If morality is subjective, then morality is still objective

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 245
#151
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
someone that is unable to live without access to someone else’s body is not treated with the same deference as someone who is able to live without access to someone else’s body, under the pro-choice view
All you did here was regurgitate your claim in a different set of words. What's missing is rational support.

The pro choice view addresses whether the mother can sever the link between herself and the baby she's carrying. That's it, that's all. The treatment of the fetus (as in whether it can survive) is an entirely different matter and one to take up with the god that you pray to.
#152
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
All you did here was regurgitate your claim in a different set of words. What's missing is rational support.
Well it seems like I had to because you misconstrued my claim to think using an unrealistic what if hypothetical is responsive. You want to talk rational support? What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational so we might as well all be nihilists.

The treatment of the fetus (as in whether it can survive) is an entirely different matter and one to take up with the god that you pray to.
…No, treatment as in deference (the word you originally used) nobody is questioning whether it can or can’t survive at a certain point, the answer to that is already clear to doctors.
#153
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
nothing subjective is rational
That is an interesting claim, I'd never thought about it before. You may be right. However...

Sticking with the topic of morality, would it not be logical and rational to create a moral code that is aligned with one's values or does the fact that one's values are subjective make them and a moral code irrational?
#154
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
Sticking with the topic of morality, would it not be logical and rational to create a moral code that is aligned with one's values or does the fact that one's values are subjective make them and a moral code irrational?
The latter.
#155
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
That would make non-religious morality itself irrational. I understand that you believe in a religious objective morality. But...

Perhaps some values should not be considered subjective such as valuing one's own life (for most it would be impossible not to) or wanting to live in a civil society (it is extremely difficult to live alone with no societal comforts and assistance). This would be in accordance with Wylted's "prime morals" or what I call "prime values". It is logical and rational to want to live and live comfortably. Morals are necessary to accomplish that when living among others, making those morals rational.
#156
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
It is logical and rational to want to live and live comfortably.
What rational support do you have for that claim? Because if there’s nothing waiting for me on the other side I see no reason to care if I live or die.
#157
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
What rational support do you have for that claim? Because if there’s nothing waiting for me on the other side I see no reason to care if I live or die.
There are many reasons to want to live. Survival instinct is the main reason. Self-preservation is considered universal among all living organisms. As for living comfortably in a society, we wouldn't be living in communities if it weren't beneficial.

if there’s nothing waiting for me on the other side I see no reason to care if I live or die.
That can be resolved by having a purpose in life.
#158
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
Survival instinct is the main reason.
That’s redundant, what reason is there to have a survival instinct?

As for living comfortably in a society, we wouldn't be living in communities if it weren't beneficial.
Everyone that has committed suicide isn’t living comfortably.

That can be resolved by having a purpose in life.
Like going to heaven? I agree.
#159
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
That’s redundant, what reason is there to have a survival instinct?
I'm not a scientist but there is probably an evolutionary reason. And apropos of nothing, according to Wikipedia, self-preservation is thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior.

Everyone that has committed suicide isn’t living comfortably.
Sad but true. I, however, was speaking of most people.

Like going to heaven? I agree.
I would certainly not be dismissive of your purpose. It will keep you from being included in the previous category of people.
#160
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
And apropos of nothing, according to Wikipedia, self-preservation is thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior.
This means nothing if you’re a nihilist who thinks otherwise.

Sad but true. I, however, was speaking of most people.
Well for sake of discussion I argued in favor of nihilism so most people are irrelevant.
#161
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
This means nothing if you’re a nihilist who thinks otherwise.
And...?
I’m arguing in favor of nihilism so most people are irrelevant.
Fair enough. I acknowledge your philosophy though I disagree with it because your values as a nihilist are not in accordance with mine. To me, most people are relevant. Please don't ask me why or this could go on forever.
#162
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
I acknowledge your philosophy though I disagree with it because your values as a nihilist are not in accordance with mine.
Except as a nihilist nothing is of value, because valuing anything is irrational.
#163
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TwoMan
@Tarik.

The human mass is instilled with purpose and then subsequently programmed with ideas.

Nihilism is a philosophical concept relative to the latter...And as such is contradictory nonsense.

They that decided that everything was purposeless and committed suicide, saw purpose in their actions.

Unfortunately they had developed some stupid ideas.

The mass functioned purposefully until the end.


Objectivity and subjectivity are simply the classification of ideas.
#164
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
They that decided that everything was purposeless and committed suicide, saw purpose in their actions.
Finding purpose in purposelessness. Priceless.
#165
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TwoMan
Of course, the line of text that you responded to had an accompanying five lines.

Ha Ha...Such was your subjective objective. 
#166
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Of course, the line of text that you responded to had an accompanying five lines.

Ha Ha...Such was your subjective objective. 
I objected to multiple subjects and subjectively found an objective by responding to only one subject.
#167
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TwoMan
Nice.
Topic's author
#168
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
They that decided that everything was purposeless and committed suicide, saw purpose in their actions
The true purpose is removing suffering. No one really wants to live in pain for 80 years.
#169
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
You want to talk rational support? What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational
To be rational by definition means to be in accordance with logic.

Logic is the tool that's gets us to a conclusion *from* a given set of premises. Logic does not tell us whether those premises are true or correct. Think of a piece of paper with a dots on it. The dots are your premises. The picture you get once all the dots are connected is the conclusion. Logic is the ability to connect those dots, so they would be symbolized by the lines themselves.

The standards one uses for morality are the premises, or the dots. The moral determination is the conclusion, or the picture. To get there, regardless of whether we're talking about morality or trying to figure out who won a game of chess, requires logic thereby making that process rational by definition.

Objectivity vs subjectivity is a completely different concept. Morality is subjective because the dots themselves will always be subjective. Whether you're using fundamental concepts of human well being to draw your dots or whether your dots are coming from whatever the bible said, you're still determining for yourself what you're going to base it off of before logic can even be applied (in other words, it's whatever you say). But once those dots are drawn, the process to reach the conclusion is objective, because logic (like math) isn't a matter of opinion.

you misconstrued my claim to think using an unrealistic what if hypothetical is responsive.
Hypotheticals do not need to be realistic to be useful. In fact in many cases the more unrealistic the better they are to achieve their purpose, which is to test whether your position is rationally defensible. If it is, the hypothetical will demonstrate that, if it isn't the hypothetical will show that as well. You can refute any particular hypothetical as being non analogous, but I always find it telling when someone dodges hypotheticals altogether claiming that hypotheticals themselves are some kind of rhetorical trickery. It only feels like that when you are holding a position that doesn't work.
#170
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Logic is the tool that's gets us to a conclusion *from* a given set of premises.
Well I already gave you my conclusion from my premise.

What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational so we might as well all be nihilists.

Hypotheticals do not need to be realistic to be useful.
Except they do (the context of this discussion is included).
#171
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Well I already gave you my conclusion from my premise.

What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational so we might as well all be nihilists.
If your premise is that nothing subjective is rational then your premise is wrong and apparently you didn't read a word I just said because I explained it all in detail.

Hypotheticals do not need to be realistic to be useful.
Except they do (the context of this discussion is included).
No, they don't, and by claiming they do you're only demonstrating that you do not understand how hypotheticals work.

Again, hypotheticals are a test of your logic. The test is performed by stripping the content off of the actual example and replacing it with imaginary content to see if the logic holds. In many cases, the more extreme the imagined content the better because the sillier it is the more it tends to expose the logic of it, which is the whole point.

So when someone rejects a hypothetical on the basis of unrealistic content they're either demonstrating that they do not understand how logic works by showing themselves unable to take their attention away from the content (which is entirely sperate from the logic) or they're being disingenuous because they know their logic will not hold if applied to another example.
#172
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
If your premise is that nothing subjective is rational then your premise is wrong and apparently you didn't read a word I just said because I explained it all in detail.
…No my friend you’re not PAYING ATTENTION to a word I’m saying.
The standards one uses for morality are the premises, or the dots.
This is the beginning of your so called “explanation” now you can try to refute any claim about subjectivity being irrational but I find it telling when instead you dodge my claim altogether and just start talking about the standards one uses for morality as if it’s already a forgone conclusion that morality is rational, that’s just a huge assertion on your part that you’ve yet to justify with rational support my friend, and since morality ISN’T rational there is no need to have any standards, so no I’m not entertaining your premise because as far as I’m concerned (which I already made clear numerous posts ago) it shouldn’t even be there in the first place. That’s it, that’s all.

The test is performed by stripping the content off of the actual example and replacing it with imaginary content to see if the logic holds.
Well when one uses there imagination possibilities are endless which was why my argument was solely based on reality, because that’s the world I live in.
#173
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
nothing subjective is rational
I have given this a little more thought and now find this statement to be incorrect. To be rational, a thing needs a reasonable or logical explanation. The purpose of morality is to enable people to live cooperatively in groups and is, therefore, logical, reasonable and rational.
#174
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
morality ISN’T rational
Again, I explained why this statement is false in detail.

To be rational is by definition to be in accordance with logic.

Logic is the tool we used to reach a conclusion from a given set of premises.

Morality is a system by which we judge actions in accordance with a moral standard.

The standard, whether we're talking about morality or anything else, is the starting point aka premises. Logic (aka rationality) can only begin once we have a set of premises established.

Therefore, the act of judging actions in accordance with a moral standard is by definition the use of logic, which is by definition a rational practice.

The fact that the premises themselves are subjective has absolutely nothing to do with whether the process that follows is rational.

Here, let's apply the classic example of how logic works to demonstrate.

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
[Insert logic here]
C: Socrates is mortal

Notice how we get from P1 & P2 to the conclusion. That tool we used to connect the dots to end up at C is the same regardless of whether P1 & P2 are real or not. If we change P1 to "all men are immortal" then logic dictates that the conclusion be changed to "Socrates is immortal". That's what being rational looks like and it applies the same either way.

Now let's try morality.

P1: Morality is about reducing harm
P2: Murder is harmful
[Insert logic here]
C: Murder is immoral

Doesn't matter if you agree with P1 or P2, what follows is a rational process.

Well when one uses there imagination possibilities are endless which was why my argument was solely based on reality, because that’s the world I live in.
Logic isn't limited to the real world, that's the point. If you do not understand that the logic you apply is just as valid in any real world circumstance as it would be towards any imaginary circumstance then you do not know what logic is.
#175
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
The purpose of morality is to enable people to live cooperatively in groups and is, therefore, logical, reasonable and rational.
You’re only saying this due to your emotional appeal of your life, which isn’t logical at all in fact it’s fallacious.
#176
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Logic (aka rationality) can only begin once we have a set of premises established.
Not if we’ve already established that the system in which you defined morality is already illogical (aka irrational).

Logic isn't limited to the real world, that's the point.
…Be that as it may, my claim was limited to the real world so you stepping in a realm outside of that and using it as an answer for the real world is incorrect and nothing but besides the point, plain and simple.
#177
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
The purpose of morality is to enable people to live cooperatively in groups and is, therefore, logical, reasonable and rational.
You’re only saying this due to your emotional appeal of your life, which isn’t logical at all in fact it’s fallacious.
Wrong. I'm saying this because it is reasonable and logical to wish to live cooperatively in groups because it is almost impossible to live completely alone with no benefits of society.
#178
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable, illogical and irrational to want to remain alive?
#179
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable, illogical and irrational to want to remain alive?
Because I’m arguing in favor of nihilism I’ll say yes because life is meaningless.
#180
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 376
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable, illogical and irrational to want to remain alive?
Because I’m arguing in favor of nihilism I’ll say yes because life is meaningless.
Nihilism is irrelevant to my argument. You even contradict your own argument by remaining alive. Even if you did mean what you say, you would be the exception to the rule. That rule is that virtually all living organisms want to remain alive. For most people, it is reasonable, logical and rational to want to remain alive. It i s therefore reasonable, logical and rational to have morality to make that want possible. Morality is inherently subjective so, in conclusion, something subjective can be rational.