Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I for one do not consider one doing whatever is in their eternal personal interests to be a marker of morality.
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That is and will always be changeable.
So what if what gets you into heaven remains constant? Does that make morality objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“What makes something objective is that it matches to reality, so saying "subject to reality" is the one instance where it works.”
But anything real is reality so why would anyone say “subject to” anything that isn’t real (in any normal context)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Objectivity isn't subject to facts, facts are subject to reality, which is what makes them objective.
Then why claim that subject to means subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Morality is and will always be subjective because morality can only be determined in accordance with a moral standard, and the standard will always be subject to the person invoking it.
So is objectivity subjective since it's “subject to” facts?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I gotta say for someone that’s seems to be opposed to literalism, your response seems pretty verbose.
I believe that literalism fundamentally obfuscates the spirit and intent of the Bible.
I have a hard time following the spirit and intent of this quote because fundamentalism should be the furthest thing from obfuscating.
Literalism is simply incompatible with these core principles of Christianity; they cannot be expressed literally.
But I was referring to the afterlife specifically, if literalism is impossible how do we Christians have the same traditional view of it?
Translation from one language to another always results in an inexact interpretation of words, meanings, and context.
Maybe not enough people are aware of the inexact interpretations, or they don’t care enough to remain consistent but common sense should be universal regardless of what language one speaks.
Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English, and Aramaic uses different verb forms depending on whether the subject is male or female.
Well that’s why prefacing is important because if paid attention to it should help avoid confusion.
Aramaic was the native language of Jesus and the one he mostly taught in, Aramaic is structurally and grammatically very different than English, as is the context in which the words were spoken, written, and then read today.
Context matters in the English language too.
If morality is based on the will of God, then it is a matter of the personhood of God, which is a personal belief that is absolute, but by definition, it is not objective.
Now look who’s being overly literal.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The first sentence pertained to real life. "They" was referring to the rights that newborns are actually bgranted under current law. The second sentence is a hypothetical (not real life) scenario that demonstrates why the logic of your claim fails even though it might have sounded persuasive at first.
Well you can’t justify what is claims with what ifs my guy, that’s just plain stupid 😉
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I didn't argue/lie about me being unable to live without access to your body. I said "if I were unable to...".
And before that you said
They are treated the same.
That is a what IS claim not IF and is is based on real life, so I’m going to say the same thing that you said to me.
No, there is no IF.
You just don't get that, hopefully the ad nauseam redundancy sinks in.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I could be wrong about the way I'm using the word Fundamentalist, but I think of it as characterized by Biblical Literalism.
But I still feel that somewhat has to be applicable to you when you refer to The Bible as a justification for your view, and that’s what’s throwing me for a loop here.
The Bible includes history andprophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which isconducive any kind of "literal" translation.
Be that as it may, The Bible is much more then just that.
Considering the linguistic journey the Bible took to arrive at an English translation, I don't think a literal translation is even possible.
Does that journey significantly alter the meaning?
If morality depends on the will of God, I think that would make it absolute rather than objective.
What’s the difference?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Unrealistic hypothetical? So you still don't understand what hypotheticals are and why they are useful. Got it.
So you still don’t understand why comments like this aren’t useful? Because it’s easy for whoever it’s directed to to say right back at ya 😉
All you have to do is read it.
Read WHAT? I’ve been quoting you because I’m reading what you post, it’s not sufficient, that’s a YOU problem not me.
Logic (aka rationality) can only begin once we have a set of premises established.
Established means that all parties within the conversation agree.
Well we need to have a concept established too and because we don’t then there is no logic, you don’t like the word “if” then fine but you must take all factors into consideration for logic to begin. And when did I agree to the concept of morality? I literally argued in favor of nihilism so this notion that morality has already been established between us is a lie.
That's not the case here.
Yeah? Well neither is you being unable to live without access to my body, that’s also not the case here but you originally argued that it is which is a lie.
“The purpose is to demonstrate the concept's irrationality by showing how accepting that concept leads to absurdities. The takeaway from the exercise is that the argument being examined (via the logic test, aka hypothetical) is wrong.”
Kinda like what I did when I argued in favor of nihilism, got it 👍🏾 but you never did anything remotely close to this.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
“I think the Bible explicitly warns against literalism and so I’m not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.”
I may be a part of the problem here but this sounds contradictory to me, if The Bible warns against literalism then why are those who subscribe to The Bible considered fundamentalists? Isn’t that term pedantic.
“If you believe that morality depends on the will of God, then yes, everything would be subjective to the personhood of God.“
But if His moral will is consistent doesn’t that make it objective?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
I think that it is rational only in the sense that it is reasonable to want to believe it. I don't think it is knowledge.
Well if knowledge is facts then it is only rational/reasonable to believe something if it is also indeed factual, anything less is inherently fallacious.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Post #200 was directed at you BTW.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
I don't think it is knowledge.
Then what is?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The answer to your question is yes, I believe in an afterlife, but not in any traditional sense.
Care to elaborate on that?
In response to the religious view that morality depends on the willof God, I don't believe that makes morality objective, it just makes it subjective on a cosmic scale.
But wouldn’t that make everything subjective? Sometimes these philosophical discussions leads us to overthink relatively basic things.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Is that actually knowledge and is it rational?
Yes, smooth transition.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
My posts were to show that something subjective can be rational. Knowledge was never mentioned, nor was causal agency.
Knowledge is rational two
Honestly, at this point, I feel like Michael Palin arguing with John Cleese in the Argument Clinic.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Therefore, it is by direct observation that we can conclude that there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and from that, we can conclude that moral knowledge is objective knowledge.
You believe in an afterlife?
Created:
No, there is no IF. This is a fact, that's how it works. To argue anything else is to admit that on it's most basic level, you do not know what logic is.
If that’s how it works then keep that same energy when I give you mine.
No, we haven't. This is your claim that you just keep repeating no matter how many times I show you in painstaking detail is wrong.
It’s not painstaking detail when you’re making assumptions about the point of contention in your premise.
“You're making an argument. That argument contains logic. Hypotheticals test the logic of your argument.”
I was also making a truth claim, you changed the subject by bringing up an unrealistic hypothetical and calling it the truth instead which is a lie, you attempted to reject a what is claim with an unrealistic what if scenario, that’s not logical at all so miss me with that you don’t know how logic works nonsense, that’s a compliment coming from you.
“The premises of their morality is what you're taking issue with, not their rationality. They're two different things.”
Again you’re assuming that morality is a rational concept, forget about morality for a minute (I can do hypotheticals too) if a concept is already established as irrational what need is there to form a premise and conclusion around it? Answer that for me.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Do you think that mathematical knowledge is objective knowledge?
Yes I do.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Honestly, at this point, I feel like Michael Palin arguing with John Cleese in the Argument Clinic.
Right back at ya my friend 😉
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Even if only one person wanted to be alive, that value would still exist.
No one is disputing that, I am however disputing the rationality of said person, and where the fallacy lies is you thinking just because a value is popular it’s rational.
If you wish to define self-preservation as an emotion, that is fine with me.
Except that’s not what I’m doing, I am however claiming that caring about it is.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
That is a fact.
And your display of that fact is representative of the ad populum fallacy. That is a fact.
That is irrelevant.
No what’s irrelevant is you making emotional appeals to make a logical argument, that’s inherently fallacious.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
“You even contradict your own argument by remaining alive.”
I’m not really a nihilist, ever heard of devils advocate?
“Even if you did mean what you say, you would be the exception to the rule.”
Their is no rule, and I didn’t create the ideology of nihilism so no I’m not on an island by myself and even if I was you’re committing the ad populum fallacy by using that as an argument.
Morality is inherently subjective so, in conclusion, something subjective can be rational.
So are suicide bombers rational? Because their morality says that’s the right thing to do.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable, illogical and irrational to want to remain alive?
Because I’m arguing in favor of nihilism I’ll say yes because life is meaningless.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Logic (aka rationality) can only begin once we have a set of premises established.
Not if we’ve already established that the system in which you defined morality is already illogical (aka irrational).
Logic isn't limited to the real world, that's the point.
…Be that as it may, my claim was limited to the real world so you stepping in a realm outside of that and using it as an answer for the real world is incorrect and nothing but besides the point, plain and simple.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
The purpose of morality is to enable people to live cooperatively in groups and is, therefore, logical, reasonable and rational.
You’re only saying this due to your emotional appeal of your life, which isn’t logical at all in fact it’s fallacious.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If your premise is that nothing subjective is rational then your premise is wrong and apparently you didn't read a word I just said because I explained it all in detail.
…No my friend you’re not PAYING ATTENTION to a word I’m saying.
The standards one uses for morality are the premises, or the dots.
This is the beginning of your so called “explanation” now you can try to refute any claim about subjectivity being irrational but I find it telling when instead you dodge my claim altogether and just start talking about the standards one uses for morality as if it’s already a forgone conclusion that morality is rational, that’s just a huge assertion on your part that you’ve yet to justify with rational support my friend, and since morality ISN’T rational there is no need to have any standards, so no I’m not entertaining your premise because as far as I’m concerned (which I already made clear numerous posts ago) it shouldn’t even be there in the first place. That’s it, that’s all.
The test is performed by stripping the content off of the actual example and replacing it with imaginary content to see if the logic holds.
Well when one uses there imagination possibilities are endless which was why my argument was solely based on reality, because that’s the world I live in.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
You are entitled to your opinion, however illogical it may be.
Is that the pot calling the kettle black? Remember our previous discussion on irrationality?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Logic is the tool that's gets us to a conclusion *from* a given set of premises.
Well I already gave you my conclusion from my premise.
What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational so we might as well all be nihilists.
Hypotheticals do not need to be realistic to be useful.
Except they do (the context of this discussion is included).
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
I acknowledge your philosophy though I disagree with it because your values as a nihilist are not in accordance with mine.
Except as a nihilist nothing is of value, because valuing anything is irrational.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
And apropos of nothing, according to Wikipedia, self-preservation is thought by some to be the basis of rational and logical thought and behavior.
This means nothing if you’re a nihilist who thinks otherwise.
Sad but true. I, however, was speaking of most people.
Well for sake of discussion I argued in favor of nihilism so most people are irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Survival instinct is the main reason.
That’s redundant, what reason is there to have a survival instinct?
As for living comfortably in a society, we wouldn't be living in communities if it weren't beneficial.
Everyone that has committed suicide isn’t living comfortably.
That can be resolved by having a purpose in life.
Like going to heaven? I agree.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
It is logical and rational to want to live and live comfortably.
What rational support do you have for that claim? Because if there’s nothing waiting for me on the other side I see no reason to care if I live or die.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Sticking with the topic of morality, would it not be logical and rational to create a moral code that is aligned with one's values or does the fact that one's values are subjective make them and a moral code irrational?
The latter.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
All you did here was regurgitate your claim in a different set of words. What's missing is rational support.
Well it seems like I had to because you misconstrued my claim to think using an unrealistic what if hypothetical is responsive. You want to talk rational support? What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational so we might as well all be nihilists.
The treatment of the fetus (as in whether it can survive) is an entirely different matter and one to take up with the god that you pray to.
…No, treatment as in deference (the word you originally used) nobody is questioning whether it can or can’t survive at a certain point, the answer to that is already clear to doctors.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What's not the case?
You being unable to live without access to my body, let me break this down so you understand, someone that is unable to live without access to someone else’s body is not treated with the same deference as someone who is able to live without access to someone else’s body, under the pro-choice view. So are you or are you not a “good” person by your own metric?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If I was unable to live without access to your body and you refused to grant me that access, I would die.
…But that’s not the case.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Two additional questions - would you say that literally everyone is treated unfairly as no two people are treated with the exact same deference? They may be treated similarly, but not the same. People treat people differently when considering who is morally deserving of what, which includes rewards and punishments. Or do those things accurately balance the scales when deference is not equal?
The latter.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
“Anyone who is not treated with the same deference as everyone else is by definition being treated unfairly.”
Then I assume you’re pro-life? Because the unborn aren’t treated with the same deference as everyone else who is born.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
To say that morality is both objective and complicated sounds contradictory. Or do you mean that even though a given moral action to be taken is objective, it can be very difficult to discern?
The latter.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Is all morality objective or just some things?
That’s difficult to answer because morality could be complicated at times (at least for me).
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
No, I don't. In a nutshell, values relate to our wants and needs; morals relate to the means (choices, actions), by which, we attain them.
The reason I asked is because I can agree that values are subjective because we all care about different things but morality I consider to be objective because something’s are either right or wrong regardless of what one thinks.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Values are subjective.
Do you consider values and morals to be the same thing?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
The actions one takes in that pursuit can be determined to be moral or immoral.
Yes through heaven or hell, the moral actions are rewarded in heaven and the immoral actions are punished in hell.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
It is the choices and actions one makes based on those values that are moral or immoral.
But moral standards isn’t just a descriptive, it’s a prescriptive in the sense that everybody should follow it in order to accomplish their goals. Question is what’s a goal that we all have in common? That’s the pursuit of happiness.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
I'm just saying that different people have different values and thus, different moral standards which makes them inherently subjective.
But who’s to say those values are moral? What if they’re immoral values?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Do you think all democrats value Donald Trump's happiness? Do all republicans value Kamala Harris' happiness?
If we’re looking at happiness in the broader sense one can easily argue that politicians probably won’t be because of the dishonest lives they live, heaven is the epitome of eternal happiness.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Do you think all democrats value Donald Trump's happiness? Do all republicans value Kamala Harris' happiness?
I was referring to happiness for yourself.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
I'm sure that everyone does not value happiness for the same people and that there are even some that do not value it for themselves.
Not wanting to be happy is counterintuitive.
Created: