Total posts: 2,481
-->
@TwoMan
Values are subjective.
Not if we all share it, we all value happiness.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
One point of valuing anything is to provide a basis and direction for a moral compass.
But we don’t need a compass if all roads leads to the same place.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
I'm glad that the majority of people are not nihilists.
Then what’s the point of valuing anything?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Do you know what the majority believe?
No, what do you believe?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
No. I've read anywhere from 4 to 17 percent of the U.S. consider themselves atheist.
Does the majority of the U.S. also believe morality to be objective?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
You are probably right. I'm glad that the majority of people are not nihilists.
Do you think the majority of people are atheists?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
If you value the security and stability of a civil society, then anarchy is an issue.
I’m sure a nihilist would agree there’s no point of valuing anything.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Because otherwise a society would probably descend into anarchy.
But that assumes that anarchy is an issue, what objective proof do you have of that?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
Values are subjective. Decisions made based on those values can be objectively determined to be moral or immoral.
Then why do we demand that others follow our standard regardless of what others standard is?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It is important, because that's exactly what you are appealing to. As far as I can tell, the only criticism you've offered of my position (while offering no alternative btw) is that there's no actual starting point, and the reason you claim this is because you just keep asking me "why?" over and over again until there's nothing left but "just because". That's literally the problem of infinite regress.
Except I don’t have to ask you a string of questions because I already know the answer
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A moral standard just means it's the standard you are applying to morality, as in the thing you will judge actions against in order to determine whether they are good.
What comparison are you making when the subject is the standard itself?
Then you don't know what it is or why it is important.
That’s because in the context of this discussion it isn’t important.
Why is it slick when I do it and yet that is all you've had to offer this entire conversation?
Except I don’t have to ask you a string of questions because I already know the answer
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A "moral standard" is by definition, not a judgement. It is the thing today moral judgements are derived from. This is basic English.
So how do you differentiate a "moral" standard from a non "moral" standard? By using your "judgment".
Google the problem of infinite regress.
I already told you why that's not applicable here.
Why did you choose eternal happiness as your moral standard?
You're not slick, I know this is your demonstration of infinite regress, we've done this dance before.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You can't "judge" a moral standard, that's logically incoherent.
Hate to break it to you but calling something a “moral” standard is a judgment.
You're trying to paint this as a problem with my conception of morality but it applies to why we prefer anything we prefer in life.
Which is exactly why it’s NOT a sufficient answer, because of how vague and unhelpful it is. It’s fine if you want to dodge questions but then I reserve the right to answer them for you.
Because if you didn't then the word good would have no meaning to you.
The means to eternal happiness is what it means to be good/moral.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It started with my emotions, because that's how I feel about it. You can't "judge" a moral standard, that's logically incoherent.
Yes you feel “good” about it. Now you’re just reaching, theirs nothing logically incoherent about saying someone has “good” standards, and last I checked (by you BTW) “good” is a judgment call.
Just because" is the eventual answer to any string of consistent "why" questions. Google the problem of infinite regress.
Except I don’t have to ask you a string of questions because I already know the answer, I simply stated that you believe your moral standard to be good otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen it, you deflecting to the word “value” other than good doesn’t help you because you wouldn’t value it if you didn’t think it was good.
Did you choose God to be your moral standard because he is good, or is he good because he is your moral standard?
When did I say I have a moral standard?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It's not circular to start with a moral standard and judge right and wrong from there.
Except it didn’t start there, you judged that “moral” standard as “right” otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen it.
I choose this moral standard because that's what I value. I value it just because.
Just because isn’t an answer, you wouldn’t value it if you didn’t judge it as “good”, like I already said in my most recent prior post, CIRCULAR.
Created:
I didn't talk about my moral standard instead, I began with my moral standard because in order to make any judgment about what is good or bad you have to have a standard to compare it to in the first place. That's not my requirement, it's a logical necessity.
…But that’s circular, because you clearly judge your “moral” standard as “good” otherwise you wouldn’t have it. What comparison are you making when the subject is the standard itself?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
There’s morality, and there’s ethics.
Does ethics fall under the branch of morality?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You guy might want to discuss the definition of morality.
He already gave his definition, but he used terms like right/wrong which is also debatable.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So when you provide this as your reason for claiming subjective morality refutes itself you are demonstrating that you don't even understand the concept being offered when someone tells you morality is subjective.
…But I literally conceded to that much when I asked you to define good/right or bad/wrong but instead of answering the call you talked about what your “moral” standard was, and before you try to deny this I ask that you simply state the post # where you defined the terms.
These rules collide with each other, that doesn't mean playing pool is self refuting.
I’m not a pool expert so I don’t exactly follow your analogy but if the differences between both styles of play are so drastic where they don’t even slightly resemble one another it’s fair to say they shouldn’t be called the same game, baseball and softball even have different names even though theirs a resemblance between the respective sports. Now here’s another reason why your analogy doesn’t work because I’m not just talking about a difference, I’m talking about an OPPOSITE difference so even if you took your example a step further and compared pool to a completely different sport your analogy still wouldn’t work because theirs no opposite of pool. However if I say legalizing abortion is morally wrong that’s the opposite of saying legalizing abortion is morally right, so if one party believes the former and another party believes the latter it’s self refuting to say they both hold “moral” beliefs.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That has nothing to do with the morality model I've offered.
It’s not just your model to consider when assessing subjective morality, it’s every individuals model and when those opposing models collide then they cancel each other out, making subjective morality a self refuting notion like I already said in my most recent prior post.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The starting point however, whether it's the reduction of harm + fairness or whether it's 'whatever God says' will always be up to the individual, thereby making moral judgements subjective.
Or it’s a self refuting concept, because on the outside looking in if I’m considering all individuals when assessing morality then diametrically opposing forces will cancel each other out, making morality inconceivable.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Fairness is not morality.
Then what’s the point of you saying
morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What's your point?
Morality is objective.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This statement doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.
It actually makes perfect sense, it’s okay if you don’t know what objectivity is. Objectivity is fair because it’s impartiality and the absence of bias. When someone is objective, they strive to present or analyze information based on facts, evidence, and logical reasoning rather than personal feelings, opinions, or preconceived notions. This promotes fairness in decision-making, discussions, and judgments.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Anyone who is not treated with the same deference as everyone else is by definition being treated unfairly.
Objectivity is fair, would you agree?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Had to go way back, all the way to post 53 to remind you of my definition...
Yes, because two posts back is so far lol
My morality is based upon the concept of reducing harm in a way that is fair to all. Anything that comports with this principal is good, anything that contradicts it is bad.
Reading comprehension Double_R, I said define right and/or wrong not good and/or bad. Unless you’re conceding to my original point that those are interchangeable terms. Lastly the operative word in your definition is “all” which makes your definition impractical because we “all” don’t agree on what constitutes as harm and we “all” don’t agree on what is fair.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That's certainly not what I or any of the prominent figures i'm aware of arguing that morality is subjective are doing.
No instead you evaded the question completely
what’s the definition of right and/or wrong?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then I've made my point.
No you haven’t, a question is not a point. What’s the point of all the questions?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Why is that the definition?
Point taken, but that’s not the only issue. The issue is often times words like moral, right, and good are used interchangeably so they can easily be defined by one another making the definition circular.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That question is an evasion.
Evasion of what? I’m willing to concede that I don’t have an answer for you if you just get to your point.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your assertion of root good and evil will be your moral theory and it will compete with all other moral theories on the grounds of coherency, universality, predictive accuracy, and practicality.
And I accept that challenge, but you still didn’t answer my question, do you not think happiness is a good thing?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why is that good?
I’m sorry but that sounds like a counterintuitive question to me, do you not think happiness is a good thing?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, it just defines the question and any answer as moral questions and theories.
Do you want to test that theory out?
Do you presume that going to heaven is right and good?
Well considering that heaven represents eternal bliss/happiness, I would say yes.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
“Morality is, by definition, a system by which people judge actions as right or wrong.”
But that definition isn’t helpful because it only begs the question what’s the definition of right and/or wrong? And you can try to define it but eventually it would just lead to infinite regress which I don’t think you have the time and patience for, so let me do you a favor by providing my definition of morality. Morality is means to an end, that end being heaven. Now what those means are is a more complicated question to answer but I don’t think the answer to that question is necessary for the definition of morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Averages are a better metric in many ways but the longevity aspect is crucial as well.
Then what is your preference for seasonal awards such as stat titles, totals or averages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
bout 10yrs... past that I wanna see how many titles you've got, and your average stats, as well as the context behind them..Side note, MJ is still the GOAT.
Well totals provides more context (in a seasonal sense) did you know that MJ would have 11 scoring titles instead of 10 if it were determined by total points?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I don't care much for longevity after a certain point.
What point is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
A factor in LeBron's records is his longevity. I think using averages would put things more in perspective.
But under the current system averages doesn’t favor longevity, a player that averages 29.9 in all 82 games can still lose the scoring title to another player that averages 30 in 58, unless you give a zero statline for missed games.
Created:
Posted in:
Just recently, LeBron James reached a huge career milestone scoring 40000 points, congratulations to him but I can’t help but wonder why total stats aren’t celebrated more. The scoring, assist, rebound, steal, and block titles are all based on averages not totals. Should the league base averages on all 82 games as opposed to just the games the players play?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Would you care to share how I demonstrate cognitive dissonance, or just claim it?
I didn’t just claim it, I literally said what an example of objectivity was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I had a previous discussion with "Athias" where we proved that objectivity is vague, useless, and unprovable.
Can’t help but notice your cognitive dissonance here because proof is a classic example of objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Moreover, if we were to assume objectivity was defined as the seeming consistency throughout collective subjectivity, we would still find value and meaning are subjective.
Why would we assume that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
As proven by my existence, some may accept subjective value as meaningful or worthwhile, while acknowledging an absence of intrinsic value.
Well the question as to why still remains, and there’s no way to answer it without pointing to some objective source which is the complete opposite of what nihilism is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
A common mistake is to think that nihilists feel that life is meaningless.
Do yourself and I a favor and Google the definition of nihilism, then get back to me 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
In essence, I do not believe that anyone seeks pointless destruction unless they are either vengeful at existence or believe that the result of their actions will bring greater peace.
The means wasn’t the point of the hypothetical, it was to show you that not everybody cares about life, ever heard of nihilism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I was under the impression that all hypothetical scenarios are derived from reality to answer certain circumstances, otherwise this discussion is pointless.
Suicide bombing is reality, you’re the one making a generalized notion personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Therefore, my belief is quite relevant, hypothetical or not.
That’s not how hypotheticals work, especially mine because I literally just made it up. You’re the one acting like it’s a real life person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I do not believe that killing himself was part of the plan, although if he had known it, he may have still believed his efforts were worth his accomplishments.
It’s a hypothetical dude, your belief isn’t relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
We should care about societal peace because we care about having peace in our own lives, being we are indeed a part of society.
Not if your goal is to take as many lives as you can before taking your own, an example I’ve made countless times already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yes, I did say I believe morals are meant to cultivate harmony in society, and that we can determine true morals from false ones by whether they contribute to societal peace.
You’re starting a circle here because that just begs the question why should we care about societal peace?
Created: