Of course morality is subjective.

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 219
#181
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope. a perfect god doesn't have to create something perfect
EVERYTHING THAT PERFECT GOD CREATES IS PERFECTLY IMPERFECT IN EXACTLY THE PERFECT WAY.

WE ARE EXACTLY WHAT PERFECT GOD WANTED US TO BE.

WE DO EXACTLY WHAT PERFECT GOD MADE US TO DO.
#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
If they create something that isn't perfect, then they aren't perfect - it has nothing to do with "the right" to do something - it has to do with the definition of perfect
Well stated.
#183
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why would making being less than yourself degrade the value of you
Does a master carpenter make tables that collapse under the weight of a glass of water?
#184
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
a master carpenter has different intentions than god
#185
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
why is that illogical
#186
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
What do you think of Sam Harris's "moral landscape"? 
#187
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
that makes no sense
Topic's author
#188
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
almost good, but I disagree with the foundation that the morality we get from science is "objective" - you can't have objective morality
#189
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I find it interesting that you consider the argument “almost good” and then rebut the foundation of the whole argument. The whole point of his thesis is to demonstrate that ISIS can be wrong about morality, just like how they can be wrong about science. The whole point of his argument is to show that morality is objective through an atheistic PoV.  

Question. If a religion which condoned the torture of every second child appeared, what would be your reaction?

#190
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But Doc......Is there such a thing as a perfect GOD.

Other than in your opinion, of course.
Topic's author
#191
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
Outrage - as a human they have caused mass suffering - which goes against every ethical consideration for every measure of morality, subjective or no. I suspect that your objection is to say, "But morality is subjective, they could be right for murdering that people" And I would say that they are logically flawed - their morality has no actually authority- and the reason why I said  that the moral land scape was "almost good" was because they have a good actuality of morality - just not a label for what kind it is- as anyone who's argument me knows by now - hume's guillotine makes it impossible for any morality to be objective, perhaps have an objective "premise" but not objective morality itself, as there is a fundamental missing link between a fact and a premise for ethics. 

Also because Sam Harris is a tad racist
#192
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have only just stepped into the whole morality thing, so excuse my lack of knowledge. 

"But morality is subjective, they could be right for murdering that people" And I would say that they are logically flawed
This would be considered your opinion. How does your belief that they are flawed over rule their freedom to interpret morality. For you to say that someone is "flawed" is to say that they are wrong, is it not? It seems that for someone to be flawed, is at the very least, to say that they are misled. But how can one be misled if the answer is subjective? 


Also, how is Sam racist. 





#193
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu
you can't have objective morality
You cant have an objective standard. Once a standard is chosen however we can make objective statements about it. Harris has merely chosen an arbitrary standard and there is nothing unusual about that. 
#194
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
almost good, but I disagree with the foundation that the morality we get from science is "objective" - you can't have objective morality
Well stated.
#195
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
You cant have an objective standard. Once a standard is chosen however we can make PROCRUSTEAN statements about it. Harris has merely chosen an arbitrary standard and there is nothing unusual about that. 
#196
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Wagyu
But how can one be misled if the answer is subjective?
FACT = empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary quantifiable real-true-fact (and emotionally meaningless).

OPINION = unfalsifiable, private, experiential, qualitative, functionally indistinguishable from gnosis (and emotionally meaningful).

Morality is a feeling.

Morality is an emotion.

Morality is an OPINION.
#197
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also because Sam Harris is a tad racist
Please provide evidence in support of this claim.
#198
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
.....it has to do with the definition of perfect.
Perfect  only exists as pure ergo Metaphysical-1{ spirit-1 } ego/mind/intellect/concept i.e perfect has no mass, no weight, no spin, no charge etc.

Perfect { pure } = untainted and all of Universe and its parts are tainted, including;

....tainted, Ultra-micro{ Metaphysical-3 }, spiri-3 { Metaphysical-3 }  Gravity (  ),
....tainted, Ultra-micro { Metaphysical-4 }, spirit-4  Dark Energy )(,

not just the physical reality of fermions and bosons.

Perfect{ pure/divine{?} } is associated with symmetry and less so asymmetrical.

Morality is a  concept ergo pure asscoiated with relative existence and not divine { absolute cosmic truth/principle }




#199
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Perfect{ pure/divine{?} } is associated with symmetry and less so asymmetrical.
PERFECTION = BALANCE = ZERO KELVIN
#200
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECTION = BALANCE = ZERO KELVIN
Agree, and that is why we do not find perfect balance or absolute zero kelvon.

All of Universe and its parts are eternally off-center { unbalanced } and that is one of the keys Universe as the only perpetual motion machine.

Universe abhors equlibrum { perfect balance } and a vacuum { perfect zero kelvin }.

Fermionic hadrons { protons neutrons etc } have a 2:1 ratio of charged quarks.

Physical reality has charge, spin, mass etc ergo tainted.

Even the cubo-octahedron found in some Galena crystals LINK is not a perfect cubo-octahedron aka vector equilibrium.




Topic's author
#201
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Mostly his views on white privilege and systemic racism

#202
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Interesting link.

Sam repeatedly states that yes, racism is a problem, and yes, racism is not just about intent but is also about policy outcomes, and yes, we should change the policies that cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

What specifically do you believe makes any of these statements "obviously racist"?
Topic's author
#203
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
His disbelief in systemic racism - now - I am not going to suddenly like engaging with you in another thread - I am done discussing anything with you. Look it up yourself
#204
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Sam never suggests "there is no systemic racism" in that interview.
#205
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Literally Sam 

I acknowledge that racism is still a tremendous problem, and that racism is something we absolutely have to oppose and criticise.
#206
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
His disbelief in systemic racism
This is the exact thing Sam was criticizing. We have become so obsessed with rooting out racism that we now qualify anything that doesn’t tow the line as racist.

Denying systemic racism doesn’t make one a racist. Ignorant perhaps, but that is an entirely different thing.

I agree with the interviewer in that Sam comes off as unempathetic and uncaring regarding the issues the black community faces, but that wasn’t the conversation he was engaged in. He was asked to elaborate on his criticisms of the woke left, so he did.

I think the problem is that we’ve fought so hard to get society to empathize with the plight of black people that we don’t know when to quit and have now overshoot our target. We’ve gotten to the point where it’s no longer ok to even point out that the perpetrator of a crime is black, but if the perp is white it’s ok for that to be a national conversation. This has created a tremendous backlash on the right, which does nothing to help the cause. You’re never going to convert someone into a race sympathizer by calling them a racist.
Topic's author
#207
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
So a strawman, can you give me a definite example whenever somebody was "ostracized" by a collective group for pointing out that a criminal was black?

The reason why Sam is racist is because he KNOWS of the systemic plights that black people face, he knows of the data demonstrating white privilege, yet he seeks to do nothing but philosophize it away, as somebody spring to be one, I hate it whenever people attempt to dismiss empirical truths because they don't understand causation. 
#208
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I never used the word “ostracized” so I have no idea why you put it in quotes. I simply said it is not ok, and it isn’t. I assume you’ve heard the term microaggressions... that’s exactly the kind of thing people are talking about, but I don’t find this worth debating.

Essentially, you’re arguing that Harris is racist because he doesn’t agree with you. He’s literally explaining his position and you just dismiss it as philosophizing it away. Again, that right there is the very essence of the thing he is talking about.

I recognize that this is in fact a tactic a lot of racists use, but unlike say a Tucker Carlson, Harris doesn’t give us any indication that he’s using this for some other purpose. To the extent he speaks out on this issue it’s only to combat the extremes of the far left and talk about how that is strengthening the opposition. I don’t agree with him on everything here, but I certainly agree on that. If we actually care about getting to a post racism society, this is the opposite of how we accomplish it.
Topic's author
#209
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You see - here's the thing - you have ignored my point (and cancel culture is literally just ostracization - but I see you've dropped the point) He is not racist because he disagrees - he is racist because he IGNORES the fact that the oppression is systemic - he tries to redefine racism in a way that puts individualism as a "responsibility" thing instead of actually acknowledging the system that put them there -WHILE arguing that class oppression was systemic - he presents these two analogous ways of discrimination and never even acknowledges that they are the SAME thing. Despite the fact that people have explained this principle to Sam. the fact that this is most likely to DELIBERATE obfuscation is what leads me to draw my conclusion, not that we simply "disagree"

For example - if you were arguing that homosexuals were being systemically oppressed by society because they weren't allowed to marry or even meet in bars, etc, and then went on to say that trans people weren't systemically oppressed even though for a while they weren't legally allowed to even exist - forgive me I find you a tad transphobic for such an opponent. Perhaps I should have said MOST LIKELY racist
#210
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Charles Blow in his new book "the devil you know: A black power manifesto" This guy is thinking generations ahead of others.