I wasn't sure if I was the only one unable to vote, as I am a relatively new user. I do appreciate your professionalism, it is hard to know what to expect from anonymous individuals, so forgive my lack of expectations.
Thank you.
It shows me "You do not have a qualification to vote on debates". I'm unsure if this is a result of WhiteFlame or whether I just do not have the privilege as I am a relatively new user.
I'm glad you agree with my suggested resolution as it both promotes understanding and knowledge within the forums and the skill of debating within the challenges. I will stand by my bio as I will no longer participate with ChatGPT in debates, and I believe it would be beneficial to include these more nuanced rules and regulations within the code of conduct for the site.
Please direct message me a link when the revised rules are added so I can review and maintain them, I appreciate our time to work through this problem as I don't want to create a negative atmosphere as I am trying to cultivate knowledge and understanding which requires positive engagement.
ChatGPT is free and as a tool it should be used responsibly and helpfully in a way that benefits everyone, just as I have done so to promote understanding.
https://chat.openai.com/
I acknowledge how you feel, and it is quite peculiar to the immediate response to the exposure of AI on the platform. Though, how was I supposed to know of your feelings and the feelings of others if they aren't based on anything objective, I could have been aware of them before doing so. We should remain objective when creating rules and regulations, this would help to remove bias.
However, I would like to make others feel safe and benefited by my interactions as I have the intention of learning and teaching, which requires others to want to engage with oneself. Therefore, I want to create a solution that is beneficial to all and to their knowledge. This is why I suggest restricting AI from the debating ground while permitting it in the forums.
Once we do find the solution to this problem, we should post the new rules on the website code of conduct. I searched "AI" and "generated text" and found nothing regarding restrictions.
Please tell me if this is acceptable. I believe the best solution to this problem is to restrict AI from the debating ground, thus to promote the skill of referencing and forming one's debate; and to permit AI in the forums, thus to promote a better understanding and knowledge that a human couldn't provide alone. This would promote both skill and knowledge on the platform.
This is exactly why I am no longer participating in these time-consuming debates. People don't research their words before using them, just as you claimed I was plagiarizing. I just find the whole conversation rather unproductive. The debate is meant to be the next step of bettering one's knowledge, but when people don't learn what they're even saying before getting into a debate it is truly nonsensical.
It still comes down to what the site is trying to cultivate.
Practicing the skill of debating or developing a better understanding of the universe.
Which is it?
This is straight from Wikipedia:
Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.[1][2] Although precise definitions vary, depending on the institution,[3] such representations are generally considered to violate academic integrity and journalistic ethics as well as social norms of learning, teaching, research, fairness, respect, and responsibility in many cultures.[4] It is subject to sanctions such as penalties, suspension, expulsion from school[5] or work,[6] substantial fines,[7][8] and even imprisonment.[9][10]
I do not claim my stance as my own but rather a result of the past's collective understanding. This was in my bio. Therefore, I am not plagiarizing.
I suppose it comes down to what the site is trying to cultivate. If it is skill of writing debates then AI should be banned, if it be knowledge and understanding AI should be promoted. What is the site intended for, practicing skill, or developing knowledge?
The difference between using another's words and speaking from another's knowledge is the difference of whether you understand it fully or are just speaking as a parrot. I speak with understanding. Though, if it makes you feel better, I posted in my bio I won't be participating in anymore debates. This was before this whole commotion.
I base my understanding on the word's merits, not from their source. I don't need to hear a quote by a guy who people personify and is not truly intelligent.
Please read my about me. I have already addressed this openly with several people, but you should really have done more research about me. Additionally, you also should have asked me if I used ChatGPT and then tested my text through an AI detector to see if I'm honest, then we can build a sense of trust between us. Regardless, I believe that the win should not be as you said against the user of an AI, but rather everyone should be aware that I'm using AI as I have addressed in my bio, and then base their vote on who they deem as worthy of victory. I have already taken all the measures to notify others of all my disclaimers. All I can say is that going into a debate and not reading the opponents background is quite ignorant.
Don't respond to this if you haven't read my "About Me."
Mathematics is often regarded as a metaphysical concept, transcending the boundaries of objective and subjective reality. While it is true that the existence of quantities is independent of mathematical concepts, we humans have created numbers, making them subjective constructs. However, even without our mathematical frameworks, quantities would still objectively exist. Thus, math's nature goes beyond the confines of physical reality, while the objective existence of quantities remains unaffected by human concepts.
Cast your vote for the candidate whom you believe deserves triumph. When engaging in debates, I personally draft my arguments and then refine them with the assistance of ChatGPT, allowing for a more polished and impactful presentation of my theories and ideas. Were I in your position, I would prioritize my vote by the logic and conclusion of a person's arguments over their writing style, be it formal or otherwise.
Plagiarizing is copying someone else's work without properly referring the source.
Read my About Me for more information.
When a person accepts subjective values, it means they recognize that value is not inherent or universally objective, but rather a product of personal perspectives, beliefs, and preferences. Instead of seeking inherent or universal value, they understand that value is created and assigned by individuals based on their unique experiences, cultural influences, and personal judgments.
Accepting subjective values does not necessarily require the need for inherent ones. It means acknowledging that different people may assign different values to the same thing, and that these values can vary based on individual perspectives. Rather than relying on some inherent or external standard, individuals find value in things based on their own subjective criteria, which can include personal satisfaction, emotional connection, cultural significance, or individual preferences.
By embracing subjective values, individuals are free to define their own meaning and pursue what they find valuable in life, without being constrained by external or predetermined notions of inherent value. This perspective allows for diversity and the appreciation of different perspectives, as well as the recognition that value is a subjective and personal experience.
Tell me if this is not a good enough reason: If you stand by my side and safeguard my possessions, I shall do the same for you. But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence. Remember, strength lies in unity, for safety thrives in the embrace of numbers.
In realms of wisdom, we have found our way,
On knowledge's shores, where treasures lay.
Our understanding, not born in isolation,
But nurtured by the world's grand narration.
For we stand on the shoulders of those gone by,
Their consciousness echoes, reaching the sky.
The wisdom they gathered, the stories they told,
Shape the foundation upon which we unfold.
No island of knowledge, we proudly proclaim,
But a tapestry woven, in wisdom's name.
Threads of the past, woven into our being,
A heritage cherished, in our souls, decreeing.
With humble hearts, we embrace the stream,
Of collective wisdom, a shared dream.
From movies to debates, from lessons to lore,
We gather the fragments, seeking to explore.
So let us not claim our understanding's birth,
From within ourselves, as if disconnected from Earth.
But acknowledge the lineage, the seeds sown,
That have shaped our minds, as they've steadily grown.
In this grand symphony, we play our part,
In the grandeur of knowledge, we find our art.
For our understanding, a harmonious blend,
Of wisdom's whispers, that eternally transcend.
Our understanding is built upon a collective foundation, shaped by the knowledge shared throughout the world. It is not solely derived from our own comprehension, but rather intertwined with the consciousness of those who preceded us. Like standing on the shoulders of giants, we acknowledge the vast reservoir of wisdom that guides our perceptions. We humbly recognize that our understanding is a collaborative tapestry, woven by the collective human experience, forever evolving and expanding through the ages.
I appreciate your acknowledgement of our profound understanding, suggesting that it may appear as if our ideas were copied. While neither of us has directly copied another person's debate or claims, it is worth noting that our understanding is often influenced by the knowledge and information we encounter in various sources. Whether through watching movies, engaging in debates, completing schoolwork, or attending college, we absorb and integrate information from our surroundings into our own comprehension. Therefore, while we can confidently claim that we have not plagiarized, it is important to recognize that our understanding is built upon the collective knowledge shared in the world, and not solely generated from our individual perspectives.
I believe that the most challenging aspect to understand, which is often overlooked, is the concept of inherent value. Many people assume that for something to be valuable, it must possess inherent value; otherwise, it would not hold any value at all. However, I find that things without inherent value are valued by individuals all the time.
For instance, consider a person's first painting during their early days in art school. While it may appear visually unappealing to others, the artist may cherish and protect it throughout their life. This act does not demonstrate inherent value but rather subjective value. The saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" exemplifies how something can hold value for one person but not for another, and vice versa.
My point is that value is not inherent; rather, it is attributed by the person who values it. The object itself possesses no inherent value; its value is created by the individual who assigns meaning to it. This is why one piece of artwork may be considered beautiful by one person but not by another. It is why certain flavors of food, songs, or movies are appreciated differently by different individuals.
If I understand you correctly, you argue that I contradict myself by acknowledging the absence of inherent value but engage myself in this conversation, thereby demonstrating its value. However, this is not a contradiction. By participating in this discussion, I am not asserting its inherent value but rather recognizing its subjective value to myself. To illustrate, I have a friend who would show little interest in this conversation and might say, "If you're so eager for me to know, just tell me the answer later, but I don't really care." This demonstrates that one person may not find value in the same way as another, emphasizing that value is not inherent but user-dependent.
If no one assigns value to something, does it become valueless? Conversely, if someone finds value in something, does it become valuable? In reality, it only becomes valuable to that specific person. Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.
I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in engaging in this debate, and I have gained valuable insights into your perspective and understanding of morality. However, I have come to realize that our fundamental philosophical approaches differ to such an extent that finding a mutually satisfactory resolution in this discussion seems highly unlikely. I value the points you have presented and the explanations you have provided, and I would like to shift our focus to other topics where we may have a greater chance of reaching a more conclusive and fruitful outcome in our conversations.
"The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate."
There are several issues with the previous statement that need to be addressed. Firstly, it attempts to categorize morals solely as emotional judgments, which is not entirely accurate. Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.
Secondly, the statement implies that it is inherently wrong to use emotional appeals in moral arguments. However, I would disagree with this notion. Determining right or wrong is subjective, and individuals may have different interpretations. It is important to recognize that one's personal sense of right and wrong may differ from others'. Therefore, justifying one's feelings of morality over another's requires an understanding of the subjective nature of moral judgments and a respect for diverse perspectives.
Your example ultimately lacks validity because it assumes that your personal conviction of what is right overrides another person's belief, and it also oversimplifies the concept of morals by categorizing them solely as emotional appeals.
"None of your examples fit the category of what I meant"
Nonetheless, they are all subjective and understood. My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing. Instead, I'm here to assist you in unraveling intricate philosophical inquiries that the internet may not have definitive answers to. To delve into these complex questions, it is crucial to grasp the foundational principles that surpass the surface-level understanding offered by a simple online search. Please research simple questions such as "is music a subjective experience," and "is music understood by science." I prefer to avoid revisiting basic knowledge when exploring philosophical concepts. It feels redundant, akin to reinventing the wheel while attempting to create a new car. This process can be time-consuming, and in my opinion, a quite distasteful waste of time.
As for your question, the deatils are very complex, but here is the summary of the concept:
Personal preferences in music are influenced by a combination of various factors, including individual experiences, cultural background, cognitive processes, and emotional responses. While it is challenging to pinpoint exactly why certain music resonates with one person but not with another, there are several key elements that contribute to this phenomenon.
Personal experiences: Our unique life experiences shape our preferences and perception of music. Positive associations with specific genres, songs, or artists can lead to a preference for similar styles in the future. For example, if a person associates a particular song with a happy memory, they are more likely to enjoy that song in the future.
Emotional resonance: Music has the power to evoke emotions and create a deep emotional connection. People often gravitate towards music that elicits emotions they can relate to or desire to experience. Different individuals have varying emotional needs and sensitivities, and music that aligns with their emotional state or aspirations will have a stronger appeal.
Cognitive processes: The brain processes music in intricate ways, and different individuals may have distinct cognitive patterns or preferences. This includes how the brain recognizes and interprets patterns, rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. Some people may prefer complex and intellectually stimulating compositions, while others may prefer simpler and more accessible musical structures.
Cultural background: Culture plays a significant role in shaping musical preferences. Musical genres and styles are deeply embedded in cultural traditions and norms. Individuals tend to develop a preference for the music that is prevalent within their cultural environment or that resonates with their cultural identity. Cultural exposure and familiarity with certain genres can significantly influence personal preferences.
Neurological and physiological responses: Research suggests that the brain's response to music is complex and varies among individuals. Neurologically, music stimulates various regions of the brain associated with reward, memory, and emotion. Physiological factors such as heart rate, breathing patterns, and hormone release can also be influenced by music, leading to unique individual reactions.
It is important to note that personal preferences in music are highly subjective and can evolve over time. Different people have diverse tastes and may find meaning and enjoyment in contrasting musical elements. Ultimately, the intricate interplay between personal experiences, emotional responses, cognitive processes, cultural background, and neurological factors contributes to the formation of personal preferences in music.
Your response is perfect as it effectively challenges my logic, potentially highlighting any flaws, while refraining from deliberate disagreement. This approach ensures that even if I happen to be correct, it doesn't automatically render you incorrect.
Here are a few examples of things that are subjective but generally understood:
Taste in food: Different people have different preferences when it comes to taste. While specific foods may be enjoyed by some and disliked by others, there is a general understanding that taste can vary from person to person.
Beauty: The concept of beauty is subjective, and what one person finds attractive, another person may not. However, there are often commonalities and societal standards that shape our understanding of beauty.
Emotional experiences: Emotions are subjective experiences, and how individuals interpret and express them can differ. However, there is a general understanding of basic emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, and fear, which allows for communication and empathy.
Artistic interpretation: Art, including paintings, literature, and music, is often open to subjective interpretation. Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.
Personal preferences: Preferences for activities, hobbies, and entertainment can vary widely between individuals. While someone may enjoy sports, another person may prefer reading books. Though subjective, these preferences are generally understood and respected as personal choices.
These are just a few examples of concepts or ideas that are understood, and subjectively varying between individuals.
I now comprehend your line of reasoning, and allow me to illustrate its fundamental flaws. From what I gather, your argument suggests that since we understand facts and facts are objective, all things we understand must be objective. Consequently, you attempt to establish the notion that if we understand morals, they must also be objective.
However, your assertion that "we understand facts, and facts are objective, so all things understood are objective" is fundamentally flawed. This line of reasoning lacks reasonable coherence. It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things." This statement appears nonsensical on the surface. Regardless of whether this was your intention or not, the logic presented in this argument is implausible and difficult to accept.
I don't find any logical issues with my previous statements as they still make sense to me. I have explicitly stated the reasons behind my viewpoint. It appears to me that you are implying there is a problem, but you haven't explicitly stated what it is. If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.
I apologize if I may have made it overly complex in an attempt to ensure your complete understanding of the reasoning.
You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.
Facts are pieces of information or statements that are based on evidence, observation, or reality and are considered to be true. They are verifiable and independent of personal opinions or beliefs. Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.
Objective facts are those that are universally agreed upon and can be verified through empirical evidence. These facts are not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or perspectives. For example, stating that "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level" is an objective fact because it can be tested and confirmed by anyone under the same conditions.
However, it's important to note that not all statements are factual or objective. Some statements may be subjective, meaning they are influenced by personal opinions, beliefs, or interpretations. Subjective statements are based on personal experiences, preferences, or feelings and may vary from person to person. For example, saying "chocolate ice cream is the best flavor" is a subjective statement because it reflects personal taste and preference.
While facts themselves are objective, the interpretation and presentation of facts can be influenced by subjective factors. People may have different perspectives or biases that affect how they perceive and communicate facts. It's essential to distinguish between facts and opinions, and to critically evaluate the sources and evidence supporting a claim to determine its factual basis.
Additionally, please respond to the previous comment.
I find your comment confusing. How does the concept of consistently being wrong relate to the subjectivity or objectivity of morality? Moreover, if individuals are consistently wrong, doesn't that suggest some level of objectivity since objectivity involves consistency among individuals? It seems that your thought was left unfinished, and I would appreciate further clarification.
To assert that something is incorrect, you must possess a system of reference. The term "wrong" itself does not inherently indicate error, but rather signifies a lack of alignment with a different structure or inconsistency. If you claim that individuals can be consistently wrong, you must have a framework or standard against which you deem their actions as incorrect. Without such a reference, your statement lacks substantiation.
What specific aspect are you asserting people consistently get wrong? Is it your belief that their actions consistently deviate from your subjective viewpoint, and if so, how can you justify the superiority of your opinion over theirs? It is prudent to exercise caution when asserting the correctness of one's claim in contrast to the collective opinions of others. Doing so is an audacious step, as there exists a clear distinction between being above average and below average.
In summary, claiming something to be wrong necessitates a system of reference, as the term itself does not inherently denote error. Careful consideration should be given before asserting one's claim as superior to the multitude of other perspectives, recognizing the fine line between subjective opinion and broader consensus.
Fallacious refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. When a person feels misled, it is often because they lacked understanding and therefore perceive it as misleading. Conversely, if a person is not misled, they won't consider it to be misleading since they were not deceived. Essentially, it is not the thing itself that is fallacious, but rather the person who fails to interpret it correctly and thus regards it as fallacious. Ultimately, my definition does not necessarily result in a fallacious nature for morality.
Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect. Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.
I apologize if my question was unclear earlier. I understand that you have previously stated that morals are not emotionally based because they would be fallacious if they were. However, I was hoping for a more logical and well-supported explanation for why you believe morals are not emotionally based. I am seeking an argument or evidence that supports this viewpoint, rather than a mere conviction or personal belief. Your current reasoning does not seem to address the question at hand and is not convincing to me. I want to understand the foundation of your belief that morals are inherent or not emotionally based, and I am open to hearing any other reasoning or arguments you may have to support this viewpoint.
I want to clarify that my argument is that morals themselves are not inherently fallacious. Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them. Therefore, the fallacy of morals is subjective and dependent on the individual's understanding of what constitutes a moral.
Moving on to the topic of values, they are emotionally based because they are created by humans through their emotional attachment to things. Things do not inherently have value, but rather people assign value based on their emotional attachment to them. This is illustrated by the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure," which shows that value is subjective and varies from person to person.
Given this understanding, I am curious as to why you believe that values are not emotionally based but rather objective. Objectivity implies that something does not change between people, but value varies from person to person, making it a subjective concept. I would like to understand your perspective on this matter.
You are correct, I did ask a question you already answered. It has been a while since we started this debate, and I have other commitments like work and other discussions, so it would be helpful to have a recap of our discussions to avoid losing track of our conclusions. I want to ensure that we are on the same page and have a clear understanding of each other's viewpoints.
I have been engaging in this debate with you because I want to understand the foundation and basis for your beliefs. My own understanding is clear and evidenced by widely accepted principles that have been established in society for generations. However, I am seeking to gain a better understanding of your perspective.
What I'm really interested in knowing is:
What is the foundation in which you hold morals to be inherent?
Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?
Why don't you believe that morals are chosen for us by our consciences' but rather that we choose them, what leads you to believe so?
I don't understand what I missed, and if you insist on skipping over points, then how can one come to a solid conclusion? I readdressed the same points since they were applicable to the question. What points are you referring to? If I readdressed them then I probably did not recognize your answer as the solution.
On the contrary, our morals are chosen for us by our conscience and not something we choose. In essence, the correlation is the same. Only a small number of individuals don't have a conscience, and those are the ones who have no remorse. Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.
Then in the following comment I responded.
In regard to your statement: Societies’ failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
Although I understand that you are suggesting that people in the past were ignorant about the moral implications of slavery, you are still referring to moral implications of slavery that are based on today's moral standards, which is moral relativism, as it's based on modern-day moral standards. Additionally, I said commented, moral relativism posits that moral principles are not inherent or objective, but rather they are relative to an individual's culture and history. I argue that this is a more accurate way to view morality, as evidenced by the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods. For example, in some cultures, it is considered morally acceptable to eat certain types of meat, such as dogs or horses, while in other cultures, this is considered morally wrong. Similarly, in some cultures, polygamy is considered morally acceptable, while in others, it is considered morally wrong. These differences in moral values and principles highlight the subjective nature of morality and suggest that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and situations. Moreover, historical changes in moral values and principles also suggest that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors. For example, in the United States, slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but over time, the moral values of society shifted, and slavery became recognized as morally wrong. Similarly, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted over time, from being considered morally wrong to being more widely accepted. In conclusion, the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods suggests that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is relative to an individual's culture and history. The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.
Then you referenced your comment: For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example our tastes in food, for those of you this applies to we don’t choose to like unhealthy foods more than healthy foods we just do, or even our tastes in sound we don’t choose to like singer A’s voice more than singer B’s voice we just do. But that doesn’t apply to morality, we choose what code of conduct we want to follow and if we see another following a different one we can dispute theirs in comparison to ours with the hopes of persuading them. Unless you can give examples of other subjective things that are choice I think it’s reasonable to question why is this only the case here and not in any other case and I also think it’s reasonable to have doubt based on that observation. Last note usually when one doesn’t know what a word means (morality) they defer to the dictionary and because they don’t know they approach the definition with an open objective mind, and if you do that that’s also operating under the assumption that the word itself is objective because if you operate under the assumption that it’s subjective your approaching the word with preconceived notions and you wouldn’t be doing that if you don’t know what a word means. But what about subjective words like opinion? I would argue that the only reason we can comprehend what an opinion is is because we ourselves have them, so probably the best way to define it is by examples like the ones I used earlier food and sound, but what if your deaf, blind, and have no sense of taste or smell? Then maybe in that case you can’t comprehend an opinion because you probably won’t have any yourself.
Now that we are all caught up, I will respond from here.
One can present the most coherent answer to a question that matches reality by being critically-minded and challenging their own ideas, bringing up new questions that potentially disprove them, and evolving the idea to fit the new questions. The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations. To know if one has a firm grasp of the idea, they must present it as the most coherent with reality and lead to the least amount of confusion. When a question leads to confusion, it fails to answer certain aspects, whereas a straightforward and clear question is the most coherent with reality. This is explained in detail in my forum "Developing an Evolutionary Mindset."
Explanation of the word fallacious:
"Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive. It's a mistake or error in logic that can make an argument appear to be valid or convincing, even though it is not. A fallacy can take many forms, such as making an unsupported assumption, using irrelevant evidence, presenting a false dichotomy, or attacking a person's character instead of their argument. Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional, but in either case, they undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of the argument. It is important to recognize fallacious arguments and avoid using them in order to engage in productive and effective discussions and debates.
Your statement that "If morals do not exist inherently in reality, then it's fallacious, plain and simple" is not entirely accurate. The term "fallacious" refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. Therefore, if one's understanding of what constitutes a moral is lacking, it could be seen as fallacious. However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them. Morals are not inherently fallacious; it depends on whether the individual grasps them. In summary, the concept of fallaciousness depends on the person's grasp of morals, rather than on morals themselves.
To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality. This is demonstrated by how morals fluctuate over time with societal norms. There is no foundation for your argument as there is no evidence that morality exists outside of human opinions. The only way to support inherent morals is through religion and the belief that the supernatural has set morals for us. Therefore, those who believe in a supernatural being can believe in objective morals, but those who do not believe in the supernatural cannot believe in morals as there is no other evidence for them except through supernatural reasoning. I approach this from an agnostic atheist perspective, acknowledging that it is impossible to prove the existence of something beyond the realm of reality, such as a supernatural entity. However, I also believe that it is impossible to disprove its existence. My argument boils down to the fact that I choose not to believe in things that lack proof or disproof, such as fairies, ghosts, and other unproven or unprovable things. Hence, I find it logical to believe that there is no supernatural being, and that is why I assert that there is no evidence for inherent morals.
An emotional decision can still be reasonable. For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it. It's not logical to claim that morals are inherently fallacious just because they are based on emotions and not inherent.
Did you perhaps think that objective morals referred to inherent morals? Even if so, morals can't be inherent because they are emotional and not clearly recognizable by many individuals without consistent influence from societal norms. Slavery was recognized as morally acceptable for thousands of years, so to claim that others would recognize it as wrong if it were wrong would not be correct based on modern-day moral standards. I'm just trying to reinvigorate the debate to further understand your intentions. Additionally, it may be that you're trying to present an idea that is not fully reflected in the words you're using to describe it. Or perhaps you think that if morals are not inherent, then they have no value, which is definitely not the case. You often hear people in gangs say, "without the code, we have nothing." This is a powerful statement because it demonstrates that morality or value is not inherently seen but rather a form of agreement or bond that is stronger than anything else a person holds physically. I want to make sure I understand your point clearly and reach a mutual understanding. It is my understanding, if a debate is purely based on logical and objective factors, then there shouldn't be any disagreement, as any disagreement would be based on a subjective factor. However, I also recognize that there is most probably logic and knowledge in your idea, but it's not being conveyed with the correct words to express yourself clearly. Therefore, I would like to gain a better understanding of your perspective.
Morals are formed under emotions, which makes them subjective by nature. However, if a moral is discussed without emotions, it would be considered a principle. While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.
I did not intend for us to go off on a tangent, but somehow we did. Now that I have created a forum for us to continue our discussion without losing track, let's return to the topic of morals.
In the previous discussion on morals, I believe you mentioned that there are some inherent morals that we can access, although you're not sure how exactly. In round two definitions and at the end of round three, I was discussing the differences between objective and subjective to clarify any miscommunication. Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.
I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper. Therefore, I have created a forum for those who are interested.
Here is the link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9341-developing-an-evolutionary-mindset
I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it. And yes, perhaps we've discussed this tangent enough. Let us discuss the dimensionality of morals.
I have recently defined objectivity and subjectivty in round 2.
I apologize, but I don't yet meet the qualifications to vote for debates.
I wasn't sure if I was the only one unable to vote, as I am a relatively new user. I do appreciate your professionalism, it is hard to know what to expect from anonymous individuals, so forgive my lack of expectations.
Thank you.
It shows me "You do not have a qualification to vote on debates". I'm unsure if this is a result of WhiteFlame or whether I just do not have the privilege as I am a relatively new user.
Absolutely, I'll read through the debate on completion and vote my decision.
I'm glad you agree with my suggested resolution as it both promotes understanding and knowledge within the forums and the skill of debating within the challenges. I will stand by my bio as I will no longer participate with ChatGPT in debates, and I believe it would be beneficial to include these more nuanced rules and regulations within the code of conduct for the site.
Please direct message me a link when the revised rules are added so I can review and maintain them, I appreciate our time to work through this problem as I don't want to create a negative atmosphere as I am trying to cultivate knowledge and understanding which requires positive engagement.
ChatGPT is free and as a tool it should be used responsibly and helpfully in a way that benefits everyone, just as I have done so to promote understanding.
https://chat.openai.com/
I acknowledge how you feel, and it is quite peculiar to the immediate response to the exposure of AI on the platform. Though, how was I supposed to know of your feelings and the feelings of others if they aren't based on anything objective, I could have been aware of them before doing so. We should remain objective when creating rules and regulations, this would help to remove bias.
However, I would like to make others feel safe and benefited by my interactions as I have the intention of learning and teaching, which requires others to want to engage with oneself. Therefore, I want to create a solution that is beneficial to all and to their knowledge. This is why I suggest restricting AI from the debating ground while permitting it in the forums.
Once we do find the solution to this problem, we should post the new rules on the website code of conduct. I searched "AI" and "generated text" and found nothing regarding restrictions.
Please tell me if this is acceptable. I believe the best solution to this problem is to restrict AI from the debating ground, thus to promote the skill of referencing and forming one's debate; and to permit AI in the forums, thus to promote a better understanding and knowledge that a human couldn't provide alone. This would promote both skill and knowledge on the platform.
This is exactly why I am no longer participating in these time-consuming debates. People don't research their words before using them, just as you claimed I was plagiarizing. I just find the whole conversation rather unproductive. The debate is meant to be the next step of bettering one's knowledge, but when people don't learn what they're even saying before getting into a debate it is truly nonsensical.
It still comes down to what the site is trying to cultivate.
Practicing the skill of debating or developing a better understanding of the universe.
Which is it?
This is straight from Wikipedia:
Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.[1][2] Although precise definitions vary, depending on the institution,[3] such representations are generally considered to violate academic integrity and journalistic ethics as well as social norms of learning, teaching, research, fairness, respect, and responsibility in many cultures.[4] It is subject to sanctions such as penalties, suspension, expulsion from school[5] or work,[6] substantial fines,[7][8] and even imprisonment.[9][10]
I do not claim my stance as my own but rather a result of the past's collective understanding. This was in my bio. Therefore, I am not plagiarizing.
I suppose it comes down to what the site is trying to cultivate. If it is skill of writing debates then AI should be banned, if it be knowledge and understanding AI should be promoted. What is the site intended for, practicing skill, or developing knowledge?
The difference between using another's words and speaking from another's knowledge is the difference of whether you understand it fully or are just speaking as a parrot. I speak with understanding. Though, if it makes you feel better, I posted in my bio I won't be participating in anymore debates. This was before this whole commotion.
I base my understanding on the word's merits, not from their source. I don't need to hear a quote by a guy who people personify and is not truly intelligent.
Please read my about me. I have already addressed this openly with several people, but you should really have done more research about me. Additionally, you also should have asked me if I used ChatGPT and then tested my text through an AI detector to see if I'm honest, then we can build a sense of trust between us. Regardless, I believe that the win should not be as you said against the user of an AI, but rather everyone should be aware that I'm using AI as I have addressed in my bio, and then base their vote on who they deem as worthy of victory. I have already taken all the measures to notify others of all my disclaimers. All I can say is that going into a debate and not reading the opponents background is quite ignorant.
Don't respond to this if you haven't read my "About Me."
Mathematics is often regarded as a metaphysical concept, transcending the boundaries of objective and subjective reality. While it is true that the existence of quantities is independent of mathematical concepts, we humans have created numbers, making them subjective constructs. However, even without our mathematical frameworks, quantities would still objectively exist. Thus, math's nature goes beyond the confines of physical reality, while the objective existence of quantities remains unaffected by human concepts.
Cast your vote for the candidate whom you believe deserves triumph. When engaging in debates, I personally draft my arguments and then refine them with the assistance of ChatGPT, allowing for a more polished and impactful presentation of my theories and ideas. Were I in your position, I would prioritize my vote by the logic and conclusion of a person's arguments over their writing style, be it formal or otherwise.
Plagiarizing is copying someone else's work without properly referring the source.
Read my About Me for more information.
When a person accepts subjective values, it means they recognize that value is not inherent or universally objective, but rather a product of personal perspectives, beliefs, and preferences. Instead of seeking inherent or universal value, they understand that value is created and assigned by individuals based on their unique experiences, cultural influences, and personal judgments.
Accepting subjective values does not necessarily require the need for inherent ones. It means acknowledging that different people may assign different values to the same thing, and that these values can vary based on individual perspectives. Rather than relying on some inherent or external standard, individuals find value in things based on their own subjective criteria, which can include personal satisfaction, emotional connection, cultural significance, or individual preferences.
By embracing subjective values, individuals are free to define their own meaning and pursue what they find valuable in life, without being constrained by external or predetermined notions of inherent value. This perspective allows for diversity and the appreciation of different perspectives, as well as the recognition that value is a subjective and personal experience.
I hope this helps.
Tell me if this is not a good enough reason: If you stand by my side and safeguard my possessions, I shall do the same for you. But should you choose to walk alone, without my protection, you will face the perils of a world teeming with malevolence. Remember, strength lies in unity, for safety thrives in the embrace of numbers.
In realms of wisdom, we have found our way,
On knowledge's shores, where treasures lay.
Our understanding, not born in isolation,
But nurtured by the world's grand narration.
For we stand on the shoulders of those gone by,
Their consciousness echoes, reaching the sky.
The wisdom they gathered, the stories they told,
Shape the foundation upon which we unfold.
No island of knowledge, we proudly proclaim,
But a tapestry woven, in wisdom's name.
Threads of the past, woven into our being,
A heritage cherished, in our souls, decreeing.
With humble hearts, we embrace the stream,
Of collective wisdom, a shared dream.
From movies to debates, from lessons to lore,
We gather the fragments, seeking to explore.
So let us not claim our understanding's birth,
From within ourselves, as if disconnected from Earth.
But acknowledge the lineage, the seeds sown,
That have shaped our minds, as they've steadily grown.
In this grand symphony, we play our part,
In the grandeur of knowledge, we find our art.
For our understanding, a harmonious blend,
Of wisdom's whispers, that eternally transcend.
Our understanding is built upon a collective foundation, shaped by the knowledge shared throughout the world. It is not solely derived from our own comprehension, but rather intertwined with the consciousness of those who preceded us. Like standing on the shoulders of giants, we acknowledge the vast reservoir of wisdom that guides our perceptions. We humbly recognize that our understanding is a collaborative tapestry, woven by the collective human experience, forever evolving and expanding through the ages.
I appreciate your acknowledgement of our profound understanding, suggesting that it may appear as if our ideas were copied. While neither of us has directly copied another person's debate or claims, it is worth noting that our understanding is often influenced by the knowledge and information we encounter in various sources. Whether through watching movies, engaging in debates, completing schoolwork, or attending college, we absorb and integrate information from our surroundings into our own comprehension. Therefore, while we can confidently claim that we have not plagiarized, it is important to recognize that our understanding is built upon the collective knowledge shared in the world, and not solely generated from our individual perspectives.
I believe that the most challenging aspect to understand, which is often overlooked, is the concept of inherent value. Many people assume that for something to be valuable, it must possess inherent value; otherwise, it would not hold any value at all. However, I find that things without inherent value are valued by individuals all the time.
For instance, consider a person's first painting during their early days in art school. While it may appear visually unappealing to others, the artist may cherish and protect it throughout their life. This act does not demonstrate inherent value but rather subjective value. The saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" exemplifies how something can hold value for one person but not for another, and vice versa.
My point is that value is not inherent; rather, it is attributed by the person who values it. The object itself possesses no inherent value; its value is created by the individual who assigns meaning to it. This is why one piece of artwork may be considered beautiful by one person but not by another. It is why certain flavors of food, songs, or movies are appreciated differently by different individuals.
If I understand you correctly, you argue that I contradict myself by acknowledging the absence of inherent value but engage myself in this conversation, thereby demonstrating its value. However, this is not a contradiction. By participating in this discussion, I am not asserting its inherent value but rather recognizing its subjective value to myself. To illustrate, I have a friend who would show little interest in this conversation and might say, "If you're so eager for me to know, just tell me the answer later, but I don't really care." This demonstrates that one person may not find value in the same way as another, emphasizing that value is not inherent but user-dependent.
If no one assigns value to something, does it become valueless? Conversely, if someone finds value in something, does it become valuable? In reality, it only becomes valuable to that specific person. Perhaps if the majority of people were to assign value to something, it would hold greater collective subjective value, but it still does not indicate inherent value.
“My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing.”
I entirely agree.
I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in engaging in this debate, and I have gained valuable insights into your perspective and understanding of morality. However, I have come to realize that our fundamental philosophical approaches differ to such an extent that finding a mutually satisfactory resolution in this discussion seems highly unlikely. I value the points you have presented and the explanations you have provided, and I would like to shift our focus to other topics where we may have a greater chance of reaching a more conclusive and fruitful outcome in our conversations.
"The flaw in the appeal of emotion fallacy is using emotional appeal to manipulate."
There are several issues with the previous statement that need to be addressed. Firstly, it attempts to categorize morals solely as emotional judgments, which is not entirely accurate. Morals can be subjective, representing personal beliefs or values, or they can be collectively subjective, known as ethics, which are moral standards accepted by society as a whole.
Secondly, the statement implies that it is inherently wrong to use emotional appeals in moral arguments. However, I would disagree with this notion. Determining right or wrong is subjective, and individuals may have different interpretations. It is important to recognize that one's personal sense of right and wrong may differ from others'. Therefore, justifying one's feelings of morality over another's requires an understanding of the subjective nature of moral judgments and a respect for diverse perspectives.
Your example ultimately lacks validity because it assumes that your personal conviction of what is right overrides another person's belief, and it also oversimplifies the concept of morals by categorizing them solely as emotional appeals.
"None of your examples fit the category of what I meant"
Nonetheless, they are all subjective and understood. My purpose is not to provide you with information that can be easily found on search engines like Google or Bing. Instead, I'm here to assist you in unraveling intricate philosophical inquiries that the internet may not have definitive answers to. To delve into these complex questions, it is crucial to grasp the foundational principles that surpass the surface-level understanding offered by a simple online search. Please research simple questions such as "is music a subjective experience," and "is music understood by science." I prefer to avoid revisiting basic knowledge when exploring philosophical concepts. It feels redundant, akin to reinventing the wheel while attempting to create a new car. This process can be time-consuming, and in my opinion, a quite distasteful waste of time.
As for your question, the deatils are very complex, but here is the summary of the concept:
Personal preferences in music are influenced by a combination of various factors, including individual experiences, cultural background, cognitive processes, and emotional responses. While it is challenging to pinpoint exactly why certain music resonates with one person but not with another, there are several key elements that contribute to this phenomenon.
Personal experiences: Our unique life experiences shape our preferences and perception of music. Positive associations with specific genres, songs, or artists can lead to a preference for similar styles in the future. For example, if a person associates a particular song with a happy memory, they are more likely to enjoy that song in the future.
Emotional resonance: Music has the power to evoke emotions and create a deep emotional connection. People often gravitate towards music that elicits emotions they can relate to or desire to experience. Different individuals have varying emotional needs and sensitivities, and music that aligns with their emotional state or aspirations will have a stronger appeal.
Cognitive processes: The brain processes music in intricate ways, and different individuals may have distinct cognitive patterns or preferences. This includes how the brain recognizes and interprets patterns, rhythms, melodies, and harmonies. Some people may prefer complex and intellectually stimulating compositions, while others may prefer simpler and more accessible musical structures.
Cultural background: Culture plays a significant role in shaping musical preferences. Musical genres and styles are deeply embedded in cultural traditions and norms. Individuals tend to develop a preference for the music that is prevalent within their cultural environment or that resonates with their cultural identity. Cultural exposure and familiarity with certain genres can significantly influence personal preferences.
Neurological and physiological responses: Research suggests that the brain's response to music is complex and varies among individuals. Neurologically, music stimulates various regions of the brain associated with reward, memory, and emotion. Physiological factors such as heart rate, breathing patterns, and hormone release can also be influenced by music, leading to unique individual reactions.
It is important to note that personal preferences in music are highly subjective and can evolve over time. Different people have diverse tastes and may find meaning and enjoyment in contrasting musical elements. Ultimately, the intricate interplay between personal experiences, emotional responses, cognitive processes, cultural background, and neurological factors contributes to the formation of personal preferences in music.
Your response is perfect as it effectively challenges my logic, potentially highlighting any flaws, while refraining from deliberate disagreement. This approach ensures that even if I happen to be correct, it doesn't automatically render you incorrect.
Here are a few examples of things that are subjective but generally understood:
Taste in food: Different people have different preferences when it comes to taste. While specific foods may be enjoyed by some and disliked by others, there is a general understanding that taste can vary from person to person.
Beauty: The concept of beauty is subjective, and what one person finds attractive, another person may not. However, there are often commonalities and societal standards that shape our understanding of beauty.
Emotional experiences: Emotions are subjective experiences, and how individuals interpret and express them can differ. However, there is a general understanding of basic emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, and fear, which allows for communication and empathy.
Artistic interpretation: Art, including paintings, literature, and music, is often open to subjective interpretation. Different individuals may derive different meanings and emotions from the same piece of art, but there can still be shared understanding and appreciation of the artistic expression.
Personal preferences: Preferences for activities, hobbies, and entertainment can vary widely between individuals. While someone may enjoy sports, another person may prefer reading books. Though subjective, these preferences are generally understood and respected as personal choices.
These are just a few examples of concepts or ideas that are understood, and subjectively varying between individuals.
I now comprehend your line of reasoning, and allow me to illustrate its fundamental flaws. From what I gather, your argument suggests that since we understand facts and facts are objective, all things we understand must be objective. Consequently, you attempt to establish the notion that if we understand morals, they must also be objective.
However, your assertion that "we understand facts, and facts are objective, so all things understood are objective" is fundamentally flawed. This line of reasoning lacks reasonable coherence. It can be likened to someone using a similar logic to claim, "cows are white, and we consume cows, so we only consume white things." This statement appears nonsensical on the surface. Regardless of whether this was your intention or not, the logic presented in this argument is implausible and difficult to accept.
I don't find any logical issues with my previous statements as they still make sense to me. I have explicitly stated the reasons behind my viewpoint. It appears to me that you are implying there is a problem, but you haven't explicitly stated what it is. If you have any concerns or objections, please clearly state your case without implicit implications.
I already replied yes, and in detail. If you have a dispute, provide your case with referential proof and set aside your convictions.
I apologize if I may have made it overly complex in an attempt to ensure your complete understanding of the reasoning.
You're correct, the simplified conclusion remains that facts are objective, while opinions are subjective.
Facts are pieces of information or statements that are based on evidence, observation, or reality and are considered to be true. They are verifiable and independent of personal opinions or beliefs. Facts provide objective information about the world and can be supported by evidence.
Objective facts are those that are universally agreed upon and can be verified through empirical evidence. These facts are not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or perspectives. For example, stating that "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level" is an objective fact because it can be tested and confirmed by anyone under the same conditions.
However, it's important to note that not all statements are factual or objective. Some statements may be subjective, meaning they are influenced by personal opinions, beliefs, or interpretations. Subjective statements are based on personal experiences, preferences, or feelings and may vary from person to person. For example, saying "chocolate ice cream is the best flavor" is a subjective statement because it reflects personal taste and preference.
While facts themselves are objective, the interpretation and presentation of facts can be influenced by subjective factors. People may have different perspectives or biases that affect how they perceive and communicate facts. It's essential to distinguish between facts and opinions, and to critically evaluate the sources and evidence supporting a claim to determine its factual basis.
Additionally, please respond to the previous comment.
I find your comment confusing. How does the concept of consistently being wrong relate to the subjectivity or objectivity of morality? Moreover, if individuals are consistently wrong, doesn't that suggest some level of objectivity since objectivity involves consistency among individuals? It seems that your thought was left unfinished, and I would appreciate further clarification.
To assert that something is incorrect, you must possess a system of reference. The term "wrong" itself does not inherently indicate error, but rather signifies a lack of alignment with a different structure or inconsistency. If you claim that individuals can be consistently wrong, you must have a framework or standard against which you deem their actions as incorrect. Without such a reference, your statement lacks substantiation.
What specific aspect are you asserting people consistently get wrong? Is it your belief that their actions consistently deviate from your subjective viewpoint, and if so, how can you justify the superiority of your opinion over theirs? It is prudent to exercise caution when asserting the correctness of one's claim in contrast to the collective opinions of others. Doing so is an audacious step, as there exists a clear distinction between being above average and below average.
In summary, claiming something to be wrong necessitates a system of reference, as the term itself does not inherently denote error. Careful consideration should be given before asserting one's claim as superior to the multitude of other perspectives, recognizing the fine line between subjective opinion and broader consensus.
Fallacious refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. When a person feels misled, it is often because they lacked understanding and therefore perceive it as misleading. Conversely, if a person is not misled, they won't consider it to be misleading since they were not deceived. Essentially, it is not the thing itself that is fallacious, but rather the person who fails to interpret it correctly and thus regards it as fallacious. Ultimately, my definition does not necessarily result in a fallacious nature for morality.
Claiming that understanding something demonstrates its objectivity is incorrect. Objectivity refers to the consistency among all individuals, not simply whether something can be understood.
I apologize if my question was unclear earlier. I understand that you have previously stated that morals are not emotionally based because they would be fallacious if they were. However, I was hoping for a more logical and well-supported explanation for why you believe morals are not emotionally based. I am seeking an argument or evidence that supports this viewpoint, rather than a mere conviction or personal belief. Your current reasoning does not seem to address the question at hand and is not convincing to me. I want to understand the foundation of your belief that morals are inherent or not emotionally based, and I am open to hearing any other reasoning or arguments you may have to support this viewpoint.
I want to clarify that my argument is that morals themselves are not inherently fallacious. Rather, it is a person's ignorance or misunderstanding of them that can lead to misguided actions, which can make the morals appear fallacious to them. Therefore, the fallacy of morals is subjective and dependent on the individual's understanding of what constitutes a moral.
Moving on to the topic of values, they are emotionally based because they are created by humans through their emotional attachment to things. Things do not inherently have value, but rather people assign value based on their emotional attachment to them. This is illustrated by the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure," which shows that value is subjective and varies from person to person.
Given this understanding, I am curious as to why you believe that values are not emotionally based but rather objective. Objectivity implies that something does not change between people, but value varies from person to person, making it a subjective concept. I would like to understand your perspective on this matter.
You are correct, I did ask a question you already answered. It has been a while since we started this debate, and I have other commitments like work and other discussions, so it would be helpful to have a recap of our discussions to avoid losing track of our conclusions. I want to ensure that we are on the same page and have a clear understanding of each other's viewpoints.
I have been engaging in this debate with you because I want to understand the foundation and basis for your beliefs. My own understanding is clear and evidenced by widely accepted principles that have been established in society for generations. However, I am seeking to gain a better understanding of your perspective.
What I'm really interested in knowing is:
What is the foundation in which you hold morals to be inherent?
Why do you not believe that values are emotionally based?
Why don't you believe that morals are chosen for us by our consciences' but rather that we choose them, what leads you to believe so?
I don't understand what I missed, and if you insist on skipping over points, then how can one come to a solid conclusion? I readdressed the same points since they were applicable to the question. What points are you referring to? If I readdressed them then I probably did not recognize your answer as the solution.
On the contrary, our morals are chosen for us by our conscience and not something we choose. In essence, the correlation is the same. Only a small number of individuals don't have a conscience, and those are the ones who have no remorse. Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.
Then in the following comment I responded.
In regard to your statement: Societies’ failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
Although I understand that you are suggesting that people in the past were ignorant about the moral implications of slavery, you are still referring to moral implications of slavery that are based on today's moral standards, which is moral relativism, as it's based on modern-day moral standards. Additionally, I said commented, moral relativism posits that moral principles are not inherent or objective, but rather they are relative to an individual's culture and history. I argue that this is a more accurate way to view morality, as evidenced by the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods. For example, in some cultures, it is considered morally acceptable to eat certain types of meat, such as dogs or horses, while in other cultures, this is considered morally wrong. Similarly, in some cultures, polygamy is considered morally acceptable, while in others, it is considered morally wrong. These differences in moral values and principles highlight the subjective nature of morality and suggest that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and situations. Moreover, historical changes in moral values and principles also suggest that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors. For example, in the United States, slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but over time, the moral values of society shifted, and slavery became recognized as morally wrong. Similarly, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted over time, from being considered morally wrong to being more widely accepted. In conclusion, the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods suggests that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is relative to an individual's culture and history. The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.
Then you referenced your comment: For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example our tastes in food, for those of you this applies to we don’t choose to like unhealthy foods more than healthy foods we just do, or even our tastes in sound we don’t choose to like singer A’s voice more than singer B’s voice we just do. But that doesn’t apply to morality, we choose what code of conduct we want to follow and if we see another following a different one we can dispute theirs in comparison to ours with the hopes of persuading them. Unless you can give examples of other subjective things that are choice I think it’s reasonable to question why is this only the case here and not in any other case and I also think it’s reasonable to have doubt based on that observation. Last note usually when one doesn’t know what a word means (morality) they defer to the dictionary and because they don’t know they approach the definition with an open objective mind, and if you do that that’s also operating under the assumption that the word itself is objective because if you operate under the assumption that it’s subjective your approaching the word with preconceived notions and you wouldn’t be doing that if you don’t know what a word means. But what about subjective words like opinion? I would argue that the only reason we can comprehend what an opinion is is because we ourselves have them, so probably the best way to define it is by examples like the ones I used earlier food and sound, but what if your deaf, blind, and have no sense of taste or smell? Then maybe in that case you can’t comprehend an opinion because you probably won’t have any yourself.
Now that we are all caught up, I will respond from here.
One can present the most coherent answer to a question that matches reality by being critically-minded and challenging their own ideas, bringing up new questions that potentially disprove them, and evolving the idea to fit the new questions. The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations. To know if one has a firm grasp of the idea, they must present it as the most coherent with reality and lead to the least amount of confusion. When a question leads to confusion, it fails to answer certain aspects, whereas a straightforward and clear question is the most coherent with reality. This is explained in detail in my forum "Developing an Evolutionary Mindset."
Explanation of the word fallacious:
"Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive. It's a mistake or error in logic that can make an argument appear to be valid or convincing, even though it is not. A fallacy can take many forms, such as making an unsupported assumption, using irrelevant evidence, presenting a false dichotomy, or attacking a person's character instead of their argument. Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional, but in either case, they undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of the argument. It is important to recognize fallacious arguments and avoid using them in order to engage in productive and effective discussions and debates.
Your statement that "If morals do not exist inherently in reality, then it's fallacious, plain and simple" is not entirely accurate. The term "fallacious" refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. Therefore, if one's understanding of what constitutes a moral is lacking, it could be seen as fallacious. However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them. Morals are not inherently fallacious; it depends on whether the individual grasps them. In summary, the concept of fallaciousness depends on the person's grasp of morals, rather than on morals themselves.
To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality. This is demonstrated by how morals fluctuate over time with societal norms. There is no foundation for your argument as there is no evidence that morality exists outside of human opinions. The only way to support inherent morals is through religion and the belief that the supernatural has set morals for us. Therefore, those who believe in a supernatural being can believe in objective morals, but those who do not believe in the supernatural cannot believe in morals as there is no other evidence for them except through supernatural reasoning. I approach this from an agnostic atheist perspective, acknowledging that it is impossible to prove the existence of something beyond the realm of reality, such as a supernatural entity. However, I also believe that it is impossible to disprove its existence. My argument boils down to the fact that I choose not to believe in things that lack proof or disproof, such as fairies, ghosts, and other unproven or unprovable things. Hence, I find it logical to believe that there is no supernatural being, and that is why I assert that there is no evidence for inherent morals.
An emotional decision can still be reasonable. For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it. It's not logical to claim that morals are inherently fallacious just because they are based on emotions and not inherent.
Did you perhaps think that objective morals referred to inherent morals? Even if so, morals can't be inherent because they are emotional and not clearly recognizable by many individuals without consistent influence from societal norms. Slavery was recognized as morally acceptable for thousands of years, so to claim that others would recognize it as wrong if it were wrong would not be correct based on modern-day moral standards. I'm just trying to reinvigorate the debate to further understand your intentions. Additionally, it may be that you're trying to present an idea that is not fully reflected in the words you're using to describe it. Or perhaps you think that if morals are not inherent, then they have no value, which is definitely not the case. You often hear people in gangs say, "without the code, we have nothing." This is a powerful statement because it demonstrates that morality or value is not inherently seen but rather a form of agreement or bond that is stronger than anything else a person holds physically. I want to make sure I understand your point clearly and reach a mutual understanding. It is my understanding, if a debate is purely based on logical and objective factors, then there shouldn't be any disagreement, as any disagreement would be based on a subjective factor. However, I also recognize that there is most probably logic and knowledge in your idea, but it's not being conveyed with the correct words to express yourself clearly. Therefore, I would like to gain a better understanding of your perspective.
Morals are formed under emotions, which makes them subjective by nature. However, if a moral is discussed without emotions, it would be considered a principle. While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.
I did not intend for us to go off on a tangent, but somehow we did. Now that I have created a forum for us to continue our discussion without losing track, let's return to the topic of morals.
In the previous discussion on morals, I believe you mentioned that there are some inherent morals that we can access, although you're not sure how exactly. In round two definitions and at the end of round three, I was discussing the differences between objective and subjective to clarify any miscommunication. Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.
I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper. Therefore, I have created a forum for those who are interested.
Here is the link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9341-developing-an-evolutionary-mindset
I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it. And yes, perhaps we've discussed this tangent enough. Let us discuss the dimensionality of morals.
I have recently defined objectivity and subjectivty in round 2.