(March 19, 2014 at 10:27 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 7:57 am)tor Wrote: If morals are subjective what arguments you gonna propose against lets say bullying? Bullying comes from evolution.
Lets say there is a continent on which bullying is considered fine thing. How are you gonna argue against it?

First, I've said before and am glad to repeat:

Subjective does not mean all opinions are equal.

Some subjective opinions are supported by objective data and logical arguments and others are not. This is why we have a judicial system. If the defendant says "I'm innocent" and the prosecution says "he's guilty" we don't just consider it a wash because both are opinions. We weigh the evidence and hear the arguments before we make an evaluation.

As far as your bullying example, there are many different approaches. I could use the Bentham Utilitarian principle to show the long term damage and costs of bullying. I could use the Social Contract to show how we wouldn't want this to happen to ourselves and it would be hypocritical to consider it good enough for others. We could use the Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to imagine we will be cast in one of the two roles but we won't know which one until the "veil" is lifted and under such conditions we'd want the most just system we could create.

What all these arguments have in common is the use of objective reality and logical evaluation to make conclusions as to right and wrong. Morality is subjective but this should not mean that "anything goes".

...and evolution has nothing to do with anything here. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it ought to be so. Religious people often get confused because the "is" and "ought" are so intertwined in their world view.

To the religious minded, "it is so" is followed by "God made it that way" which is followed by "and so it ought to be".

To science, the "is" and "ought" are two separate issues. In fact, science isn't concerned with the ought at all. "It is so" is followed by a period and full stop. A scientist can legitimately feel that "...and it really sucks and I wish it were not" but that is not part of the scientific method.

Thus, "we evolved that way" is not to be taken as "and so it's right".

I bring up bullying because evolutionists often cite evolution as a source of morality.
As for social contract bullies can say I don't want to get bullied but since I am already here and I am more powerful then my victim fuck social contract I do what I want.

As for anything goes if morality is subjective one can say that this is just your opinion that burning people alive is wrong.
As for arguments and evidence the court of justice did burn people alive long ago. And people thought it was cool.

(March 19, 2014 at 10:37 am)tor Wrote: I bring up bullying because evolutionists often cite evolution as a source of morality.
As for social contract bullies can say I don't want to get bullied but since I am already here and I am more powerful then my victim fuck social contract I do what I want.

As for anything goes if morality is subjective one can say that this is just your opinion that burning people alive is wrong.
As for arguments and evidence the court of justice did burn people alive long ago. And people thought it was cool.

But it's not an opinion formed out a vacuum! If it is, like religious morality, then it'll probably be discarded in due time.

Yeah but some opinions about burning people alive didn't form out of vacuum.
"He doesn't like king? Roast the bastard" what about that?

(March 19, 2014 at 10:37 am)tor Wrote: ...evolutionists often cite evolution as a source of morality...

Again, you confuse the "is" and the "ought".

Scientists are answering the question, "why do we have compassion for one another?" The answer is that we've evolved to be community animals and we need to work together to survive.

That's the "is".

At no time do scientists talk about what "ought to be". That's for philosophers to debate.

The fact that we gain our sense of empathy, community, compassion, etc. from our evolution is not to say that what has evolved is necessarily good nor does it follow that our evolved instincts are necessarily the best indicators who what is moral.

Clear?

(March 19, 2014 at 10:42 am)tor Wrote: Yeah but some opinions about burning people alive didn't form out of vacuum.
"He doesn't like king? Roast the bastard" what about that?

It sounds like it was formed out of the vacuous belief that the King had special powers rather than merely filling the position of overseeing the general peace.

(March 19, 2014 at 10:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 10:42 am)tor Wrote: Yeah but some opinions about burning people alive didn't form out of vacuum.
"He doesn't like king? Roast the bastard" what about that?

It sounds like it was formed out of the vacuous belief that the King had special powers rather than merely filling the position of overseeing the general peace.

They can say same thing about your value of human happiness and call it vacuous. They think kings authority is important and to keep it intact they must burn people who fuck with it.
I wouldn't call it moral but it has some thinking behind it.

(March 19, 2014 at 10:52 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 10:50 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: It sounds like it was formed out of the vacuous belief that the King had special powers rather than merely filling the position of overseeing the general peace.

They can say same thing about your value of human happiness and call it vacuous. They think kings authority is important and to keep it intact they must burn people who fuck with it.
I wouldn't call it moral but it has some thinking behind it.

And they're entitled to whatever opinion they want. Why? Presumably because they value their opinion, which is exactly the grounds for morality I'm talking about. Their opinion is not intrinsically better or worse than mine so any action involving two parties must account for both. In other words, the person who wants to kill has no business with the person who doesn't want to be killed.

(March 19, 2014 at 10:55 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 10:52 am)tor Wrote: They can say same thing about your value of human happiness and call it vacuous. They think kings authority is important and to keep it intact they must burn people who fuck with it.
I wouldn't call it moral but it has some thinking behind it.

And they're entitled to whatever opinion they want. Why? Presumably because they value their opinion, which is exactly the grounds for morality I'm talking about. Their opinion is not intrinsically better or worse than mine so any action involving two parties must account for both.

So everybody has an opinion. How do we settle it? With tanks and helicopters?

(March 19, 2014 at 10:57 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 10:55 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: And they're entitled to whatever opinion they want. Why? Presumably because they value their opinion, which is exactly the grounds for morality I'm talking about. Their opinion is not intrinsically better or worse than mine so any action involving two parties must account for both.

So everybody has an opinion. How do we settle it? With tanks and helicopters?

That wouldn't be my approach but then again I'm not a powerful government official so it makes little difference what I think.

Hmm. Ok then.