-->
@Tarik
Objectivity is fair
This statement doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.
If morality is subjective, then morality is still objective
Posts
Total:
128
-->
@Double_R
This statement doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.
It actually makes perfect sense, it’s okay if you don’t know what objectivity is. Objectivity is fair because it’s impartiality and the absence of bias. When someone is objective, they strive to present or analyze information based on facts, evidence, and logical reasoning rather than personal feelings, opinions, or preconceived notions. This promotes fairness in decision-making, discussions, and judgments.
-->
@Tarik
Ok, so for those of us who speak English correctly, what you were trying to say is that objective thinking promotes fairness. Yes, I agree. What's your point?
-->
@Double_R
What's your point?
Morality is objective.
-->
@Tarik
What's your point?Morality is objective.
Then you failed to make it.
Fairness is objectively determined because fairness is ultimately about whether people are treated equally, and equality is not a matter of opinion. Fairness is not morality.
-->
@Double_R
Fairness is not morality.
Then what’s the point of you saying
morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair
-->
@Tarik
The point is that I'm using that as my moral standard. Both of the concepts involved are determined objectively, so what is or is not moral can be objectively determined from that starting point. The starting point however, whether it's the reduction of harm + fairness or whether it's 'whatever God says' will always be up to the individual, thereby making moral judgements subjective.
-->
@Double_R
The starting point however, whether it's the reduction of harm + fairness or whether it's 'whatever God says' will always be up to the individual, thereby making moral judgements subjective.
Or it’s a self refuting concept, because on the outside looking in if I’m considering all individuals when assessing morality then diametrically opposing forces will cancel each other out, making morality inconceivable.
-->
@Tarik
That has nothing to do with the morality model I've offered. If you begin with a standard and judge everything according to that standard then within that framework, when you have opposing forces one side will be right and the other will be wrong.
-->
@Double_R
That has nothing to do with the morality model I've offered.
It’s not just your model to consider when assessing subjective morality, it’s every individuals model and when those opposing models collide then they cancel each other out, making subjective morality a self refuting notion like I already said in my most recent prior post.
-->
@Tarik
Different models "collide" with each other because they are different. They are different because that's what subjective view points are. So when you provide this as your reason for claiming subjective morality refutes itself you are demonstrating that you don't even understand the concept being offered when someone tells you morality is subjective.
Question: have you ever played a game oof pool? You do realize that there are a number of different ways people play - some play "last pocket", some play call your shot, etc. These rules collide with each other, that doesn't mean playing pool is self refuting. It means that for us to play the game we have to agree on a set of rules first, rules which are subjective. But once we agree, from that point the winner if the game is an objective determination. Morality works exactly the same way.
-->
@Double_R
So when you provide this as your reason for claiming subjective morality refutes itself you are demonstrating that you don't even understand the concept being offered when someone tells you morality is subjective.
…But I literally conceded to that much when I asked you to define good/right or bad/wrong but instead of answering the call you talked about what your “moral” standard was, and before you try to deny this I ask that you simply state the post # where you defined the terms.
These rules collide with each other, that doesn't mean playing pool is self refuting.
I’m not a pool expert so I don’t exactly follow your analogy but if the differences between both styles of play are so drastic where they don’t even slightly resemble one another it’s fair to say they shouldn’t be called the same game, baseball and softball even have different names even though theirs a resemblance between the respective sports. Now here’s another reason why your analogy doesn’t work because I’m not just talking about a difference, I’m talking about an OPPOSITE difference so even if you took your example a step further and compared pool to a completely different sport your analogy still wouldn’t work because theirs no opposite of pool. However if I say legalizing abortion is morally wrong that’s the opposite of saying legalizing abortion is morally right, so if one party believes the former and another party believes the latter it’s self refuting to say they both hold “moral” beliefs.
-->
@Tarik
@Double_R
You guy might want to discuss the definition of morality.
-->
@Reece101
You guy might want to discuss the definition of morality.
He already gave his definition, but he used terms like right/wrong which is also debatable.
-->
@Tarik
There’s morality, and there’s ethics.
-->
@Reece101
There’s morality, and there’s ethics.
Does ethics fall under the branch of morality?
-->
@Tarik
I would say yes, but ethics has more of a framework.
But I literally conceded to that much when I asked you to define good/right or bad/wrong but instead of answering the call you talked about what your “moral” standard was
Nonsense. I answered your question directly in post 53 when I stated:
"My morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair to all. Anything that comports with this principal is good, anything that contradicts it is bad."
I didn't talk about my moral standard instead, I began with my moral standard because in order to make any judgment about what is good or bad you have to have a standard to compare it to in the first place. That's not my requirement, it's a logical necessity.
Moreover, read the second sentence. My definition of right and wrong is right there.
if I say legalizing abortion is morally wrong that’s the opposite of saying legalizing abortion is morally right, so if one party believes the former and another party believes the latter it’s self refuting to say they both hold “moral” beliefs.
No, it isn't. You're focusing on the end result. When we talk about what morality is, we're talking about a system by which actions are judged. The standard is irrelevant to that definition. It is when you insert the standard that you get different results. There is nothing self refuting about that.
Going back to the pool analogy, under the rules of "call pocket" if you get the 8 ball in without calling it you automatically lose, under the rules of "last pocket" (as long as that was your last) you'd win. Same exact thing, but completely opposite results. This is case no matter what we're talking about. In most election systems the person with the most votes wins, under ours you have to win the electoral college. Same exact process, entirely different results based on what set of rules we are playing by.
This is how just about everything in life works, morality is no different. Under my rules eating shellfish is fine, under the bible's it's apparently terrible. That doesn't make the system itself to be self refuting, we just have to agree on our standard.
I didn't talk about my moral standard instead, I began with my moral standard because in order to make any judgment about what is good or bad you have to have a standard to compare it to in the first place. That's not my requirement, it's a logical necessity.
…But that’s circular, because you clearly judge your “moral” standard as “good” otherwise you wouldn’t have it. What comparison are you making when the subject is the standard itself?
-->
@Tarik
It's not circular to start with a moral standard and judge right and wrong from there. What about that is so difficult to understand?
I choose this moral standard because that's what I value. I value it just because. That's all. If you value these things we can coexist. If you don't value these things then we can't and any society that shares your value system is probably destined for extinction. That's it, that's all.
-->
@Double_R
It's not circular to start with a moral standard and judge right and wrong from there.
Except it didn’t start there, you judged that “moral” standard as “right” otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen it.
I choose this moral standard because that's what I value. I value it just because.
Just because isn’t an answer, you wouldn’t value it if you didn’t judge it as “good”, like I already said in my most recent prior post, CIRCULAR.
Can we all agree good things are good?
-->
@Tarik
Except it didn’t start there, you judged that “moral” standard as “right” otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen it.
It started with my emotions, because that's how I feel about it. You can't "judge" a moral standard, that's logically incoherent.
Just because isn’t an answer
"Just because" is the eventual answer to any string of consistent "why" questions. Google the problem of infinite regress.
you wouldn’t value it if you didn’t judge it as “good”, like I already said in my most recent prior post, CIRCULAR.
Did you choose God to be your moral standard because he is good, or is he good because he is your moral standard?
-->
@Double_R
It started with my emotions, because that's how I feel about it. You can't "judge" a moral standard, that's logically incoherent.
Yes you feel “good” about it. Now you’re just reaching, theirs nothing logically incoherent about saying someone has “good” standards, and last I checked (by you BTW) “good” is a judgment call.
Just because" is the eventual answer to any string of consistent "why" questions. Google the problem of infinite regress.
Except I don’t have to ask you a string of questions because I already know the answer, I simply stated that you believe your moral standard to be good otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen it, you deflecting to the word “value” other than good doesn’t help you because you wouldn’t value it if you didn’t think it was good.
Did you choose God to be your moral standard because he is good, or is he good because he is your moral standard?
When did I say I have a moral standard?
-->
@Tarik
theirs nothing logically incoherent about saying someone has “good” standards
It's not incoherent because you're judging someone else's standards, so to do that you're using your own standards. There's no issue there. But if someone says "I have good standards" then they would be judging their standards against their standards, which is circular.
I simply stated that you believe your moral standard to be good otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen it, you deflecting to the word “value” other than good doesn’t help you because you wouldn’t value it if you didn’t think it was good.
All you're asking me is why like my standard. The answer to that is the same as to any question regarding why I like anything... Because I do. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about morality or anything else. Why do you want to live? Because you do. You're trying to paint this as a problem with my conception of morality but it applies to why we prefer anything we prefer in life.
There's nothing of value down this road, this argument is no more enlightening than what a 5 year old discovers when realizing that they can just ask you "why" over and over again until you have a melt down.
When did I say I have a moral standard?
Because if you didn't then the word good would have no meaning to you.
-->
@Double_R
You can't "judge" a moral standard, that's logically incoherent.
Hate to break it to you but calling something a “moral” standard is a judgment.
You're trying to paint this as a problem with my conception of morality but it applies to why we prefer anything we prefer in life.
Which is exactly why it’s NOT a sufficient answer, because of how vague and unhelpful it is. It’s fine if you want to dodge questions but then I reserve the right to answer them for you.
Because if you didn't then the word good would have no meaning to you.
The means to eternal happiness is what it means to be good/moral.
-->
@Tarik
Hate to break it to you but calling something a “moral” standard is a judgment.
A "moral standard" is by definition, not a judgement. It is the thing today moral judgements are derived from. This is basic English.
Which is exactly why it’s NOT a sufficient answer, because of how vague and unhelpful it is.
Google the problem of infinite regress.
The means to eternal happiness is what it means to be good/moral.
Why did you choose eternal happiness as your moral standard?
-->
@Double_R
A "moral standard" is by definition, not a judgement. It is the thing today moral judgements are derived from. This is basic English.
So how do you differentiate a "moral" standard from a non "moral" standard? By using your "judgment".
Google the problem of infinite regress.
I already told you why that's not applicable here.
Why did you choose eternal happiness as your moral standard?
You're not slick, I know this is your demonstration of infinite regress, we've done this dance before.
-->
@Reece101
Can we all agree good things are good?
Yes.
-->
@Tarik
So how do you differentiate a "moral" standard from a non "moral" standard?
A standard is anything you judge something else against to measure it's virtuousness. Have you never heard the phrase "very high standards"? In basketball, Micheal Jordan is normally considered the standard. That's why people will all the time say something like "Simone Biles is the Micheal Jordan of gymnastics" - because he is the standard by which nearly all athletes are judged.
A moral standard just means it's the standard you are applying to morality, as in the thing you will judge actions against in order to determine whether they are good. For Christians, Jesus is normally invoked as their standard ("what would Jesus do?"). But invoking Jesus or God does not solve any of the issues you are trying to call out as being problematic with my position.
Google the problem of infinite regress.I already told you why that's not applicable here.
Then you don't know what it is or why it is important.
Why did you choose eternal happiness as your moral standard?You're not slick, I know this is your demonstration of infinite regress, we've done this dance before.
Why is it slick when I do it and yet that is all you've had to offer this entire conversation?