-->
@PGA2.0
Bullet 1.
The criticisms of your argument are central to my point: and I’m going to address them first so I can return to them in further responses.
The criticisms of your argument are central to my point: and I’m going to address them first so I can return to them in further responses.
“Me: Good, bad, our conscience are all part of what morality is; thus your argument is that as good, bad and our conscience exist - they must be driven by something objective. This is a ridiculously obtuse non sequitur.”
Clarifying: Your argument is that what we determine good and bad are universal truths driven by a universal standard. In mine, what we determine as good and bad are subjective - learned by the standards. As the concepts of good and bad exist and are explained by both solutions; you can’t use their existence alone to justify one or the other.
“Oh no, it follows; a necessarily moral objective, not a group preference”
[argument by assertion / no true Scotsman]. You arbitrarily dismiss my explanation of morality without consideration or justification.
“Truth is objective. Truth never changes, thus eternal. Truth is independent of human minds since the object exists whether or not you do.”
[argument by assertion/Begging the question] What is true is objective - however, you are arbitrarily asserting that the concepts of “good”, “bad” = truth;.
You should be proving they are true (and thus good is objective), rather than asserting they are true (and thus objective): and then state that this proves they are objective.
Note: I paraphrased your argument that because the concepts of good and bad exist, they were objective; you said: “I don't like the way you paraphrase and misrepresent my argument below the point” ... but the argument above almost verbatim makes that claim.
You should be proving they are true (and thus good is objective), rather than asserting they are true (and thus objective): and then state that this proves they are objective.
Note: I paraphrased your argument that because the concepts of good and bad exist, they were objective; you said: “I don't like the way you paraphrase and misrepresent my argument below the point” ... but the argument above almost verbatim makes that claim.
“Also, how would you know the "good" or "bad" without comparing it to the "best;" the fact?”
Through the very thing you arbitrarily dismissed without reason a few lines ago.
Me: [assertions of objective morality] utterly fails to address any of the ways in which morality is clearly and unambiguously subjective.
This is pointing out that a subjective learned group behaviour, fits REALLY well with what we see. Different groups with different standards, morphing standards over time - the fact we are taught right from wrong.
“What you view as moral is nothing more than selective personal and group preference.”
[argument by assertion / no true Scotsman] You again reject my entire explanation for no reason.
“What makes something liked or desired moral unless there is a fixed and final (absolute) reference point?”
The very thing you arbitrarily dismissed without reason a few lines ago.
“I'm asking a question. You just draw good and bad from mid-air and call it such, while someone else, some other group, calls it the opposite. Who is right? You don't have a right, no fixed address.”
[Begging the question] Asserting that one of those two groups is “right”, assumes the universal standard you are trying to show. You are assuming your own conclusion.
It should be clear to you at this point, that the entirety of my argument, top to bottom; is solely predicated on the simple premise that there is no true right - that morality is subjective with no universal standard.
If, despite repeated correction, you constantly argue as if the centrally disputed fact of this entire argument is not in dispute and is as you claim it is: I can only conclude that you’re unwilling or unable to have an intellectually honest discussion.
It should be clear to you at this point, that the entirety of my argument, top to bottom; is solely predicated on the simple premise that there is no true right - that morality is subjective with no universal standard.
If, despite repeated correction, you constantly argue as if the centrally disputed fact of this entire argument is not in dispute and is as you claim it is: I can only conclude that you’re unwilling or unable to have an intellectually honest discussion.
Me: You are asserting that because those things exist, it requires morality to be objective. Recall, my entire argument provides a technical explanation of how these things can specifically exist
“I presume you are speaking of the Ten Commandments”
No: I’m referring to the exact the same fallacy you’ve used in conjunction twice above, and ignored again.
You dismiss the alternative explanation; and then declare that there’s no other alternative explanation other than objective morality.
You dismiss the alternative explanation; and then declare that there’s no other alternative explanation other than objective morality.
“Is there a culture that does not view killing innocent human babies for fun as good/right?”
This is actually half an argument without being based on an assertion or fallacy. Literally your first in the last 5-6 posts.
The US. Abortion is considered morally fine for over half the population. That’s pretty close to your request. No?
If you want to be specific, though: child sacrifice was practiced at various times around the world: so the idea that multiple cultures supported killing their own children as a moral good, pretty much flies in the face of your claims.
Kids were murdered extensively by the Nazis - including for fun; and were murdered as payback in Lidice for fun.
Infanticide was only made illegal in the 4th century in Europe; female infanticide in various cultures was pretty well accepted; many cultures view honour killings positively.
If you want to be specific, though: child sacrifice was practiced at various times around the world: so the idea that multiple cultures supported killing their own children as a moral good, pretty much flies in the face of your claims.
Kids were murdered extensively by the Nazis - including for fun; and were murdered as payback in Lidice for fun.
Infanticide was only made illegal in the 4th century in Europe; female infanticide in various cultures was pretty well accepted; many cultures view honour killings positively.
God sent a bear to maul children for mocking someone for being bald. He murdered all children on the entire planet during the flood, all children in sodom and Gomorrah, murdered all the first born in Egypt - so even God gets in on that baby murdering action.
So yeah - multiple cultures have repeatedly murdered children, and it was viewed as okay. And even we’re we to use your arbitrarily narrow definition of “for fun” presumably because you know anything less will have innumerable examples.
Such universal barbarity against children throughout history, seems pretty open and shut against objective morality, no?
Yet: were morality simply a learned standard - it would make perfect sense.
So yeah - multiple cultures have repeatedly murdered children, and it was viewed as okay. And even we’re we to use your arbitrarily narrow definition of “for fun” presumably because you know anything less will have innumerable examples.
Such universal barbarity against children throughout history, seems pretty open and shut against objective morality, no?
Yet: were morality simply a learned standard - it would make perfect sense.
Me: I explained how morality could exist without being objective - you have ignored it.
“No, I have not ignored it. I have addressed it. What you call morals is nothing more than personal and group preference unless there is an objective, fact-based best to compare moral qualities.”
[argument by assertion / no true Scotsman] You again reject my entire explanation for no reason; then claim rejecting it for no reason is “addressing” it.
“I pointed out to either you or someone else that abortion is never morally right unless there is no option to save at least one life..... Yet, recent abortion stats show that [financial, personal reasons] comprises most abortions in America.”
[Argument by Assertion/begging the question] Simply asserting that abortion is never moral, doesn’t make it so. It smacks of simply assuming your own conclusion.
Prove that abortion is never moral.
Conclusion on bullet 1.)
The whole point of (1) was that I am arguing that morality is subjective, and to point out that you are simply repeatedly asserting that morality is objective; nominally using its sole existence as proof.
Not only did you utterly fail to refute that point at all, your response was effectively continually repeating the same error.
This reply is so riddled with assertions, no true Scotsman fallacies and assumed conclusions; that it borders on utterly intellectually bankrupt.
Prove that abortion is never moral.
Conclusion on bullet 1.)
The whole point of (1) was that I am arguing that morality is subjective, and to point out that you are simply repeatedly asserting that morality is objective; nominally using its sole existence as proof.
Not only did you utterly fail to refute that point at all, your response was effectively continually repeating the same error.
This reply is so riddled with assertions, no true Scotsman fallacies and assumed conclusions; that it borders on utterly intellectually bankrupt.
