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

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.