(October 15, 2018 at 10:36 pm)mfigurski80 Wrote: You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-...ality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination. Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective. 

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as "irrelevant" as your "Religious Views" would indicate. OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals. Don't give more science or math gibberish.  

Re killing: ya you did. To paraphrase sometimes killing is OK, sometimes not, therefore subjective.

(October 15, 2018 at 10:45 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(October 15, 2018 at 10:36 pm)mfigurski80 Wrote: You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-...ality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination. Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective. 

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as "irrelevant" as your "Religious Views" would indicate. OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals. Don't give more science or math gibberish.  

Re killing: ya you did. To paraphrase sometimes killing is OK, sometimes not, therefore subjective.

That would make killing relative, not to be confused with subjective. The question is relative to what? Is it relative to the subject, or to the specifics of the event. Can throwing children into a wood chipper for the fun of it be moral, depending on the person?

Another example I seen recently was the old question, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If something is objective, it is true regardless of opinions or knowledge of it. It exists and is true regardless if everyone agrees, or even if no one believes.

(October 15, 2018 at 11:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That would make killing relative, not to be confused with subjective.  The question is relative to what?  Is it relative to the subject, or to the specifics of the event.  Can throwing children into a wood chipper for the fun of it be moral, depending on the person?

Another example I seen recently was the old question, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?  If something is objective, it is true regardless of opinions or knowledge of it. It exists and is true regardless if everyone agrees, or even if no one believes.

Are the children dead? 

Is the person throwing the children psychotic? If they find enjoyment then they have no moral objection to it.

Do the children have a communicable disease with 100% mortality and threaten the rest of the group? I might get enjoyment from saving my community while not enjoying the actual act. 

Tree, sound, detection............. again with the science? Um, does it make a ground vibration? Mixed metaphor again.

---

(October 15, 2018 at 11:52 pm)mfigurski80 Wrote:

(October 15, 2018 at 11:44 pm)wyzas Wrote: What makes you think I care about what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct and they don't interject religion/god. 

Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective. 

But now that I understand that you are religious, I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge.

Interesting ad hominem setup there. 

Also, you self-contradict in the span of 3 really short paragraphs:
"what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct" ... "I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge."
In the second phrase, you are clearly dismissing my explanations (which, notice, do not depend on any theistic precepts) based on your perception of my religion. In the first phrase, you claim that religion is irrelevant as long as the explanations are sound.

"Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective."
Let me re-reiterate. 
Objective (adjective) - "The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it".
NOTE: An objective object presumably exists independent of one's perception of it!!!!!

Are you denying that you are religious??? 

I said as long as the "science" explanations are sound. Thanks for twisting my words. Completely what I expected. You need to dump the morals comparison to science. 

You have failed to demonstrate that morals are independent of a persons/subjects perception. That objective morals are indeed a fact.

No ad hominem, just an observation that theists seem to collectively demonstrate the same propensity for diversions and dodges.

Edit: I see you added more. Interesting that you say objective morals presumably exist. Good one.