Necessary evils

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 691
#181
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That’s your problem, you always want to act like your so above and beyond everybody else with your wisdom yet you want other people to define words for you, Google is free dude, your such a joke.
Topic's author
#182
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
He has rejected my understanding of objective as described by Google. If that definition is unacceptable he should provide heis preferred definition. 
Topic's author
#183
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Google is free dude, your such a joke.
This reminds me of our discussion about how objective morality cannot exist as defined by Google and you immediately wanted to drop the idea that Google was the definitive source of understanding words. Remember that? Good times.
#184
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
First of all don’t put words in my mouth because I never deemed Google as a definitive source, it’s just the source I frequently use. Second if your going to reference things that you thought that I said then the very least you can do is quote what your talking about.
Topic's author
#185
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Oh come in Tarik, don't you remember? You said morals had to be objective and the Google definition of objective is not dependent upon a mind for existence and since you cannot call anything mindless moral or immoral it became clear that by the definition you prefer objective morality is actually impossible.

Like a rock cannot be moral or immoral you have to have an acting agent (mind) for that.

As I recall you quickly changed the subject and we never did revisit that. Did you come up with a different definition of objective?

If not then goals cannot be objective either as you need a mind to have goals.

So really unless fauxlaw has another definition to present it seems like we have an inconsistentcy to resolve.

Topic's author
#186
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
@fauxlaw
I don't mind using your PREFERRED definitions but you will have to ACTUALLY present them or I will be necessarily unable to use your PREFERRED definitions. 
#187
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Yoda was wrong
You miss the entire point. Yoda was not wrong. That response, "...there is no try..." is in reply to Luke's declaration, "I can't" when challenged by Yoda to remove his ship from the swamp by use of the Force. Yoda was talking about attitude; in another vernacular, "faith." Do you know what that is? No, it is not synonymous with belief.

Please provide your preferred definition of objective for consideration. 
This is the wrong string to reply to that question to which I have already given you the direction to find the definition I mean to have used. That string is "The problem of suffering." In. that string, my definition is hinted at in my posts #66, 68, 70. You do the rest of the research, but in that string, please. Stay on point.
Topic's author
#188
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Hints are not enough please be explicit in your definitions... in whatever thread you choose to discuss them.

I don't have much use for faith. You don't need faith if you have evidence and without evidence why would you believe? We must be always vigilant of our epistemological limits. 
#189
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
You don't need faith if you have evidence and without evidence why would you believe?
There is sufficient evidence to reveal why you find faith useless. Enough said. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. And, no, if you don't have the will research the definition of objective as a noun, I'm not your tutor. Go fish.
#190
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You see this is exactly why I requested that if you were to bring up past discussions that you quote first because I was worried that you would do exactly what your doing now, and that’s omitting important details to suit your narrative. How convenient is it that you left out an important more preferable (since what I preferred is what you requested) definition that Google provided and that’s (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. My argument was that definition and the definition your now arguing were in conflict with one another for the simple fact that my definition alluded to a mind being necessary, because you can’t consider and represent facts without a keyword MIND.
Topic's author
#191
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Objectives as the synonym of goal? Those are subjective of course but if you are not actually making that argument I have misunderstood. I thought you meant objective as the antonym of subjective. Objectives (the noun) are subjective but they can be called objectives. 

Topic's author
#192
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Your personal moral intuition is an emotion and an opinion. Even if you are trying to adopt another moral standard besides your own you must by necessity evaluate it with your personal moral intuition. Morality is not objective by that definition either.
#193
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
double-speak. this is that, but first... why bother?
#194
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
personal moral intuition
There’s no such thing.
Topic's author
#195
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You believe in some morality I gather. In order to observe this morality you must evaluate any given situation and do your best to determine if you are behaving "moraly". These determinations are directly dependent upon your opinions about morality. 
Topic's author
#196
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
personal moral intuition
There’s no such thing.
Personal opinions regarding morality do absolutely exist.
#197
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Personal opinions regarding morality do absolutely exist.
Prove it.
Topic's author
#198
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Ok I have opinions regarding morality. 
#199
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
In order to have those you have to prove subjective morality exists which you can’t.

Topic's author
#200
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
In order to have those you have to prove subjective morality exists which you can’t.
Not at all. 

Firstly linguistically speaking no moral standard can be objective so what you are arguing is that morality doesn't exist at all.

If morality doesn't exist I can still have opinions about morality in the same way I can have opinions about anything else fictional. I can have opinions about Odyseus for example or about the magic in harry potter.

In fact even if there were some objective moral standard (which you have not demonstrated) well I can have opinions about objective things too. Earth objectively speaking has gravity. I am of the opinion that the gravity on earth is just right.

Do you not see how your argument is self defeating?

If you see a problem with my reasoning please point out the SPECIFIC flaw or offer a LOGICALLY NECESSARY counter factual. 

Or if all this seems like a little much maybe we could talk about the basics as I've repeatedly offered.
Topic's author
#201
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Part of the problem is that you can't get to objective (as absent human opinions in evaluating information) without objective facts. You can't have the objective you are referencing without objective as it pertains to philosophy. 
#202
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I can have opinions about Odyseus for example or about the magic in harry potter.
Difference is despite the fact that those things don’t exist in reality they do exist in the form of storytelling, on the other hand you can’t even begin to explain what subjective morality is so you don’t even have that luxury.
#203
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Subjective morality is subjective morality......Self explanatory as it were.

And objective morality is like having an opinion about the magic in Harry Potter.

As for Greek myths and legends....Well, myths and legends have a tendency to be controversial....(See the Bible and similar regional myths and legends).
#204
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Subjective morality is subjective morality......Self explanatory as it were.
Apparently not since it’s in question, I mean seriously dude did you really think that was gonna provide me the insight or clarity needed to understand the conflation of those two terms, I mean if your not gonna be helpful then why bother?
#205
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Just because some sports star or movie star or rock star is "popular" doesn't mean that it's my personal favorite.
No but if your of the belief that EVERYBODY should be in AGREEMENT in regards to this stars popularity then it’s hypocritical to say that when in the next breath you DISAGREE with them. You see it’s not the DISAGREEMENT that’s the hypocrisy it’s the fact that you preached AGREEMENT and went against just that.
I only need to agree with YOU.

(IFF) I am speaking with YOU (THEN) I only need to agree with YOU
#206
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Those weren’t my views I was just piggybacking off of what secularmelin said.
Topic's author
#207
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
When i say morality I mean a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

If you don't want to call that then please provide an alternative term.
#208
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If you don't want to call that then please provide an alternative term.
every single conversation ever.
#209
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
According to whom? Your sock puppet?
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
#210
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
When i say morality I mean a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
But how can you deem diametrically opposed systems the same thing? That sounds kinda confusing from the outside looking in because they seem to cancel each other out.