Quote: Ok, so you are admitting to objective morality? Ie, it is a FACT that you OUGHT not harm others?

Not a bit of it. I'm saying that the moral stricture to not harm other people is not the same as a disagreement over which foods are tasty. If you'd read a biut more carefully, I'm also saying that all moral strictures are variable as relates to time, place and other factors. If morality was objective, the Roman matron I mentioned earlier would have been aghast at the thought of leaving her newborn on a rubbish tip.

Quote:So you saying we have improved morally? If so, this admits to objective morality.

*chuckle* Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort (although I grasp how much you want me to). I'm saying that you and I who recoil in horror at the thought of the torture and rape of the little girl you mentioned are neither more or less moral than a person from a society where such an act is viewed as moral. We are moral in our societal matrix, they are moral in theirs.

Has it occurred to you that, if morality were indeed objective, it couldn't in anywise be 'improved'?

Boru

(June 24, 2017 at 9:31 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 24, 2017 at 5:45 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

---

Where this falls down, of course, is that having food isn't the same as rape.  I find pizza - in all forms - to be revolting and anathema to decent people.  But when you or anyone else eats a pizza, you aren't harming anyone.  You can't seriously expect us to consider that gustutatory preferences are on the same moral level as the pain and suffering that accompany the rape of a child.

---

You and your ilk also routinely make the mistake that 'objective morality' and 'universal morality' are the same thing.  That morality is subjective is a fact sustained by observation and the history of our species.  We no longer, for example, toss an unwanted or malformed infant on the local rubbish tip, but a Roman mum who did so would be behaving morally.  Morality varies from time to time and even from place to place in the current era.  If what you mean when you say 'objective morality' were the case, then the ancient Assyrians would have the same moral strictures in place as the modern Japanese, who would follow the same moral code Dutch Jews  in 1656 (look it up).

The fact that moral rules are clearly shaped by geography, religious traditions, and (to a surprisingly large extent) economics, the notion that there is some overarching standard of universal morality doesn't hold up.

Boru

I see this quite a bit in response to the discussion of objective morality.  I don't believe that it is a good argument for a morality that is subjective.  This argument (if correct) would also mean that science and our understanding of the universe is also subjective. Would you make the same comparison between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Japanese and come to the same conclusion in regards to their scientific beliefs?  This clearly not the case, because the universe doesn't change, based on the subject.  It is a difference between how or what we know, and what is the nature of the topic being discussed (epistemology vs ontology).  Knowledge by it's nature is necessarily subjective.  What you know, is not what I know (it is based on us as individuals). That which is objective however is independent of our knowledge of it. Normally from scholars what I see being discussed is the ontology of morality, not it's epistemology or even evolution.  In fact, when one compares the moral principles or practices of a person or culture, they are necessarily weighing it against a standard which is outside of that culture or subject.

I would disagree that equating objective with universal is a mistake (although I'm open to argument on this).  If it is objective, then by definition it is independent of the subject or universal among subjects.  This is regardless of their belief of the topic, and whether it is correct or wrong.  I would agree, that objective does not mean absolute.  The boiling point of water at a given altitude and pressure is objective and universal regardless of the person or even their mistake in measuring it.  However I specify the pressure, because the boiling point of water is not absolute, but relative pressure.  Someone boiling water at sea level is going to get a different result then someone doing the same in Denver.  However not because it is based on the subject observing or anything within them.

I find that most who argue for moral subjectivity either don't understand the argument (that it is talking about ontology and not epistemology).  Or that they are inconsistent between their belief in moral subjectivity and their actions.  It is quite difficult for us to act as if morality is subjective.   Here is and article about Seven Things you cannot do as a Moral Relativist  I might quip a little over the authors choice to call it relativism vs subjectivism (as I already discussed that objective does not equate to absolute).  However I think his reasoning is sound, with this small change, and I believe that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey.  Normally, when someone insists that morality is subjective, I ask what in the subject; morality is based on?  In application, I find that almost no one is a moral subjectivist.  And if there is someone who applied this belief consistently, most would think that there is something wrong with them.

That seems an enormous strawman to me.
We arent claiming that we apply the morals subjectively, but that we derive them that way as individuals and as societies. Once settled upon, we tend to apply them uniformly, with a great deal going onto any changes, though naturally changes do happen.

That entire piece relies on the notion that people who are moral relatavists wish to apply their morals relatively, or subjectively if you will. That is not at all what a person who says morals are subjective is claiming.

In my eyes yes, in his eyes no.
Morality is subjective. Often shared by many, but it is not universal.

I wonder what happened to the post I was quoting? something about a sociopath doing something and would I consider it wrong as he being a sociopath didn't or something.

All a moral subjectivist needs to claim..is that our moralities are subjective...which they obviously and demonstrably are, not there there is no or cannot be any objective morality.  A moral objectivist can also hold this opinion...and in fact does hold this opinion.  Religious moral theorists -also- hold this opinion...they think that all of those other™ moralities are subjective...theirs being the special case.

Ultimately, even if there were an objective morality, we would still only have subjective access -to- it.  This is why objective moral theorists refer to something called "super rationality" and "relevantly whole knowledge" in order to make comments on any potential objective morality.  We, as human beings, possess neither of those things in the best of times...we certainly don;t have an ounce of either in unfamiliar and stressful moral considerations. It;s hard enough just to employ what we -do- have in nuanced moral considerations.

Our boy, for example, thought fruit was a moral safe space.

Another theist who sucks at defending objective morality .(He and wooter should form a club) . Or even defining the debate properly .Just straw man on top of theist apologist nonsense. Id way in and show this person how you defend objective morality. But like explaining evolution with a creationist it's a lot of time better spent elsewhere.

The argument seems to be that if there is no god then there is no right or wrong.

I fail to see how injecting a supernatural arbiter makes any difference.

God thinks rape is wrong, rape happens god does nothing, people think rape is bad.

What part did god play in that.

You could take out the whole god bit and it makes much more sense.

@Tiz

It's funny, because it's not even hard to do.  ala-

I think that rape is wrong.

-Why?  Because it causes harm (and not a little...alot)

Is it just, like, you know...my opinion, man...that rape causes harm?

-No, ofc not.  It objectively does.

What if somebody else thinks it doesn't?

-Somebody else™ is wrong, again objectively.....and probably a rapist (jk...they're just a rapist sympathizer, lol)

What if somebody else doesn't care whether or not it causes harm?

-Then somebody else™ has an empathy deficit, and it doesn't matter whether or not they care.

What If I really really really wanna gang up like a pack of ducks (wtf) with my friends to rape someone?

-Then you need to seek help, because you're probably going to end up finding sympathetic ducks to gang rape some poor girl...regardless of whether or not it's wrong, and even if you accept that it -is- wrong.

You just made that up, that's from a human mind, it's not real, it's delusional..it's incoherent

-I didn't make it up, it is from a human mind, but the harm caused by rape is in no way a delusion, nor is it's designation as a bad thing because it causes harm anything other than straight laced coherence.

What's this about ducks?

When the OP thinks about gang raping a girl, he thinks about ducks.  You'd have to ask him.

(June 24, 2017 at 2:49 pm)Khemikal Wrote: @Tiz

It's funny, because it's not even hard to do.  ala-

I think that rape is wrong.

-Why?  Because it causes harm (and not a little...alot)

Is it just, like, you know...my opinion, man...that rape causes harm?

-No, ofc not.  It objectively does.

What if somebody else thinks it doesn't?

-Somebody else™ is wrong, again objectively.....and probably a rapist (jk...they're just a rapist sympathizer, lol)

What if somebody else doesn't care whether or not it causes harm?

-Then somebody else™ has an empathy deficit, and it doesn't matter whether or not they care.

What If I really really really wanna gang up like a pack of ducks (wtf) with my friends to rape someone?

-Then you need to seek help, because you're probably going to end up finding sympathetic ducks to gang rape some poor girl...regardless of whether or not it's wrong, and even if you accept that it -is- wrong.

You just made that up, that's from a human mind, it's not real, it's delusional..it's incoherent

-I didn't make it up, it is from a human mind, but the harm caused by rape is in no way a delusion, nor is it's designation as a bad thing because it causes harm anything other than straight laced coherence.

Saying rape is wrong because it objectively causes harm only shifts the argument to whether or not causing harm is wrong.

Then when asked why causing harm is wrong, you say something about empathy which varies incredibly widely from person to person and species to species.  

Nothing wrong with appealing to the common good.  But empathy is weak sauce as a foundation, particularly given the behavior of humans throughout history, where it's shown to be very different than 21st century 1st world countries than everywhere else.