Righto...i am off to bed.

Nice chatting. I will catch up tomorrow after work.

Peace!

Quote:Why? aesthetics  is purely subjective.

If morality is also subjective, then why treat them differently?

1.Just because two things are subjective does not mean they are the same thing

2. You should treat them differently because there not the same . But if you wanna misrepresent someone else's position by all means

---

Simply defining gods nature with attribute x or y doesn't answer the question it's just you asserting attributes

(June 26, 2017 at 10:50 am)Little Henry Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 10:30 am)Whateverist Wrote: Okay, so apparently "empathy" would not be your answer to my question regarding how it is you think you obtained the correct objective morality.  But do you mean to answer my question?  You claim to be in possession of the one and only correct objective morality.  I've asked you how you arrived at that. On what authority do you make such a claim?

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong? Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where i am coming from?

Nope. You're out of questions. I've answered each of yours without ever getting more than hints of an answer to mine. Quid pro quo, Clarice. Quid pro quo.

I'd like to point out, btw, that if gods commands are somehow constrained by gods nature, the nature of good...then there's no need to refer to gods commands in order to do good - even if there were a god.  

We can refer instead, to what constrains god.  The nature of good. All that we could be doing in referring to his alleged commands is creating a way to get it wrong. Chiefly in that those commands are, more accurately, the commands of a semi literate bronze age goatfucker.

Did god, in his goodness, by his good nature, incapable of anything other than good..really order a raid on a town for loot, pillage, and little girls? Or was that the order of the child sex trafficker in charge of the raiding party? Any christer wanna take a crack at that? Any christer wanna comment on the objective morality of god's supposed command..in that instance?

---

(June 26, 2017 at 10:49 am)Astonished Wrote: We subjectively say that morality is derived from what is good for human well-being (animals and other things by proxy based on our SUBJECTIVE opinion on what else deserves or or how much) because we value not being in constant pain or seeing others in that state. There is no universal consensus on this because of varying levels of intelligence and mental health, or because of people valuing individual well-being more than the collective well-being. There is no universal natural law that says this is what we should value, if we weren't here the universe doesn't give a shit about how we ought to have treated each other. No objectivity can be found anywhere to say what we should value most, it's what we decide on for ourselves.

I think that the above encapsulates why you have misconceptions about objective morality (over and above the shit that religious absolutists, subjectivists, and absurdists feed you, mind you).

A moral objectivist can and will objectively establish for you that the subject of morality is human wellbeing..even between groups that do not have moral agreement.   That's where moral objectivism starts, that's it's foundation.  You may not, after having this demonstrated to you, agree..but you would be disagreeing with their facts, not their opinions. Yes, some people value well-being more than others, some people (and some creatures) are less capable of making these judgements or even understanding the subject. All of this is contained -within- an objective morality, and is established by explicit reference to fact. Where there is no fact, or where there are equally compelling or competing facts..even in an objective morality, there is moral ambiguity - we will all still, ultimately, have to decide for ourselves. The subject of objective morality is not that, not you, it is the means or metrics by which you engage in it.

I'd actually bet that, with more knowledge, more facts...a simple absolutist or subjectivist moral statement becomes a very, very difficult objective moral question.

What I'd like to know is what possible justification anyone has for why they would even think that their deity du jour is a MGB (ignoring that everyone's definition of this is likely to be different) based on any holy text or just by looking at the world around us.

Khem, I already explained how you can insert whatever fucking base principle you want into your good/bad meter and just because they're fucking wrong as fuck doesn't mean that ISIS isn't using their misguided religion as their metric rather than well-being. I agree that well-being is the only sensible metric to use and for good reasons but you can't argue that there aren't different axioms or whatever that you can jam into morality machinery of your brain no matter how ill-fitting they are or how much damage they cause that machine. I agree that the DICTIONARY definition of morality should revolve around well-being which it very well might. Thing is there are lots of zealots who would disagree and their existence makes this caveat necessary.

But please, fucking enlighten me, since I can't see a way around the above.

Let me be clear here I'm a moral realist and I don't believe morality is subjective but I will no abide other positions being misrepresented .

The Op keeps comparing subjective apples and oranges . Morality even if it was subjective can't be compared to a like of fruit .

Divine command theory and divine nature theory are as arbitrary as fuck. You can't take action like charity say it's positive and what maximally great being approves of . That's just you taking your presumed moral beliefs and imposing them on god then  defining it as positive and maximally good. Sorry simply saying he has this attribute and this attribute is this won't cut it.

(June 26, 2017 at 11:36 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Let me be clear here I'm a moral realist and I don't believe morality is subjective but I will no abide other positions being misrepresented .

The Op keeps comparing subjective apples and oranges . Morality even if it was subjective can't be compared to a like of fruit .

Divine command theory and divine nature theory are as arbitrary as fuck. You can't take action like charity say it's positive and what maximally great being approves of . That's just you taking your presumed moral beliefs and imposing them on god then  defining it as positive and maximally good. Sorry simply saying he has this attribute and this attribute is this won't cut it.

But that doesn't stop people and that's my whole point.

(June 26, 2017 at 11:41 am)Astonished Wrote:

(June 26, 2017 at 11:36 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Let me be clear here I'm a moral realist and I don't believe morality is subjective but I will no abide other positions being misrepresented .

The Op keeps comparing subjective apples and oranges . Morality even if it was subjective can't be compared to a like of fruit .

Divine command theory and divine nature theory are as arbitrary as fuck. You can't take action like charity say it's positive and what maximally great being approves of . That's just you taking your presumed moral beliefs and imposing them on god then  defining it as positive and maximally good. Sorry simply saying he has this attribute and this attribute is this won't cut it.

But that doesn't stop people and that's my whole point.

Not sure what your referring to . If you mean the first comment . There stopping or lack of is irrelevant.

(June 26, 2017 at 11:30 am)Astonished Wrote: Khem, I already explained how you can insert whatever fucking base principle you want into your good/bad meter

No, that's my point..in an objective moral schema we can't just insert whatever base principle we want.  

Quote:and just because they're fucking wrong as fuck doesn't mean that ISIS isn't using their misguided religion as their metric rather than well-being.

They are using well-being.  They simply disagree with you as to what does or does not promote or harm human wellbeing, as to what prmotes or harms it more.  An objective schema might help to determine who's right about that, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:I agree that well-being is the only sensible metric to use and for good reasons but you can't argue that there aren't different axioms or whatever that you can jam into morality machinery of your brain no matter how ill-fitting they are or how much damage they cause that machine.

Objective morality doesn't argue that, as a subject, and harm or human well-being isn't the only basis for objective morality.  There's more than one objective moral theory.  The harm based one is just well suited to conversation for it's simplicity and focus on an individual moral agent.

Quote:I agree that the DICTIONARY definition of morality should revolve around well-being which it very well might. Thing is there are lots of zealots who would disagree and their existence makes this caveat necessary.

You have a misunderstanding of those zealots.  They are trying to do the good, as they see it.  They are trying to help, and to prevent harm.  They simply lack the objective schema that would be required to disabuse them of their misconceptions about what is or is not harmful.   Now it might be, that, if you presented them with it..they shouted allah hu akbar and chopped your head off...but that would be because their religion or culture has morally compromised them.....  as their day to day activities strongly suggest, lol.

Quote:But please, fucking enlighten me, since I can't see a way around the above.

You aren't presenting an obstacle to get around.  You have misconceptions about objective morality, and about religious zealotry.  Imagine a person who was as deeply commited to say, humanism...as a suicide bomber is to their version of islam.  They're both zealots, one of them a case study in how religion eats the brain and makes people generally shitty...and the other a terrifying obstacle to people like that. The difference between them, is their moral schema, but not much else.

Getting god's dick hard vs. human well-being is about as cut and dry as distinctions get. Just because the former is utterly batshit doesn't mean people don't revere that idea above all else. You can twist martyrs' objectives in any way you like but that's the bottom line; You can't 'hurt' god so it's not about the well being of even that thing, it's about pleasing the dictator's dick. Why else would a prospective martyr say that they would not leave their paradise except for the chance to martyr themselves all over again, like in Hitchens' book? It's all about pleasing their deity, otherwise if they've already gotten their ultimate reward, there's no point in doing anything further. I think you've got a misconception about that. I've already said how idiotic it is to break one's brain machinery by stuffing that ideology in where it doesn't belong but people manage to do it all too fucking often.

But again, I invite you, fucking enlighten me. What other misconceptions do I have that you've consistently failed to explain?