(June 1, 2011 at 11:59 am)Rayaan Wrote: And Cinjin, I believe that secular morals are subjective. Something might be morally wrong to almost every single person, but still, in the end, it is subjective, because I don't know where a line can be drawn. It's the people who decide what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable. and what is backwards and barbaric. So, it is subjective.

Like I said (many times now), I agree ... to a point. But that line can be found and you already conceded that point. Not EVERYTHING is subjective.

I'm starting to get tired of dealing with you two. I've made my point. you've both admitted to it and I grow weary of this continued stupidity.

(June 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Like I said (many times now), I agree ... to a point. But that line can be found and you already conceded that point. Not EVERYTHING is subjective.

Fine, that's your opinion. I'll leave it be.

However, I was only conceding with the point that religious morals are not subjective, after fr0d0 cleared out my misunderstanding in this post.

(June 1, 2011 at 11:26 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

---

For the defense: Rayaan
Was Aisha 9 or 17? (or anywhere in between)
Did sexual consummation occur pre puberty?
What was the legal age of consent? (and was it morally acceptable then/ now)
Why did Aisha's parents clearly condone the action... was it out of blind obedience to a 'prophet' as they saw him?
Why is there no evidence of disapproval from that society (see above)
Does Aisha's success in life have any bearing?
Do Mohammed's other seemingly balanced relationships and that fact that he commanded respect have any bearing?
(hope I did that justice Rayaan)

---

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. That's what I've been saying all along.

(June 1, 2011 at 11:59 am)Rayaan Wrote: And Cinjin, I believe that secular morals are subjective. Something might be morally wrong to almost every single person, but still, in the end, it is subjective, because I don't know where a line can be drawn. It's the people who decide what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable. and what is backwards and barbaric. So, it is subjective.

Rayaan, you are wrong, please see this video, it will save alot of typing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk

---

PS- Its long, bear with me in this one.

Thanks for posting the video. I've seen about 10 minutes of the video by skipping here and there (and I'll watch more of it later), but I think I get the gist of his argument, which is that what is morally "right" is that which increases happiness and well-being, and what is morally "wrong" is that which increases harm and suffering. So, it seems like he's defending the moral theory of desirism (which theVOID also holds) *shudders*. However, I've also read somewhere that desirism may not be an objective morality since desires are based on one's own personal attitudes and/or goals and they vary from one person to another.

See this: Is Desirism An Objective Moral Theory?

So having said that ... morality is a complicated subject for me (kinda like politics), and for many others, and people have all kinds of different views, and that's why I'm just putting out my own thoughts. I can't speak for others.

I dunno if these views are in conformity with void's arguments, he uses alot philosophical definitions, that I admit to be too dumb to even consider, To all practical purposes, it demonstrates a moral objectiveness may be achieved by natural means, by observing the consequences of our actions. Anyway, The video makes a good point about this.

I admit that moraly good in Christianity is circular reasoning if good is defined as God's nature, and has no usefulness as definition or real world application... see that wasn't so hard. Good video btw. I only had time to get through 22 minutes.

Rayaan Wrote:However, I've also read somewhere that desirism may not be an objective morality since desires are based on one's own personal attitudes and/or goals and they vary from one person to another.

It is also not objective... because while tentacles turn me on: most people find them revolting.

Also, the bible/koran is an intersubjective morality, not an objective morality (you will notice I don't hold it).

TLDR:

It's all subjective.

And what is the practical use difference between intersubjective and an objective moral standard?

(June 2, 2011 at 6:32 am)tackattack Wrote: And what is the practical use difference between intersubjective and an objective moral standard?

That it is all merely personal opinion

(June 2, 2011 at 4:29 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Also, the bible/koran is an intersubjective morality, not an objective morality (you will notice I don't hold it).

That would be correct, if you believe that the morals in the Bible and Quran are man-made.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that the element of subjectivity cannot be taken away completely even if the morals came from God, because believers may interpret their scriptures differently from each other, or interpret a specific verse in a book differently, since all interpretations are basically a subjective labor.