Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#481
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?
Because His will permits it for a time and for a purpose. 
Then those actions must be part of god's plan and therefore NOT in violation of god's will.
Yes, He planned to create a creature - the human - who would have volition, the ability to choose to do what the creature wanted and desired to do. God did this so that perhaps the creature would one day choose to seek God out and know His love. God has shown, through human history, that the human lacks the wisdom and knowledge to choose what is right and just and good in and of themselves. That is the witness of history, humanity's inhumanity, and thus history points to God as the answer. We, as humans continually demonstrate that we cannot solve our own problems. We get in the way of doing what is good. 

Thus, God allows evil for a time and for a purpose. He knew that a being with its own volition would choose evil and mar the good. He allows us to do our own thing that it will present the problem that humanity cannot solve without God. Thus, He allowed Adam and Eve to sin and disobey His good, pleasing, and just command. From that day, He withdrew His presence and distances Himself from the intimate relationship and learning with Him. He stepped back and allowed humanity to do its own thing, to know evil by what they did. 

But God also continued to present a witness of Himself to people not only in what had been made, the universe and the creatures, the macros and the micros, but also by selecting a people (Israel) to make Himself known to the world through. He created a redemptive thread from Genesis to Revelation that pointed to (and back to) a point in history where God would provide the means of reconciling the world once against to Himself, that we could once again learn from Him and enjoy that intimate relationship.
#482
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:

Necessity:  The argument against necessity is an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is necessary or not (missing variables).
That is why it is necessary that the necessary Being has revealed that we can know. Without Him, we are left to our own limited existence in a sea of relativism and uncertainty.  


Chance:  The argument against chance is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is likely or not (sample of one).
The argument for chance happenstance is the consequence of one of two possibilities; either the universe is here by intent (thus, intentional Being) or it is here by accident, by mere chance. Either way, you start with one of these presuppositions. Christianity and Judaism go one step further in they identify this intentional Being.  



Design:  The argument for design is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is "designed" or not (missing variables).
The argument from design is more reasonable (reasoning only comes from mindful beings) in that it signifies intelligence behind the universe. We see all kinds of clues, of which I gave you three links that demonstrate some of these (mindful) designs if you come from the intentional approach to existence. Some things are just more reasonable and likely than others. 

Again, what would be necessary for you to know?

Again, you have a vested interest in your side of things. You hold a bias that can't make sense of the universe for it does not have the means to do so. All your reason and knowing boil down to blind indifferent chance as your maker if you deny God. Thus, you do not believe you are ultimately accountable, yet you live your life as though you are. You continually show inconsistencies in what you do. Inconsistencies speak of irrationality. Something is not quite right with such thinking.  


The only rational approach is to acknowledge our epistemological limits.
And where does that leave you - with ignorance! 

Again, which worldview makes a better sense of our existence? Which one explains intelligence, reason, person, morality, existence?


BUT MY POINT IS THAT EVEN IFF IT IS DESIGNED, THAT CHANGES NOTHING AND INFORMS NO ASPECT OF HUMAN ETHICS.

Then why debate it? You have made up your mind. How can I convince you otherwise? Ultimately, with your worldview, this existence is all meaningless. Again, you live inconsistently by creating meaning. IT DOESN'T MATTER.  Or does it? (^8

Why are you continually inconsistent with blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance?
#483
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Ultimately, with your worldview, this existence is all meaningless.
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.

If you really believe that life without your hypothetical god is meaningless, then I pity you.

Good thing I believe in Thog, because if you don't have the love of Thog in your heart, your entire existence (along with your friends and family) is meaningless.
#484
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Ultimately, with your worldview, this existence is all meaningless.
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.
Defined by whom? Why is your qualitative idea and experience of what is 'good' better than mine, or why should I adopt it if all qualitative values are relative and subjective?


If you really believe that life without your hypothetical god is meaningless, then I pity you.
What I believe is without the acknowledgement of God you and I live inconsistently. We pretend that one qualitative value is good as opposed to another. We make it up and force others to adopt our view or we conform to some other subjective view because we are forced to, even though we do not think it meets our criterion of the good. 


Good thing I believe in Thog, because if you don't have the love of Thog in your heart, your entire existence (along with your friends and family) is meaningless.

Bully for you!

We can believe in all kinds of things without justifying them or without them being reasonable. Do they correspond to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case? Make your case. 
#485
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.
Defined by whom?
AXIOLOGY.

Why is your qualitative idea and experience of what is 'good' better than mine,
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.

...or why should I adopt it if all qualitative values are relative and subjective?
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.
#486
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
We pretend that one qualitative value is good as opposed to another.
It's not necessarily "pretend".  Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.

We make it up and force others to adopt our view...
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.

...or we conform to some other subjective view because we are forced to,
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.

...even though we do not think it meets our criterion of the good. 
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.

My opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because I think it comes from an old book.
#487
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
We can believe in all kinds of things without justifying them or without them being reasonable. Do they correspond to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case? Make your case. 
Thog is my personal lord and savior.  Emphasis on personal. 

If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally.  Emphasis on personally.
#488
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Very true. You bring up some good points. We have to eat. We should treat animals in a humane way, not a cruel way, yet we as humans have dominion over animals. Not only this but do you think we could feed the whole of humanity solely on vegetation? My justification for eating meat is that God has given us permission to eat animals instead of just vegetation? This gets into a wholly different topic, God's existence. So I have reasons for why I believe it is okay to eat meat. 
My point isn’t to debate the merits and flaws of a vegetarian/vegan diet vs. an omnivorous one. It’s to highlight the fact that people have different stances on moral issues, such as whether or not we should be killing animals for meat.

As for immoral, do you think animals think in terms of morality or is that completely a human function?
According to those arguing for vegetarianism/veganism, animals certainly deserve to be considered with morals in mind. Why? Because they can feel pain and suffering, and causing unnecessary suffering to beings that can feel pain is inherently immoral.

PS. Are you a vegetarian?
I’ve been on and off of vegetarianism for the past few months, but I’ll admit that I’m not planning to be a vegetarian/vegan, at least not yet.

#489
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Meaningfulness is derived from Qualitative Experience.
Defined by whom?
AXIOLOGY.
How does studying the nature of values determine the good if 'good' is all relative and subjective preference?


Why is your qualitative idea and experience of what is 'good' better than mine,
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.
Not for a Hitler or Kim Jong-un like figure. Not for a totalitarian regime or dictatorship. The population under totalitarian regimes or dictators would include a massive number of people. Do you think you will be able to reason with them? Now, what makes their system worse or better than yours?


...or why should I adopt it if all qualitative values are relative and subjective?
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.


We may or we may not, such as in the case of abortion. What is good about us agreeing? It just means we like the same preferences. What is good about that? Hitler's Germany liked to kill Jews. They passed laws that made Jews less than citizens. You may not like it but many of them did. So what makes that bad?
#490
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We pretend that one qualitative value is good as opposed to another.
It's not necessarily "pretend".  Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?

We make it up and force others to adopt our view...
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.
Shouldn't? 'Shouldn't' implies a moral ought. All you have is a moral preference. Why, if moral values are made up and I don't like yours? And if you don't want to comply with my moral preference and I have the ability I am going to force you because of the other alternative in a world devoid of moral absolutes.

...or we conform to some other subjective view because we are forced to,
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.
Tell that to the Dem's. President Trump is presumed guilt with no legal rights. They are trying to force a conviction on him without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They are making it up. They are "pretending" their case is just.  

...even though we do not think it meets our criterion of the good. 
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.
It does come from an ancient number of books all stating this God exists. My opinion gains significance if God exists and I correctly interpret His revelation.

And make sense of morals without God. 


My opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because I think it comes from an old book.


Your right, it does not if the revelation is untrue. It is just as relative and subjective as any other. But you are left with making sense of why your moral position is good without a fixed identity for goodness. 

And again, what is necessary for morality to be anything other than subjective opinion and feelings? And if it is subjective, why are your subjective feelings or preferences something I should follow if I don't like them?
#491
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We can believe in all kinds of things without justifying them or without them being reasonable. Do they correspond to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case? Make your case. 
Thog is my personal lord and savior.  Emphasis on personal. 

If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally.  Emphasis on personally.

So, you are not justifying Thog as reasonable. Without further proof, I have no idea of how Thog corresponds to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case. 

The Bible is a written revelation that corresponds to what is in many instances (people, places, events), what is necessary, and what should be the case to know something moral objectively and its true identity.

It's universal principles include:

Love God.
Do not worship idols. 
You shall not murder.
You shall not lie.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions. 
You shall not steal.
Honour your father and mother.  
#492
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Very true. You bring up some good points. We have to eat. We should treat animals in a humane way, not a cruel way, yet we as humans have dominion over animals. Not only this but do you think we could feed the whole of humanity solely on vegetation? My justification for eating meat is that God has given us permission to eat animals instead of just vegetation? This gets into a wholly different topic, God's existence. So I have reasons for why I believe it is okay to eat meat. 
My point isn’t to debate the merits and flaws of a vegetarian/vegan diet vs. an omnivorous one. It’s to highlight the fact that people have different stances on moral issues, such as whether or not we should be killing animals for meat.
Sure, but why should I think your stances on moral issues are any better than any other, especially those that contradict your views? If there are no absolute, objective, unchanging standards and reference point what makes yours any better than mine or a contrary view?

As for immoral, do you think animals think in terms of morality or is that completely a human function?
According to those arguing for vegetarianism/veganism, animals certainly deserve to be considered with morals in mind. Why? Because they can feel pain and suffering, and causing unnecessary suffering to beings that can feel pain is inherently immoral.
Explain to me how feeling pain is a moral value. It describes what is, not what ought to be. 

PS. Are you a vegetarian?
I’ve been on and off of vegetarianism for the past few months, but I’ll admit that I’m not planning to be a vegetarian/vegan, at least not yet.
Do you think you feel any healthier for your choice? Does it make you more alert or give you clarity of thought?
#493
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Sure, but why should I think your stances on moral issues are any better than any other, especially those that contradict your views? If there are no absolute, objective, unchanging standards and reference point what makes yours any better than mine or a contrary view?
When it comes to morality, there are no "absolute, objective, unchanging standards" or "reference points", nor are there any "better" or "worse" moral stances. Morals are simply the "dos" and "don'ts" that a person, a group, or a society form and adhere to.

Explain to me how feeling pain is a moral value. It describes what is, not what ought to be. 
Humans have empathy. That is, we have the ability to feel what others are feeling and relate to them. When another person is hurt, we wince, because we can imagine what they might be going through. We do this because we know they can feel pain. For example, if an child was born into a household where the parents abused them (locked them into their rooms, deprived them of food, beat them, etc.), the parents would be immoral (to many people) because they would be causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the child. We can feel what the child is going through (of no fault of their own), and since we know the child can feel pain, many people would call the parents immoral. Animals can feel pain as well, so causing unnecessary suffering to them would, with empathy in consideration, be immoral.

Do you think you feel any healthier for your choice? Does it make you more alert or give you clarity of thought?
There is a slight improvement, but the meat cravings hit hard.
#494
Ruby
Ruby's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 7
0
0
3
Ruby's avatar
Ruby
0
0
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Math is a thought process. Without thoughts there is no math.

I think I understand.  If I play golf It's what I like.  We all like to get along because we are humans. Most all agree on this and the rules are objective after this. Some few do not but that is not a major thought to consider.
#495
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Humans have empathy. That is, we have the ability to feel what others are feeling and relate to them. When another person is hurt, we wince, because we can imagine what they might be going through. We do this because we know they can feel pain. For example, if an child was born into a household where the parents abused them (locked them into their rooms, deprived them of food, beat them, etc.), the parents would be immoral (to many people) because they would be causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the child. We can feel what the child is going through (of no fault of their own), and since we know the child can feel pain, many people would call the parents immoral. Animals can feel pain as well, so causing unnecessary suffering to them would, with empathy in consideration, be immoral.
Well stated.
#496
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Thog is my personal lord and savior.  Emphasis on personal. 

If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally.  Emphasis on personally.
So, you are not justifying Thog as reasonable. Without further proof, I have no idea of how Thog corresponds to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case. 
Thog is defined as personal.

To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.
#497
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
AXIOLOGY.
How does studying the nature of values determine the good if 'good' is all relative and subjective preference?
All value-judgments are relative to the individual.
#498
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.
Not for a Hitler or Kim Jong-un like figure. Not for a totalitarian regime or dictatorship.
You're proving my point.  We apparently agree on this.

The population under totalitarian regimes or dictators would include a massive number of people. Do you think you will be able to reason with them?
Yes.

Now, what makes their system worse or better than yours?
(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
#499
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.
We may or we may not, such as in the case of abortion.
We agree that abortion is undesirable.  We disagree about whether or not personal-privacy is sacrosanct.

What is good about us agreeing? It just means we like the same preferences. What is good about that?
It means we can cooperate with each other.

Hitler's Germany liked to kill Jews. They passed laws that made Jews less than citizens. You may not like it but many of them did. So what makes that bad?
(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
#500
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It's not necessarily "pretend".  Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR TERRITORY
#501
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It's not necessarily "pretend".  Most of our basic ideas of human ethics are instinctive.
If there is no absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard what do you have to go on?
Human instinct and intellectual consensus (social contract).
#502
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.
Shouldn't? 'Shouldn't' implies a moral ought.
The counter-statement "we should have to force everyone" strongly suggests an intellectual deficit.

If you can't convince people to follow your social framework, it would seem prudent to modify your social framework.

All you have is a moral preference.
Based on an understanding of basic human instinct.

Why, if moral values are made up and I don't like yours?
Then we should figure out if either party has perhaps misunderstood the other.

And if you don't want to comply with my moral preference and I have the ability I am going to force you because of the other alternative in a world devoid of moral absolutes.
I disagree that your ability to force compliance constitutes "moral absolutes".

You're merely promoting MOBSTER ETHICS.
#503
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
We shouldn't have to force anyone.  We should be able to build a consensus.
Tell that to the Dem's. President Trump is presumed guilt with no legal rights. They are trying to force a conviction on him without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They are making it up. They are "pretending" their case is just.  
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.  The house "verdict" is 100% inconsequential.

The president is not a victim.

If you cared one tenth as much about the presumed guilt of the average person spending time in jail awaiting trial, I might agree with you on that.
#504
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Your opinion doesn't gain any special significance just because you think it comes from an old book.
It does come from an ancient number of books all stating this God exists.
Argumentum ad populum.

My opinion gains significance if God exists and I correctly interpret His revelation.
(IFF) your hypothetical god is really really realzies (THEN) it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about it.

And make sense of morals without God. 
Wolves, apes, and meerkats have social norms.  So do humans.  And we've had them for a very long time. 

Even before Abraham invented Israel. [LINK]
#505
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It's universal principles include:
It's subjective principles include:

Love God.
Unverifiable Qualia.  And thought police.

Do not worship idols. 
How is this "universal" when people around the world worship any number of things?

You shall not murder.
This is hardly novel.  And doesn't do much to explain the different definitions of "murder" around the world.

You shall not lie.
I think this prohibition existed before Moses.

You shall not commit adultery.
Also not new and also not universal (Droit du seigneur).

You shall not covet your neighbour's goods or possessions. 
Here come the thought police.

You shall not steal.
Unoriginal.

Honour your father and mother.  
If they deserve it.  Clearly not "universal".
#506
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Sure, but why should I think your stances on moral issues are any better than any other, especially those that contradict your views? If there are no absolute, objective, unchanging standards and reference point what makes yours any better than mine or a contrary view?
When it comes to morality, there are no "absolute, objective, unchanging standards" or "reference points", nor are there any "better" or "worse" moral stances. Morals are simply the "dos" and "don'ts" that a person, a group, or a society form and adhere to.
Then your moral outrage is not justified when someone cuts in line in from of you or decides your group or class is subhuman or is ruled a non-citizen, or decides to eliminate you. It is just someone who can impose their preferences on you. What is wrong with that? Just because you don't like it?


Explain to me how feeling pain is a moral value. It describes what is, not what ought to be. 
Humans have empathy. That is, we have the ability to feel what others are feeling and relate to them.
And some don't care what others feel. What do feelings have to do with morality? I like ice-cream. You should like it too. Those are my feelings. What makes those feelings moral oughts or something you should do? It is just personal tastes. Generally speaking from personal observation, in an atheistic or agnostic worldview were morality is built upon feelings since most I have spoken to do not believe in moral objective morals, only the fallacious logic of right makes might. 

When another person is hurt, we wince, because we can imagine what they might be going through.

Some do, others have there conscious seared and don't care unless it becomes personal. 

We do this because we know they can feel pain.
Most do, but there are some people who are incapable of feeling pain. 

For example, if an child was born into a household where the parents abused them (locked them into their rooms, deprived them of food, beat them, etc.), the parents would be immoral (to many people) because they would be causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the child.
So do you believe that harming children is an objective, universal moral wrong, or is this too subjective? If so, then you are inconsistent with a subjective moral outlook. 

We can feel what the child is going through (of no fault of their own), and since we know the child can feel pain, many people would call the parents immoral. Animals can feel pain as well, so causing unnecessary suffering to them would, with empathy in consideration, be immoral.
Animals do feel pain and I agree that treating animals cruelly is morally wrong. 


Do you think you feel any healthier for your choice? Does it make you more alert or give you clarity of thought?
There is a slight improvement, but the meat cravings hit hard.


(^8
#507
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Thog is my personal lord and savior.  Emphasis on personal. 

If Thog has anything to say to you, Thog will contact you personally.  Emphasis on personally.
So, you are not justifying Thog as reasonable. Without further proof, I have no idea of how Thog corresponds to what is, what is necessary, or what should be the case. 
Thog is defined as personal.

To expect extrapersonal evidence of a personal entity is illogical.

You are very lucky, some might even say privileged for Thog to speak to you.

So what has Thog said to you?
#508
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
AXIOLOGY.
How does studying the nature of values determine the good if 'good' is all relative and subjective preference?
All value-judgments are relative to the individual.

Not if the source referenced is an objective, universally true, and unchanging moral value. That would be a source outside the individual.
#509
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is suggesting it's "better" than yours, but I suspect we can find some consensus.
Not for a Hitler or Kim Jong-un like figure. Not for a totalitarian regime or dictatorship.
You're proving my point.  We apparently agree on this.
If you lived in those societies and had a view contrary to the leader do you think you would be able to find some consensus?

The population under totalitarian regimes or dictators would include a massive number of people. Do you think you will be able to reason with them?
Yes.
Maybe you should be the ambassador to North Korea then. Try reasoning both with Kim Jong-un and the North Korean people. Somehow I think you would be treated similar to Otto Warmbier. 

Or maybe you could change the situation in Venezuela? 

How about speaking truth to power in China or Russia?

How do you feel you will fare in Iran?

Now, what makes their system worse or better than yours?
(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
Sure I believe that regarding such totalitarian or tyrannical systems. My worldview supports such a view. Yours if it is agnostic or atheistic does not. Many of these systems are atheistic or materialistic/naturalistic. An atheistic, IMO, does not have the means to do so when the nuts and bolts of its core presuppositions are exposed.  
#510
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Because we most likely agree on the fundamentals.
We may or we may not, such as in the case of abortion.
We agree that abortion is undesirable.
Now, why is that? Do you believe abortion kills an innocent human being? Do you believe all human beings have the basic right to life?

I believe abortion in most cases is a despicable moral wrong and an act of selfishness in many cases. 

  We disagree about whether or not personal-privacy is sacrosanct.
I believe it is UNTIL it affects the life of another innocent human being.

What is good about us agreeing? It just means we like the same preferences. What is good about that?
It means we can cooperate with each other.
Why is that good rather than just a preference? Hitler preferred to kill 11 million undesirables. He had others cooperate with him. Does that mean it was 'good?'

Hitler's Germany liked to kill Jews. They passed laws that made Jews less than citizens. You may not like it but many of them did. So what makes that bad?
(IFF) you believe that human suffering and exploitation are undesirable (THEN) autocratic governments (MOBSTER ETHICS) are undesirable.
Apparently Nazi Germany overrode such thinking in regards to exploitation and suffering for the "greater good' of the society as they thought good. They wanted to weed out the weakest links and create a purer society as they thought it to be. The question is why are there so many of these autocratic, totalitarian governments throughout history and in our current age? It appears that not everyone thinks such regimes are a bad thing. 

Unless you can point to a fixed moral standard that says such a system is wrong why are their systems wrong or bad? They do not appear to think that exploitation or suffering is bad but a means to an end. It is just your opinion versus theirs.