(March 13, 2016 at 6:19 pm)Losty Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 5:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When did I ever say I have no reason for believing it?? 

Eh, who cares. Straws are fun. 

-Neato.

I'm sure you have personal reasons for believing whatever you believe. My point was only that you have no factual logical reasons that use evidence to explain your beliefs. My point is that you're just saying you believe something and there's nothing left to discuss.

And you should do some more studying of the strawman fallacy. It means that I object to something you haven't said and argue against that. Which I haven't done. I'm not even arguing against you at all. I'm just giving my analysis of the thread. I'm saying I don't see the purpose of starting a thread just to say well it's just what we believe.

Doesn't sound like your analysis of the thread, sounds like your analysis of me specifically, since you didn't address the other side at all. Saying I'm admitting to not having demonstrable evidence is fair enough. But making it out like I said "I have no reason to believe what I do" is just not fair, since I never said it. 

Perhaps you don't see the point in me starting this thread. But people always ask me why I believe in God, and I've been in discussions about objective morality before where some people had a hard time understanding what I meant by it. So posting a video that explains one reason why I believe in God, as well as talking about objective morality, didn't seem pointless at all.    

This is the second thread I ever started on here specifically to present my views on something (the other being my thread about Hell). Every other serious threads I've started have been to ask you guys about your views. It has become clear that doing so was a mistake and not worth it.

(March 13, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No. "Subjective" means dependent upon the views of a subject as to its moral value. "Relative", while we're here, means relative to the circumstances pertaining at the moment.

...Meaning there is no set right or wrong answer, correct?

No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event. Am I bashing in self-defense? To save another from greater harm? Does that make my bashing "good", or simply "necessary"?

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative. Neither adjective means morality doesn't exist at all, they only mean that each act must be judged on its own qualities. Note that that judgement inherently introduces subjectivity into the matter as well.

(March 13, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:19 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm sure you have personal reasons for believing whatever you believe. My point was only that you have no factual logical reasons that use evidence to explain your beliefs. My point is that you're just saying you believe something and there's nothing left to discuss.

And you should do some more studying of the strawman fallacy. It means that I object to something you haven't said and argue against that. Which I haven't done. I'm not even arguing against you at all. I'm just giving my analysis of the thread. I'm saying I don't see the purpose of starting a thread just to say well it's just what we believe.

Doesn't sound like your analysis of the thread, sounds like your analysis of me specifically, since you didn't address the other side at all. Saying I'm admitting to not having demonstrable evidence is fair enough. But making it out like I said "I have no reason to believe what I do" is just not fair, since I never said it. 

Perhaps you don't see the point in me starting this thread. But people always ask me why I believe in God, and I've been in discussions about objective morality before where some people had a hard time understanding what I meant by it. So posting a video that explains one reason why I believe in God, as well as talking about objective morality, didn't seem pointless at all.    

This is the second thread I ever started on here specifically to present my views on something (the other being my thread about Hell). Every other serious threads I've started have been to ask you guys about your views. It has become clear that doing so was a mistake and not worth it.

No, it's not my analysis of you at all. I feel like my entire point was completely missed. I was paraphrasing you, not putting words into your mouth. And you focus on that instead of what my post is even about. Which is simply that if you don't want to debate it or argue your stance there's nothing left to say. People are trying to argue or debate you and it's pointless because that's not what you're here for and I don't think that's why you made the thread.

Not everything someone says is a personal attack against you. I know some people in this thread were attacking you and being jerks but that isn't what I was doing at all.

(March 13, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...Meaning there is no set right or wrong answer, correct?

No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event. Am I bashing in self-defense? To save another from greater harm? Does that make my bashing "good", or simply "necessary"?

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative. Neither adjective means morality doesn't exist at all, they only mean that each act must be judged on its own qualities. Note that that judgement inherently introduces subjectivity into the matter as well.

Well said, Thump. I tend to use the theft analogy. Stealing things is generally consider to be an immoral act. However, if I steal something of yours for no better reason than it's shiny and I want it, that is clearly less moral than stealing medicine to save the life of a desperately ill child.

Boru

(March 13, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...Meaning there is no set right or wrong answer, correct?

No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

I googled definition of subjective and this is what I got: 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

^That's what I have in mind when I say subjective morality. Basically that morality is just matter of opinion, personal feelings, and taste. Of which there can be no concrete right or wrong. 

Quote:You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event.

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative.

Well bashing someone in the face is not a good example because it is not something that we claim is objectively immoral in the fist place. There can be fine reasons for bashing someone in the face... like in self defense. So you are right, the morality of bashing someone in the face depends on circumstances surrounding the event.  

So let's stick to rape, which is an act that we claim to be objectively immoral. This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances. The only thing that changes here is the culpability of the rapist. A rapist who is legitimately insane and was having a psychotic episode has less culpability than one who premeditated the rape and is perfectly mentally capable of controlling what he's doing. Does this mean one rape was moral and the other wasn't? No, they were both immoral. The culpability of the rapist is the only thing that changes.

(March 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Losty Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Doesn't sound like your analysis of the thread, sounds like your analysis of me specifically, since you didn't address the other side at all. Saying I'm admitting to not having demonstrable evidence is fair enough. But making it out like I said "I have no reason to believe what I do" is just not fair, since I never said it. 

Perhaps you don't see the point in me starting this thread. But people always ask me why I believe in God, and I've been in discussions about objective morality before where some people had a hard time understanding what I meant by it. So posting a video that explains one reason why I believe in God, as well as talking about objective morality, didn't seem pointless at all.    

This is the second thread I ever started on here specifically to present my views on something (the other being my thread about Hell). Every other serious threads I've started have been to ask you guys about your views. It has become clear that doing so was a mistake and not worth it.

No, it's not my analysis of you at all. I feel like my entire point was completely missed. I was paraphrasing you, not putting words into your mouth. And you focus on that instead of what my post is even about. Which is simply that if you don't want to debate it or argue your stance there's nothing left to say. People are trying to argue or debate you and it's pointless because that's not what you're here for and I don't think that's why you made the thread.

Not everything someone says is a personal attack against you. I know some people in this thread were attacking you and being jerks but that isn't what I was doing at all.

Fair enough. If that's what you were saying then I apologize.

(March 13, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ...Meaning there is no set right or wrong answer, correct?

No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event. Am I bashing in self-defense? To save another from greater harm? Does that make my bashing "good", or simply "necessary"?

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative. Neither adjective means morality doesn't exist at all, they only mean that each act must be judged on its own qualities. Note that that judgement inherently introduces subjectivity into the matter as well.

I have to come to CL's defense here. Terms like "objective" and "subjective" are used in more than one sense, as you know, but the way she is (roughly) using them seems to be just about the most common one in popular discussions on this. And even if it weren't, so what? She's making a specific claim - that morality is objective, where by "objective" she means that is is factual - rather than subjective, by which she means that it is just a matter of how someone feels about it. And that's a question that can be addressed independently of what the terms themselves "really" mean.

Assuming you're not ignoring my posts: have I understood you correctly, CL?

If so, then here is one problem I have with how you put things: you say that "subjective means there is no right or wrong answer." Now, I think I understand that what you mean by that is that it ultimately is a matter of how one feels about it (like with your pink color example), but by putting it this way, you might also be suggesting that a subjectivist cannot criticize someone he disagrees with. I say this because that's what a lot of critics of subjectivism say, and "there is no right or wrong answer" suggests that kind of thing.

I'm a subjectivist in this general sense that you have been talking about: I think that moral judgments are (in this respect) exactly like aesthetic judgments. But that doesn't mean I don't criticize or don't oppose those whose moral views are in conflict with my own. To put it another way, morality doesn't have to be fact-based in order for it to be something that is taken seriously. I think that's something you (following people like Peter Kreeft) assume must be the case, and that's just wrong.

(March 13, 2016 at 7:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well bashing someone in the face is not a good example because it is not something that we claim is objectively immoral in the fist place. There can be fine reasons for bashing someone in the face... like in self defense. So you are right, the morality of bashing someone in the face depends on circumstances surrounding the event.  

So let's stick to rape, which is an act that we claim to be objectively immoral.

Sure. What if a rapist were convicted and as a punishment sentenced to be himself raped? Would that sentence be moral or immoral?

Quote:This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances.

That remains to be seen, depending on your answer to the above question. You don't get to simply claim that something is "objectively immoral" in arguing for objective morality. That is circular reasoning and unacceptable in this sort of argumentation.

Quote:The only thing that changes here is the culpability of the rapist. A rapist who is legitimately insane and was having a psychotic episode has less culpability than one who premeditated the rape and is perfectly mentally capable of controlling what he's doing. Does this mean one rape was moral and the other wasn't? No, they were both immoral. The culpability of the rapist is the only thing that changes.

That is a good example of moral relativity, actually. The insane rapist is held to a different standard precisely because of his diminished capacity to apprehend the moral dimension of his act.

As for the definition of subjective, I'm on my phone right now and so cannot link easily, but I'd think a definition from, say, the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy would be more apt. I'll look it up and link when I get home tonight. Using general definitions in philosophical discussions is a good way to run aground around philosophers.

Of course I'm aware that words often have more than one meaning, thanks.

I've addressed my view about usage in my reply to her. Essentially, a subjectivist can still say "That's wrong!" -- just without the false authority of a deity backing up our words.

(March 13, 2016 at 7:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

I googled definition of subjective and this is what I got: 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

^That's what I have in mind when I say subjective morality. Basically that morality is just matter of opinion, personal feelings, and taste. Of which there can be no concrete right or wrong. 

Quote:You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event.

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative.

Well bashing someone in the face is not a good example because it is not something that we claim is objectively immoral in the fist place. There can be fine reasons for bashing someone in the face... like in self defense. So you are right, the morality of bashing someone in the face depends on circumstances surrounding the event.  

So let's stick to rape, which is an act that we claim to be objectively immoral. This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances. The only thing that changes here is the culpability of the rapist. A rapist who is legitimately insane and was having a psychotic episode has less culpability than one who premeditated the rape and is perfectly mentally capable of controlling what he's doing. Does this mean one rape was moral and the other wasn't? No, they were both immoral. The culpability of the rapist is the only thing that changes.

Even if every person agreed rape is evil it does not make it objective, an objective moral would have to exist independent of human minds. Meaning you would have to prove that the concept of rape would exist and be wrong even if humans didn't exist.