-->
@Theweakeredge
no.
Of course morality is subjective.
Posts
Total:
219
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please explain the practical demonstrable difference between moral intuition and moral opinion or explain how any moral opinion is objective. Opinions are definitionally subjective.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Demonstrate that assertion
-->
@Tarik
For example what would you say if I asked what fact should be preferred and why, the sky being blue or the grass being green?
COLOR PERCEPTION IS SUBJECTIVE.
-->
@Tarik
Again, your explanation likes clarity because I agree but I receive that different from how you’re giving it to me I receive that as “objective” morals are just a list of principles which inform what is “objectively” good and what is “objectively” bad. You are right about one thing though, I don’t understand what subjective morality is that’s why I view it as objective.
I think you might be confusing the term "objective" with "dispassionate, unchanging, procrustean, universal".
Even a dispassionate, unchanging, procrustean, universal standard is SUBJECTIVE.
For example,
A computer program that determines your credit score.
Ideally the computer would treat everyone "equally" (but not really equally because then everyone would have the same credit score).
Ideally the computer would apply the same factors the same weight for everyone.
BUT THE PART WE FORGET IS THE HIDDEN AXIOMS OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMER.
Just because the program isn't INTENTIONALLY unfair, this immunity to INTENTIONALITY does not mean that the computer program IS ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY FAIR.
-->
@secularmerlin
Good and bad are definitionally subjective. They are only useful terms in this context based on some subjective standard. That being said if we can agree to some subjective standard we can [QUANTIFIABLY] determine if some actions are good or bad for the purposes of maintaining or promoting that standard.
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree. First we need a standard however and that standard will be subjectively chosen.
-->
@RationalMadman
The 'object' is something that is only ever done things to and which itself has no perception worthy of considering as a first-person concern. The 'subject' is something that both has things done to it and actively can do things but more importantly while participating in acts it has a viewpoint and perception that is emotionally concerning and valuable.
Phenomenal analysis.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I... already said that, a couple of posts up, so, I'm waiting for that quote of me now, where is it, this is only the third time I've asked, you said, "And I have the quotes to prove it", go ahead then. I literally started with. "Give me a quote with me saying "subject to" in the definition of subjective" I reworded it there, but its the exact same thing I've been asking for.
If you disagree with the statement "subjective = subject to" then simply fucking say so.
If you agree with the statement "subjective = subject to" then simply fucking say so.
-->
@Tarik
Well you blocked me first I just returned the favor, and if you don’t care then why mention it?
Great point.
-->
@Theweakeredge
From a subjective human perspective, yes we have similar morals. The thing is - we are all similarly biased.
100% THIS.
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree. First we need a standard however and that standard will be subjectively chosen.
What we all want is a PROCRUSTEAN standard that we can all agree on.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is the context of morality, he provides it
(1) what is the implicit goal of your GOD's "moral standard"?
(2) what makes you think your GOD has a penis?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... even if he provided "context" morality cannot be objective. You cannot derive an ought from an is.... no matter how is the is is.
Do you believe that "human survival instinct" is a demonstrable fact?
-->
@3RU7AL
In a much as we all imagine our own preferred procustean standard being put into place yes.
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you are unwilling or unable to present some argument AND you are unwilling or unable to accept some argument THEN your conversations will by necessity go nowhere.
Well stated.
-->
@FLRW
God is the context of morality, he provides itWithin a few weeks the Israelites were starving, so Moses appealed to God, who promised: "I will rain down bread from Heaven for you", [Exodus 16] and delivered the mysterious, but nutritious, manna which was "white like coriander seed and tasted like a wafer made with honey"So now approximately 3.1 million children die from undernutrition each year (UNICEF, 2018a). Hunger and undernutrition contribute to more than half of global child deaths, as undernutrition can make children more vulnerable to illness and exacerbate disease. What does God do? Nothing, so God is amoral or as Nietzsche said, God is dead.
END. OF. STORY.
-->
@Tarik
The only way you prove that is through a God that says you should or shouldn’t do something.That’s makes morality *subject to* whatever God says.
I think you might be looking for this. [POST#56]
-->
@Theweakeredge
*subject to*Doesn’t mean subjective.Kinda does though
I think you might be looking for this. [POST#57&58]
-->
@RationalMadman
Loyalty at its unhealthy extreme is corruption and organised crime.Justice at its unhealthy extreme is brutality and tyranny.Mercy at its unhealthy extreme is neglect and [CHAOS].
Scholar Michael Freeden identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. He says the first is the type associated with William Godwin that advocates self-government with a "progressive rationalism that included benevolence to others". The second type is egoism, most associated with Max Stirner. The third type is "found in Herbert Spencer's early predictions" and in that of some of his disciples such as Wordsworth Donisthorpe, foreseeing in this sense "the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution". The fourth type retains a moderated form of egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of the market,[6] having such followers as the American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker[7] and the green anarchist Henry David Thoreau.[8] [**]
-->
@Dr.Franklin
virtually everyone has the same bare-bone morals across all societies, and everyone just knows right from wrong from conciousnessif morality was subjective, then this would be the opposite
Please present a list of your "bare-bones morals" that apply to all societies.
-->
@secularmerlin
You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists. If you would like to say that morality cannot exist sans some god(s) then there just isn't any reason to believe in morality. Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason. From there it is up to you to show that there is anything more to appeal to and then to demonstrate SEPARATELY that this something more is something more than some god(s) subjective opinion.
PERFECTO.
-->
@Theweakeredge
not believing in subjective morality is not believing in opinions
Yep.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't believe in morality as we are using the term in this discussion. That is what I am trying to tell you. I am not proposing anything new or that you cannot observe for yourself.You believe that if some higher authority (as yet undefined) does not sign off on an idea or attitude that it cannot be moral. I am agreeing to that definition but as there is no sufficient reason to believe in any higher power that I have yet presented with there is by necessity no reasonable logical need to believe in morality at all (as defined here).The universe need not approve or disapprove of my actions for me to care about myself and other humans and as far as I'm aware I don't need a reason to care beyond being a human with a reasonable amount of empathy myself in order to care about myself and other humans.We don't even need to discuss what makes the moral pronouncements of a higher power we are discussing objective before the higher power is demonstrated.
Well can't we just skip all of this and grant BOTH the GOD and OBJECTIVE premises and skip straight to the PRAXIS?
HEY, TARIK, YOU'RE 100% CORRECT. WHAT'S THE PRACTICAL UPSHOT?
WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT ME TO DO TODAY?
-->
@Tarik
Once you realize how depressing and confusing nihilism is maybe then you’ll change your mind.
NIHILISM IS AMAZING.
YOU SHOULD TRY IT.
-->
@Theweakeredge
To be honest I wouldn't bother, Tarik likes to talk in circles and repeat things back at you as if he knows what they mean, for example: an appeal to emotion, proof, morality, etc, if it doesn't align with his conclusion it is "not demonstrated" after he ignores your explanation.
Your ad hominem attack is, "dime store psychoanalysis".
-->
@Tarik
HEY, TARIK, YOU'RE 100% CORRECT. WHAT'S THE PRACTICAL UPSHOT?
WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT ME TO DO TODAY?
-->
@3RU7AL
Objective info = incoming >>>>In<<<< and in is point-to-able i.e. specific only direction
Subjective info = outgoing Out<<<>>>>Out is not point-to-able i.e. omni-directionally { multi-driectional } outward
Around ( )( ) is geodesic processing of info, and involves a 2nday set of in and out aroundings of each other before and outward subjection is applied { the resultant of an action }
-->
@3RU7AL
stuff like murder and things engraved in your consciousness
-->
@Dr.Franklin
perhaps, but its still subjectively engrained there