. Therefore, it can only be subjective, as there is no morality observable "out there" that is analogous to a rutabaga which can be observed "out there".

 

[AGENT J]

I wish I could have the deepest philosophical aspects of life as confidently figured out as you do...

Just cause you cant support your false calms and multiple posters have proved them wrong doesnt mean you have to resort to lies and making stuff up LMAO

its hilarious you think these deflections, lies and retarded strawmen like quoted above fool anybody here . . . They just further expose your failed claims

Please quote where I said I have the deepest philosophical aspects of life figured out, we'll be waiting! Thanks!!!!

 

[gfm7175]

Just cause you cant support your false calms and multiple posters have proved them wrong doesnt mean you have to resort to lies and making stuff up LMAO

its hilarious you think these deflections, lies and retarded strawmen like quoted above fool anybody here . . . They just further expose your failed claims

Please quote where I said I have the deepest philosophical aspects of life figured out, we'll be waiting! Thanks!!!!

I just assumed that your knowledge of subjective morals (completely ruling out objective morality) meant that you had the deepest philosophical aspects of life figured out. But I was wrong. I'm sorry that I was wrong. I shouldn't assume things, nor should I resort to lies and making stuff up to distract from my weak arguments.

 

[devildavid]

I agree that we learn from experience, but I don't think that fact implies that morality should or should not be static.


I know what you are talking about, and that you claim that morality is subjective, but your claim doesn't agree with other claims that you make, as I will once again show below because you keep contradicting yourself.


Once again, the bolded is another claim of moral objectiveness. You're claiming that we shouldn't follow a particular morality (that it's wrong) because it is "outdated". You must see how you are arguing against yourself when you make those claims...?? Please keep doing so because it makes defending my viewpoint effortless...


Correct on all accounts.


AND once again you make my position effortless to defend through means of self-inflicted wounds... You make the claim that all those examples are "mistakes", implying that they are objectively immoral actions, implying that morality is objective. It also implies that we have made "moral progress", which is an impossibility if subjective morality is true.


I really do urge you to reconsider the position you espouse, as you keep confirming through your exchanges with me that you deep down believe in objective morality, even though you keep espousing the position that morality is subjective. You seem to have an inner conflict about this...

You don't get it at all. Calling a past action a mistake does not mean I am using an objective basis. How do we know epilepsy is not demon possession? Because we learned the real cause and we no longer cling to outdated superstitions. Same with witchcraft. We know better now. We replace superstition with fact. This also applies to moral codes based on superstitions. We learn and realize the moral codes were based on erroneous thinking. This does not imply that we compared these old moral codes against some objective basis. It means that we corrected errors in our thinking and thus changed our view of morality.