Red Celt

To better understand atheistic objectivity you can do some reading about Buddhist, Advaita and Nondualism.

The Hammurabi code is theistic but yet objective in the sense that it is collective.

The GR remains bullshit!

This is so painful. I was going to write an explanation, but Google saved me the effort. Thanks for the laugh when you suggested that I was the one who needed educating. I'm an honours student, doing a masters in philosophy. I'm more than a little bit aware of what objective morality is and is not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

Quote:Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God; no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.

(July 25, 2013 at 7:11 am)Red Celt Wrote: This is so painful. I was going to write an explanation, but Google saved me the effort. Thanks for the laugh when you suggested that I was the one who needed educating. I'm an honours student, doing a masters in philosophy. I'm more than a little bit aware of what objective morality is and is not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

Quote:Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God; no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.

An interesting example, given that the truth in math is determined by coherence with a certain set of axiomatic principles. So yes, given the proper set of axiomatic principles, the statement "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1+1=2".

Also, if you are mastering in philosophy, I'd suggest staying off the rationalwiki, which has a definite bias towards skepticism.

(July 25, 2013 at 7:11 am)Red Celt Wrote: This is so painful. I was going to write an explanation, but Google saved me the effort. Thanks for the laugh when you suggested that I was the one who needed educating. I'm an honours student, doing a masters in philosophy. I'm more than a little bit aware of what objective morality is and is not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

Quote:Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God; no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.

Great now I know more about you. Well, western philosophy tends to cast the mind quite ridged.

Good luck!

---

(July 25, 2013 at 6:50 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 25, 2013 at 6:43 am)Red Celt Wrote: That isn't what objective morality is.

Sure it is.

Objective: Independent of any individuals's wishes, opinions or desires.
Morality: Code of conduct.

Objective Morality: A code of conduct that is independent of any individual's wishes, opinions or desires.

Fits perfectly.

---

(July 25, 2013 at 6:47 am)Attie Wrote: Well you might not then agree with what I have to say but my points are still valid.

If they were valid, I'd agree.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:47 am)Attie Wrote: In China we have many laws that are based on scientific fact and not on the will of the people. If you want to know them you can find them for yourself. I'm not here to help you out of your lazy ignorance.

Familiarize yourself with Hume's is-ought problem, you ignorant lout. That issue is the one any morality that claims to be scientific must contend with and resolve and so far none have been able to. And by the way, laws are not the same thing as morality.

(July 25, 2013 at 6:47 am)Attie Wrote: What, are you American?

Is that supposed to be an insult?

(July 25, 2013 at 6:47 am)Attie Wrote: PS. The Hammurabi code is theistic.

So?

It's not for you to decide what is valid and what is not valid. You seem to be stuck on the limitations of your knowledge in which you were educated or something.

If you're a conformist don't believe the next person to be one as well.

Your arguments are invalid and therefore renders the GR bullshit.

I find that the moment someone uses the word "conformist" to describe anyone [themselves, others], they immediately render themselves invalidated in matters pertaining to intellectual discourse. Nobody calls someone a conformist anymore. That shit stops in high school because it's a stupid term and you should feel stupid for using it. Attie, you're using ad hominems as well. "What, are you American?" Funny you should ask that question. A lot of the world seems to think Americans are all idiots.

Well last I checked we were the first to land a man on the moon and the ones providing most of the intellectual manpower for space-born vehicles, we were going to build the first [and would have also been the largest even by modern standards] superconducting super collider [which did not happen only due to budgetary concerns], we have had the most active space program to date, most technological innovations on a large scale have emerged from the US, and our universities are the best in the world, so you can take that little unwarranted ad hominem and shove it right up your butt-pucker.

The Golden Rule is the most basic form of moral objectivity we have, but it sure isn't flawless. It's also not as simple as saying things like "I like to be tortured, does that mean I get to torture others?" Because you have to take into account what they would want as well. "Do unto others blahblahblah" is a simple way of putting it but it means a lot more than that.

Using the torture metaphor; you enjoy being tortured, thus you want others to torture you. But does that give you a right to torture others? Well, it depends. Do THEY want to be tortured? If no, then no, you do not; the separation and distinction is between what YOU want, and what OTHERS want. It is not the overlying action itself but the underlying DESIRE for that action.

Tl;dr, the golden and silver rules espouse empathy towards other human beings; understanding what they want, and what you want, and finding balance in that. If you just dumb it down to absolute literalism then no, the G/SRs are easily torn asunder, but if you look at the wisdom of the words in their implications it starts making a lot more sense.

Is it objective? No. I'm pretty sure there is no objective morality. But it's a pretty reasonable, sensible stance all the same, especially in comparison to the other stances that exist out there.

(July 25, 2013 at 7:31 am)Attie Wrote: It's not for you to decide what is valid and what is not valid.

If I'm applying the rules of logic correctly, then it is for me to decide what is valid and what is not.

(July 25, 2013 at 7:31 am)Attie Wrote: You seem to be stuck on the limitations of your knowledge in which you were educated or something.

By all means, broaden my horizons. Tell me what scientific facts in your morality based on.

(July 25, 2013 at 7:31 am)Attie Wrote: If you're a conformist don't believe the next person to be one as well.

Using ad homs now, are we, you illiterate buffoon?

(July 25, 2013 at 7:31 am)Attie Wrote: Your arguments are invalid and therefore renders the GR bullshit.

If they were invalid, you'd be able to prove that. Saying so doesn't make it so.

(July 25, 2013 at 8:01 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I find that the moment someone uses the word "conformist" to describe anyone [themselves, others], they immediately render themselves invalidated in matters pertaining to intellectual discourse. Nobody calls someone a conformist anymore. That shit stops in high school because it's a stupid term and you should feel stupid for using it. Attie, you're using ad hominems as well. "What, are you American?" Funny you should ask that question. A lot of the world seems to think Americans are all idiots.

Well last I checked we were the first to land a man on the moon and the ones providing most of the intellectual manpower for space-born vehicles, we were going to build the first [and would have also been the largest even by modern standards] superconducting super collider [which did not happen only due to budgetary concerns], we have had the most active space program to date, most technological innovations on a large scale have emerged from the US, and our universities are the best in the world, so you can take that little unwarranted ad hominem and shove it right up your butt-pucker.

The Golden Rule is the most basic form of moral objectivity we have, but it sure isn't flawless. It's also not as simple as saying things like "I like to be tortured, does that mean I get to torture others?" Because you have to take into account what they would want as well. "Do unto others blahblahblah" is a simple way of putting it but it means a lot more than that.

Using the torture metaphor; you enjoy being tortured, thus you want others to torture you. But does that give you a right to torture others? Well, it depends. Do THEY want to be tortured? If no, then no, you do not; the separation and distinction is between what YOU want, and what OTHERS want. It is not the overlying action itself but the underlying DESIRE for that action.

Tl;dr, the golden and silver rules espouse empathy towards other human beings; understanding what they want, and what you want, and finding balance in that. If you just dumb it down to absolute literalism then no, the G/SRs are easily torn asunder, but if you look at the wisdom of the words in their implications it starts making a lot more sense.

Is it objective? No. I'm pretty sure there is no objective morality. But it's a pretty reasonable, sensible stance all the same, especially in comparison to the other stances that exist out there.

Hey! But now you've been saying a lot of things that are actually not the GR for the GR in itself is absolutely empty of any intelligence. By adding this and that and whatever else just proves that GR is bullshit.

Secondly your technologically advanced American disposition should be your shame and not your pride. What you're now polluting space as well? Same goes for China mate!

People can't even walk a mile or two anymore. They have to drive, take a bus or taxi. Fuck!

Polluting...space...

What is this I don't even.

POLLUTING. SPACE.



And yeah, so what? Should we just all resort to walking thousands of miles to get anywhere? Yeah, who needs all these PLANES and shit [another American innovation by the way along with the fucking internet; hey, who needs rapid travel and instantaneous communication, right?], we should walk. And we should go back to dwelling in caves.

Also, your assertion that the GR is intellectually empty is in and of itself intellectually empty. Show how it is not because I have shown how it is, or admit you just simply don't know what you're talking about. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid, reasonable response and is actually a respectable position to take so long as you strive to learn about the subject.

(July 25, 2013 at 8:01 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Well last I checked we were the first to land a man on the moon and the ones providing most of the intellectual manpower for space-born vehicles, we were going to build the first [and would have also been the largest even by modern standards] superconducting super collider [which did not happen only due to budgetary concerns], we have had the most active space program to date, most technological innovations on a large scale have emerged from the US, and our universities are the best in the world, so you can take that little unwarranted ad hominem and shove it right up your butt-pucker.

This is all rather tangential to the rest of the conversation, but just a few quick points about what you wrote here. You are on very dodgy ground claiming the moon landing(s) as an American accomplishment. Worldwide, it was seen as a human accomplishment. If you're going to add a nationality to it, the American flag should have been accompanied by a swastika. It was German ingenuity that gave the US space program its foundations... born from their efforts to demoralise the UK by means of unmanned munitions delivery.

The best translation of everything you wrote was that the USA had the money to see those things accomplished. That was due to resources and manpower. If the New World had been the size of Belgium, with the land and population to match... none of that would have been achieved. And it is down to money. If you're ever in one of those creators of technological ingenuity, have a listen to the number of accents that you'll hear. The brains aren't all American. The money is, though.

You've been drinking the Patriotism Koolaid like every other good citizen.

---

(July 25, 2013 at 7:30 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 25, 2013 at 7:11 am)Red Celt Wrote: This is so painful. I was going to write an explanation, but Google saved me the effort. Thanks for the laugh when you suggested that I was the one who needed educating. I'm an honours student, doing a masters in philosophy. I'm more than a little bit aware of what objective morality is and is not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

An interesting example, given that the truth in math is determined by coherence with a certain set of axiomatic principles. So yes, given the proper set of axiomatic principles, the statement "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1+1=2".

Also, if you are mastering in philosophy, I'd suggest staying off the rationalwiki, which has a definite bias towards skepticism.

You saying "murder is wrong" is subjective, not objective. The concept of objective morality is that it exists in separation from the subjective experience. It would be universal (literally) and held to be true in every civilisation on every planet in the universe. As it doesn't rely on those civilisations, it would have predated them. It would exist even if there were no civilisations. Going back to my original question (that you mocked) it would have to have come into existence at some point after the big bang.

Except it didn't, because it doesn't exist. "Good" and "bad" are evolved concepts and utterly subjective.

Seeing that no-one discovered the Americas, the natives were there all the time, I'm prepared to say that no American achieved any of the above mentioned things, ever.

Actually we hunted in America from China long before Europeans could build boats.

This means that an American opinion on the GR must be bullshit.