Which Comes First?

[theVOID]

Morality IS subjective, this is evidenced entirely by the fact of slavery - something that was once considered morally acceptable (even in the Bible) is now considered extremely immoral, perhaps even evil. This demonstrates that our morals can, and have, changed over time, thus, not objective.

Slavery still occurs commonly and is considered morally acceptable (wage laborers, prisoners, etc). Sure, racist, forced, inescapable slavery is widely considered wrong...but it always was by morally aware people. The practice of kidnapping people and putting them into slavery (southern slavery of blacks) is specifically objected to by the Bible (e.g. the story of Joseph, son of Jacob - he was forcefully sold into slavery by his brothers).

Yes, it is considered Moral by some and Immoral by others - thus Subjective.

Change worthy of disproving objective morality not been shown. Perhaps you have described a shift in popular opinion, but using that to argue against objective morality would be a fallacy.

I HAVE demonstrated a change in morals - thus showing morals are subjective, and i can demonstrate a change in morals on many more issues, from gay rights to murder to rape and torture - all of these morals have changed over time and are still disagreed upon by many people - the morals are different from place to place and time to time - that is completely subjective.

"It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better"

Oh... My... God...

Let me put this REALLY simple for you... so you can understand..

Please do.

We, mankind, are social animals and as such we need each other to survive. It is obvious, and evident, that murder does not make for an efficient society, so in turn we (and all other social animals) evolved an innate sense of social efficiency to allow us to most effectively work together and thus, to survive.

It is obvious that murder does not make for an efficient society? There are many subscribers of evolution who believe that selective murder would make for more efficient society. They claim that some people should be sterilized (or that their babies be murdered/aborted) and others who are not productive to society should be eliminated (elderly, infirm, etc). It is obvious to them that you are wrong, so it seems you two are at a deadlock. You'll have to come up with a better argument I suppose.

Yes, it is obvious - If members of a social group begin to kill each other over their issues then the society cannot function! It may be true that selective murder is a way to a genetically superior society but the concept is so fucked up, so completely immoral, that anyone who claims such an idea is a good idea is a sick freak, also another example of subjective morality.

And we come back to a consensus from society (democracy) for your last point, the idea of being social animals is that the opinion of the majority of the society is used to determine an ultimate moral standard, so in the case of the genetically selective murderers disagreeing with me, well they also disagree with democratic consensus and social morality still works!

Our evolved social morality is not however, absolute, and in order to protect ourselves from divergence in what is the moral standard accepted by consensus, we form Law and Order to protect the society and it's moral standards as a whole from the moral standards of the few, leading us to what is the pinnacle of society, democracy. If morals were absolute then no system of governance would ever be required as the innate morals we all posses would never conflict with an opposing moral standard (because no such standard would exist)

People like to bend/twist the rules for their own pleasure, so this argument falls on its face as well. You fail to account for selfishness - something contradictory to morality, which can, at times, be quite forceful and sly.

Yes they do, and we consider such corruption as what? IMMORAL... If an action is committed that goes against the moral opinion of a society then it is immoral. Society sets moral standards as law and breaking the law regarding a moral issue is covered.

While we are on the subject of Morality and God, i would like to bring to everyone's attention the Piranha and the fact that they are morally superior to us... This most bloodthirsty, savage of creature has NEVER been seen to harm one of it's own kind, something that sadly cannot be said of our own species.

I am curious, Christians, as to how you reconcile the fact of the Piranha's moral superiority with the idea of Humans being created in God's image under his absolute moral standard?

Piranha's are morally neutral - amoral, not superior - due to a lack of rationality - the ability to understand the difference between morality and immorality and choose. That's, at least, how I reconcile your claim.

If the Piranha is amoral due to a lack of rationality then explain their ability to decide not to attack each other when they will instantly go after a non-piranha. If the piranha had no understanding of social morals then it would be unable to differentiate between attacking like and dislike.

The Piranha has some innate moral standard, evolved as a social animal, that tells it not to attack it's own kind.

[ecolox]

If the Piranha is amoral due to a lack of rationality then explain their ability to decide not to attack each other when they will instantly go after a non-piranha. If the piranha had no understanding of social morals then it would be unable to differentiate between attacking like and dislike.

The Piranha has some innate moral standard, evolved as a social animal, that tells it not to attack it's own kind.

Presumably Piranhas act instinctively.

Yes, it is considered Moral by some and Immoral by others - thus Subjective.

Not Subjective, some people are simply wrong (i.e. twisting morals).

I HAVE demonstrated a change in morals - thus showing morals are subjective, and i can demonstrate a change in morals on many more issues, from gay rights to murder to rape and torture - all of these morals have changed over time and are still disagreed upon by many people - the morals are different from place to place and time to time - that is completely subjective.

No you haven't, you've only claimed to have. If you wish to attempt it again with different issues be my guest.

Yes, it is obvious - If members of a social group begin to kill each other over their issues then the society cannot function! It may be true that selective murder is a way to a genetically superior society but the concept is so fucked up, so completely immoral, that anyone who claims such an idea is a good idea is a sick freak, also another example of subjective morality.

And we come back to a consensus from society (democracy) for your last point, the idea of being social animals is that the opinion of the majority of the society is used to determine an ultimate moral standard, so in the case of the genetically selective murderers disagreeing with me, well they also disagree with democratic consensus and social morality still works!

You believe that nothing is "so completely immoral" the second you deny objective morality. Mob rule is the way to go you think? What if the majority supports (duped if necessary by someone influential) selective murder? Is this just another example of, as you say, social morality working?

Yes they do, and we consider such corruption as what? IMMORAL... If an action is committed that goes against the moral opinion of a society then it is immoral. Society sets moral standards as law and breaking the law regarding a moral issue is covered.

That is absurd and fallacious - you are considering what is true/best/right to be determinable by what is popular alone. You would describe those in Germany who opposed the popular Nazi movement as IMMORAL?

The system you support is unstable and dangerous - and could morph into anything (like Nazi Germany).

[theVOID]

If the Piranha is amoral due to a lack of rationality then explain their ability to decide not to attack each other when they will instantly go after a non-piranha. If the piranha had no understanding of social morals then it would be unable to differentiate between attacking like and dislike.

The Piranha has some innate moral standard, evolved as a social animal, that tells it not to attack it's own kind.

Presumably Piranhas act instinctively.

Yes, through innate social morality, a product of natural selection.

Yes, it is considered Moral by some and Immoral by others - thus Subjective.

Not Subjective, some people are simply wrong (i.e. twisting morals).

Not the case, for example Euthanasia or Abortions - Neither are twisted morals, both are legitimate moral disagreements and again - this is subjective morality.

I HAVE demonstrated a change in morals - thus showing morals are subjective, and i can demonstrate a change in morals on many more issues, from gay rights to murder to rape and torture - all of these morals have changed over time and are still disagreed upon by many people - the morals are different from place to place and time to time - that is completely subjective.

No you haven't, you've only claimed to have. If you wish to attempt it again with different issues be my guest.

Do you want to explain why you disagree rather than just stating it?

Take the Euthanasia issue again - both are valid moral stand points, neither one is inherently wrong.

Yes, it is obvious - If members of a social group begin to kill each other over their issues then the society cannot function! It may be true that selective murder is a way to a genetically superior society but the concept is so fucked up, so completely immoral, that anyone who claims such an idea is a good idea is a sick freak, also another example of subjective morality.

And we come back to a consensus from society (democracy) for your last point, the idea of being social animals is that the opinion of the majority of the society is used to determine an ultimate moral standard, so in the case of the genetically selective murderers disagreeing with me, well they also disagree with democratic consensus and social morality still works!

You believe that nothing is "so completely immoral" the second you deny objective morality. Mob rule is the way to go you think? What if the majority supports (duped if necessary by someone influential) selective murder? Is this just another example of, as you say, social morality working?

I personally find certain things completely immoral, but that does not mean that everyone does or that it was always the case. For example i find slavery to be a completely immoral action yet not long ago western civilization found it to be perfectly acceptable.

Yes they do, and we consider such corruption as what? IMMORAL... If an action is committed that goes against the moral opinion of a society then it is immoral. Society sets moral standards as law and breaking the law regarding a moral issue is covered.

That is absurd and fallacious - you are considering what is true/best/right to be determinable by what is popular alone. You would describe those in Germany who opposed the popular Nazi movement as IMMORAL?

I would consider the actions taken by Nazi troops to be immoral, namely the genocide, but for them it was not immoral because they did not see the Jews as fully human. Again, this is something i find completely disgusting, but at one time a certain society (or at least the dictatorship - something else i am completely against) deemed it acceptable, just as slavery was once acceptable. This is subjective morality.

The system you support is unstable and dangerous - and could morph into anything (like Nazi Germany).

Yes, at the very worst it could become horrific - but this is a reality we live with, and something that has happened before, the best we can do is improve our moral standards and enforce them strictly. We can guarantee the fundamental individual freedoms for all and enforce them. This is something that is still an issue worldwide with gay rights - They are being treated as less than human, largely by the very group who claim the existence of an objective morality. Again, i see discrimination against such a group to be immoral - but not everyone agrees. This again is subjective morality, passed into law via consensus. Here in NZ their rights are completely equal (apart from the terminology marriage) but in the US these rights are still restricted by a different social consensus in many states.

This is all subjective morality.

[ecolox]

If the Piranha is amoral due to a lack of rationality then explain their ability to decide not to attack each other when they will instantly go after a non-piranha. If the piranha had no understanding of social morals then it would be unable to differentiate between attacking like and dislike.

The Piranha has some innate moral standard, evolved as a social animal, that tells it not to attack it's own kind.

Presumably Piranhas act instinctively.

Yes, through innate social morality, a product of natural selection.

You may as well say Piranha's are innately rational. You also failed to acknowledge that Piranhas don't act by choice. Their instinctual action is like a reflex. It's like breathing, not like moral choice.

Yes, it is considered Moral by some and Immoral by others - thus Subjective.

Not Subjective, some people are simply wrong (i.e. twisting morals).

Not the case, for example Euthanasia or Abortions - Neither are twisted morals, both are legitimate moral disagreements and again - this is subjective morality.

What you call legitimate I call illegitimate. You say I'm right, and I say you're wrong. Now I suppose we better talk to other people to have our opinions voted into law.

I HAVE demonstrated a change in morals - thus showing morals are subjective, and i can demonstrate a change in morals on many more issues, from gay rights to murder to rape and torture - all of these morals have changed over time and are still disagreed upon by many people - the morals are different from place to place and time to time - that is completely subjective.

No you haven't, you've only claimed to have. If you wish to attempt it again with different issues be my guest.

Do you want to explain why you disagree rather than just stating it?

Take the Euthanasia issue again - both are valid moral stand points, neither one is inherently wrong.

Stating that euthanasia is fine is not explaining how it's fine.
I have already explained why I disagree, but you ignored it. I stated that you described a shift in public opinion - an appeal to popularity to prove that morality has changed - thus subjective, all the while ignoring the real moral standard. There's no need to go round and round, just demonstrate that this isn't just a shift in public opinion I guess.

Yes, it is obvious - If members of a social group begin to kill each other over their issues then the society cannot function! It may be true that selective murder is a way to a genetically superior society but the concept is so fucked up, so completely immoral, that anyone who claims such an idea is a good idea is a sick freak, also another example of subjective morality.

And we come back to a consensus from society (democracy) for your last point, the idea of being social animals is that the opinion of the majority of the society is used to determine an ultimate moral standard, so in the case of the genetically selective murderers disagreeing with me, well they also disagree with democratic consensus and social morality still works!

You believe that nothing is "so completely immoral" the second you deny objective morality. Mob rule is the way to go you think? What if the majority supports (duped if necessary by someone influential) selective murder? Is this just another example of, as you say, social morality working?

I personally find certain things completely immoral, but that does not mean that everyone does or that it was always the case. For example i find slavery to be a completely immoral action yet not long ago western civilization found it to be perfectly acceptable.

I imagine that you personally would be barred from telling anyone that they were wrong about any moral choice they made. You would have the understanding that what they did was right in their own mind, and that's as right as right can be. Calling upon popular opinion to back you would merely be a fallacy to them. How do you tackle that issue?

Yes they do, and we consider such corruption as what? IMMORAL... If an action is committed that goes against the moral opinion of a society then it is immoral. Society sets moral standards as law and breaking the law regarding a moral issue is covered.

That is absurd and fallacious - you are considering what is true/best/right to be determinable by what is popular alone. You would describe those in Germany who opposed the popular Nazi movement as IMMORAL?

I would consider the actions taken by Nazi troops to be immoral, namely the genocide, but for them it was not immoral because they did not see the Jews as fully human. Again, this is something i find completely disgusting, but at one time a certain society (or at least the dictatorship - something else i am completely against) deemed it acceptable, just as slavery was once acceptable. This is subjective morality.

Saying this is subjective morality doesn't make it so. Saying that some people think one way and you think another doesn't make morality subjective either. You can say it over and over until your blue in the face, but that's all you'll have achieved - a blue face. Relying on a majority is insane. What about the minority - what isn't popular but could be better for society on the whole. You have only mentioned the importance of popular opinion, failing to highlight the importance of the minority (Jews)! This is "might makes right" - the strong (those in number) rule the weak - the "tyranny of the majority". If this doesn't concern you at all on its face I don't know that I can say anything.

The system you support is unstable and dangerous - and could morph into anything (like Nazi Germany).

Yes, at the very worst it could become horrific - but this is a reality we live with, and something that has happened before, the best we can do is improve our moral standards and enforce them strictly. We can guarantee the fundamental individual freedoms for all and enforce them. This is something that is still an issue worldwide with gay rights - They are being treated as less than human, largely by the very group who claim the existence of an objective morality. Again, i see discrimination against such a group to be immoral - but not everyone agrees. This again is subjective morality, passed into law via consensus. Here in NZ their rights are completely equal (apart from the terminology marriage) but in the US these rights are still restricted by a different social consensus in many states.

This is all subjective morality.

I disagree with gay marriage. If you allow them though, marriage is shot to shit. And to be fair, I think you have to allow several more unions with the same benefits - or eliminate all the supposed "rights" (privileges) that traditional family cores have been granted in the past. The other unions may include, but are not limited to: polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, two or more friends (non-sexual marriages), and maybe even bestial marriages and somehow necrophilia (if disease is avoided/protected-against. There should probably also be some measure to assist in dynamic marriages - the current system is surely too slow.

The only thing subjective about all of this is your unfounded insistence. Why you think this facet of reality is, at most, only an individual conception is beyond me. You disregard the notion that things in this world might work in a particular way when it comes to the way humans behave and treat each other. I also disagree with "majority rules, minority drools" as a means for implementing this system - enforceable upon all people within a society, even those who disagree.
If you considered this logically enforceable then you have committed "Argumentum ad populum" - if many believe so, it is so. If you avoid that fallacy you have no basis for enforcing your (and your pals) morality upon the minority who disagrees with you - creating an opportunity for who knows what.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're really dedicated to repetition and hot air. Summary response:
Morality, really, is tied to a type (or types) of growth within humans (e.g. motivational; if I treat people morally I boost their spirits). There is a real way to encourage this growth, even though humans are complex (some confused) and a true way may seem difficult to imagine (with so many possible circumstances).

Okay, yes...morality is within humans. Partly innate and partly cultural. All moral values differ from person to person and are subjective. So where is your evidence for objective morality then? For objective moral values?

It's absurd to think that there isn't a real way to treat yourself and people - even if some people are different or even corrupted.

Show me that there is any 'real' way, that isn't your own subjective opinion, whether I agree with it or not. Show me that morality is anything more than subjective.

To say morality is subjective is to say that it is meaningless.

In your own subjective opinion. To me at least, subjective morality is certainly meaningful . To me it matters the fact that I emphasize and care about people, and I can only do this through myself. Morality is subjective, but the fact is I care...and it so happens that the fact is that whether others care or not, and how much they care, varies - it's a subjective matter, and also subjective in what people believe these moral values to be. It's subjective...can you give me any evidence of any objective moral values? That can be shown to objectively exist in reality, and not just within peoples' own subjective values? Can you give me any evidence for any absolute moral values?

It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better (vanilla or chocolate).

I take it you obviously don't like the idea of morality being subjective. But that is, once again, your own personal subjective opinion: It doesn't change whether it is subjective or not...

It is certainly extremely common to think murder is wrong, but it's not absolute. There are people who don't agree with that, there are, unfortunately, people in this world who don't think murder is wrong. Have you got any evidence that what they believe is objectively immoral? No, you've going by your own belief and by the fact so many others think murder is wrong, and thinking that means that this is a subjective issue. But it's not a matter of logic, of objectivity - Whether murder is moral or immoral is an opinion, it is merely common to consider it wrong.

I am one of the people who think that murder is wrong of course, thank fuck. And because I think it's wrong, I am of course glad that I'm not one of the fewer people who thinks it's okay. But because of this could I say that it's objectively immoral to murder? Objectively? No, not objectively. It's still my own subjective belief that murder is wrong, however strong I believe it, and however common that belief is. It's still a matter of subjectivity - it cannot be logically demonstrated to be wrong.

...But that doesn't change the fact that I of course do think that murder is wrong, and that I do care about moral matters, and I value my own views. I do have feelings and empathy, so I have my own views on these matters of course. I can still - and do - care deeply.

That doesn't make sense and it disallows you from calling the murderer wrong, but most importantly it disallows other people from telling you that you're wrong.

No it doesn't. What the fuck? Of course it doesn't. Sorry, but how on earth does the fact that morality is subjective, and that therefore, my own beliefs on what is moral and immoral, is subjective - make my morality therefore not count? No one can logically argue that they know what's moral or not, that's less of a reasonable position than arguing maturely anyway. I'm not going to claim I absolutely know what I cannot, but how does the fact that my beliefs about morality are, of course, subjective (that's why they're my beliefs): Mean that I can't call a murderer wrong? I'll happily express that I think murdering is wrong! There is nothing 'disallowing' me...just as there would be nothing disallowing me claiming absolute knowledge that it is wrong, it's just that that would be insane in my view, because there's no way I can possibly have absolute knowledge about such things.

How does it stop other people telling me that I'm wrong? They can tell me what they like! We all have our own subjective views about morality, as I've said. That's an obvious fact: That we each have our own views about morality, which makes them subjective. Now...is there any evidence that there are objective morals that these subjective views can subscribe to? Not that I know of.

Know of any evidence for objective morals or not? Or are you just going to continue arguing from the position that my view that morality is subjective, offends you? Are you going to attack my argument by suggesting that it somehow isn't true morality if it's subjective, or are you actually going to defend your position by providing evidence for objective moral values?

Because you can whine all you want about how you don't like it, but if morality isn't objective then the fact you don't like that doesn't change the reality one bit. If it means to you that there is no "true morality", if, to you, purely subjective morality is "Not morality" then that doesn't change the fact that it is subjective...but the fact is, there are people who care, people feel empathy, we have feelings: If the fact that this cannot be objectively proven to be "true morality" is bleak to you, then that's your problem - coming from your own subjective views on morality - and doesn't change the reality of the matter.

EvF

---

Unless you've heard Solarwave himself posit that God is "a truly 100% benevolent all-loving" being, you are still asking him to answer for a foreign belief.

If it's too big of an assumption then I shouldn't ask him that. But I'm not sure if is, since when I have brought it up he hasn't denied it, and since most people I come across who at least claim to be Christian seem to have this view, in my experience, then I don't think it's exactly a bit assumption. And it's pretty hard to have a discussion without making any assumptions. And furthermore: My assumption was not deliberate. I apologize if it turns out to be incorrect, or is somehow shown to be a big one.

But if he really denies this, then I'll find out.

[...]But it is very faulty reasoning to base the conclusion that Christianity teaches X simply on the fact that Smith asserted X (i.e., the belief may have come from somewhere else).

I'm not saying that it's what Christianity teaches. I'm interested in what he believes irrespective of if it's what Christianity "truly" teaches or not.

If you want to ask Solarwave about his beliefs, make sure your question involves beliefs that Solarwave himself asserts.

I'm asking questions, whatever questions I feel appropriate. I choose the questions for I am the questioner, I am doing my best. So long as I don't commit the loaded question fallacy I don't see what's wrong with asking questions? Questions are questions, if he doesn't like the question, he can answer me clarifying that.

Just because some people you talked to who professed to be Christians asserted a particular belief, that does not by itself mean the belief is Christian. A belief is Christian only when it is something Christianity teaches.

Once again, see above. I know that, I never said that if he claims to be Christian then whatever he believes=Christianity. I'm interested in what he believes irrespective of if his beliefs are genuinely what Christianity teaches.

Nowhere. You avoided the contradiction by your horrifically indefensible delusion that normative ethics do not even exist.

Did I ever said that ethics don't exist? No. I am saying that morality is subjective, there is no evidence for objective moral values, that can be logically argued to be "Moral" or "immoral". Well none that I know of anyway. That's what I'm saying.

Of course systems of ethics exist culturally. Subjective morality has a general consensus through cultural, but it cannot be logically defended to be "objective", you could not say that murder is objectively more immoral than eating an orange. It's not a provable matter, it is simply a fact that most people do, of course, consider murder to be more immoral. That is still a subjective matter.

Morality is partly innate, and partly cultural. But how is this an objective matter?

It doesn't mean we can't all, of course, have strong opinions about the matter. It just means that no one can claim absolute knowledge over what is or isn't moral, claiming to have an objective understanding over the matter. At least not as far as I know, have you got any evidence?

Can you explain to me how "subjectively speaking" can manage to say anything "objectively speaking"?

I don't understand this sentence, sorry. How can the two words: "Subjectively speaking", say anything at all? I don't understand what you mean about how can they say anything "objectively speaking?"

If you are asking how anyone, with their own subjective views, can speak objectively about something...

...Well, speaking objectively is simply when a person is speaking from a logical basis, when they have evidence for the position they are arguing from, for instance.

And how can you say that objective morals exist, without evidence that they do? If you had evidence for them, then you would be speaking from and objective position when you claimed that they do. But until you have evidence for that claim, that morals are objective - or that they even can be: Then we only have evidence for the fact that there are only subjective views on the matter. Until there's evidence for objective morals, no one can speak truly objectively on moral issues.

Morality ... only exists as an idea in the minds of people. What one person believes to be good is not the same as what another views it to be.

The second sentence does not evidentially support the first sentence; i.e., competing views about X do not prove that X has no objective reality.

No, but why are you reversing the burden of proof? I'm not trying to prove that morals aren't objective, I'm simply going from the basis that there's no evidence that they are, so why believe that there are any objective morals? As always, my evidential argument is probabilistic. I'm not trying to commit the negative proof fallacy here, I'm not trying to prove the non-existence of objective morals! I don't need to, I simply have no reason to believe they exist because I know of no evidence for them. I don't have to know absolutely that they don't exist!

Trying to use an epistemological argument to reach an ontological conclusion is horribly flawed reasoning by several orders of magnitude.

You speak of me making assumptions up above, by me assuming that Solarwave believes that "God" is omni-benevolent, and then you make the assumption - as you have done before I think - that because I am arguing against objective morality then I am somehow claiming that it absolutely doesn't exist! Why do you assume I'm trying to commit the negative proof fallacy - whether unwittingly or not of course - I am making a probabilistic argument here and arguing from the basis that the burden of proof is on you! And I'm not committing argument from ignorance either! The fact I don't know of any reason to believe in objective morals, doesn't mean I'm saying that it absolutely doesn't exist! When did I ever say that? What do you take me for? Do you genuinely think I'm that ignorant, despite the fact I've had to argue against this accusation - at least implicitly - of absolutism before, or are you being disingenuous?

Sorry, but seriously. When did I ever commit such a fallacy? When did I claim to know objective morality exists? You talk about me needing to be more explicit and make less assumptions, and talk about hypocrisy! (That is... in my own subjective opinion this seems like hypocrisy...)

Moreover, pointing out that two people have competing views about X has no relevance to evaluating the truth value of either.

Of course it doesn't, what is your point?

Remember, "morality has no objective reality" is a conclusion to be proved, not assumed.

It's a conclusion to be proved only if that claim was an absolutist one! I'm not claiming to know it absolutely doesn't exist! Of course not, that would be completely ridiculous and a fallacy in itself, you can't prove a negative. I never said I was being absolutist, do you think I'm more likely to be being absolutist and make such a fallacy than not? And why make such an assumption? Especially considering you seem to criticize me whenever I make one?

I'm just talking about what I do or don't believe. I don't morality is objective, I believe it probably has no objective morality, because I know of no evidence that it does. I'm not trying to prove a negative here....

And if I were making such a claim - and of course I'm not, it's a fallacy - you still also have to provide evidence for your claim that morality is objective. So even if I was being fallacious, hypothetically speaking, the burden isn't all on me.

On;y Such a conclusion is true under your view but it is false under my view. So which view is true?

Well I know of no evidence of objective morals, I just know of the fact that people subjectively have different views on the matter. So once you provide evidence for your view, only then will I agree with your view and belief it's true

Does assuming the truth of your view serve as a valid refutation of mine?

No, of course not. And did I say any such thing? No. Ooh the irony - you sure like your assumptions Why do you assume that what I say implies that I am making such obviously pathetic arguments?

Generally speaking, mankind intuitively experiences and expresses an objectively real morality (e.g., we say things like "rape is wrong").

How is that objective? How is the fact that it is hugely common to believe rape is wrong, mean that it is objectively? How can you logically say that it's objective? Can you go up to someone who believes in isn't wrong, and give him an objective argument about how it's wrong? Really? I don't think so, it's wrong because we believe it is, because it's a matter of feelings, emotions, empathy, not logic. This is not an objectively defensible position.

If you can genuinely provide any evidence of objective morals then I shall change my view.

We have your view, which explains the existence of competing views but cannot explain objective morality and therefore denies it; and we have my view, which likewise explains the existence of competing views but also explains objective morality.

Well let's hear your view please! Sorry, I don't know whether you posted it to others on this thread - because if you have I haven't read - because I haven't seen you post them to me in these arguments. Or, you could have quite easily posted them but I have forgotten them.

But whether you have posted these views or not, I certainly don't remember ever seeing you provide any evidence for objective morals.

Which one better accounts for the intuitive experiences and expressions of general mankind?

Well, the fact that they are intuitive indicates the subjective one could, perhaps, say...

Intuition is when you have a subjective sense, right? Now it may have objective morals on top of that, but I shall only believe it when you evidence it.

What is generally considered moral is due to what society on the whole tends to believe is.

So you would have to think that reformers such as William Wilberforce and Susan Anthony were immoral people because, for example, society on the whole upheld the slave trade and believed women were inferior, which were actually moral positions.

No, because I'm not 'society as a whole'. Nor does anything mean I 'would have to think' X as you say. I believe what I believe is or isn't moral or immoral. I said what is generally considered moral is due to what society on the whole tends to believe in. I'm not speaking of myself, that statement should stand alone, I don't know where you are going with such bizarre assumptions that it means I believe that what society believes is right or wrong is what somehow I have to believe is right or wrong.

If majority means right, then they were wrong. Nicely done.

(I think I detect the Sarcasm there since you argued against me and then said "nicely done?") More like stupidly argued on your part. The fact that I am speaking of what is generally considered to be moral due to what society on the whole....tends to believe...

...does not imply that I am suggesting that I have to believe that what society as a whole believes is moral is moral, and it also does not imply that 'I would have to think' that way. What I think about morality is what I think, by definition! I do not 'have to think' that what society as a whole thinks is moral is moral, simply because I made a statement about what generally is considered to be moral by society as a whole in my opinion.

In other words, you think rape is not wrong. And if most people disagree with you, then you think this position of yours is immoral.

Actually I think this is a case of you jumping to ridiculous conclusions...

1. I of course, never said that rape is not wrong. I think it is highly immoral.

2. The fact that I think morality is subjective doesn't mean I don't think rape is wrong...I have a subjective belief, and that subjective belief is...that I think it's wrong! Where is your logic in this above quote?!

3. What has whether people agree or disagree with me or not got to do with anything? We are discussing whether morality is objective or not here. I don't see how this is relevant! I of course think rape is wrong irrespective of whether people agree with me or not!

EvF

[ecolox]

...it is hugely common to believe rape is wrong...Can you go up to someone who believes in isn't wrong, and give him an objective argument about how it's wrong? Really? I don't think so...

Call out 'Mad-Dog' to rape the guy in question, and anyone who disagrees for that matter.

Can you give me any evidence for any absolute moral values?

Probably not. But subjective morality is logically unfounded by your own admission - it's only an individual's creation, unsubject to logical confirmation. You hinge its importance [to you] on the fact that "you care", since there is no logical precedent. This is all meaningless.

...[murder] cannot be logically demonstrated to be wrong.

Or right?

[chatpilot]

In my view society dictates what is wrong or right and gods are not needed to determine these matters. This is evident in primitive societies where for example cannibalism was common, some warrior tribes used to believe that if they ate the hearts of their enemies that they would obtain their powers of courage and even attributes such as ferocity etc. In a modern day society such as ours this is appalling and considered taboo and psychotic behavior.

As man began to grow in knowledge they began to dispel the myths and legends surrounding their cultures religious and mythological beliefs. As a direct result man became what we might consider today civilized, and his rules of conduct began to change in accordance to the changes evident in his society. Morality is man made and not god revealed.

[Edwardo Piet]

Call out 'Mad-Dog' to rape the guy in question, and anyone who disagrees for that matter.

What are you talking about? What you quoted that you responded to, was me saying that you can't make an objective argument against a rapist, you can't show that it is objectively wrong by logic. So are you going to rebut that? Because I don't see how you have.

I obviously think rape is wrong, as most people do. And I have subjective arguments starting from the basis of my empathy and the fact I care about others, the fact I think suffering is wrong, etc...I just feel - naturally - that rape is extremely immoral. But are you going to respond to my point that this cannot be objectively argued?

Because you'd have to start with the assumption that any of these things are wrong, you can't objectively argue them.

Can you give me any evidence for any absolute moral values?

Probably not. But subjective morality is logically unfounded by your own admission - it's only an individual's creation, unsubject to logical confirmation.

So? How is that unfounded? It's a fact that we all have our own moral views. That's the subjective fact. Without any evidence that there are any objective moral values, your just left with my start point with the simple fact that we all have our won views on morality - the fact of subjective morality.

You hinge its importance [to you] on the fact that "you care", since there is no logical precedent.

Indeed, there isn't.

This is all meaningless.

In your own subjective opinion. And I don't believe there's any objective meaning to it, no.

Okay, so what's happened here? You've argued against the fact that you admit you "probably" don't have any evidence for objective morals, by telling me that if morals are only subjective then that's "meaningless", well sorry, that's irrelevant. That's a non-sequitur, it does not follow that because you - personally, subjectively - or anyone else for that matter; think that it's "meaningless" that it therefore isn't true. The fact you don't like the idea of subjective morality doesn't change the reality of it. And, on the other hand, you yourself have admitted you probably have no evidence for objective morals. So it's your view that lacks support. My view that morality is subjective is merely the fact we all have views on morality, you are the one lacking evidence: The burden of proof is on you.

You can call subjective morality "meaningless" all you want: But that doesn't change the matter of whether it's true or not.

...[murder] cannot be logically demonstrated to be wrong.

Or right?

Have you got any evidence that it can? It can only be shown once you start with the basic assumptions that we make, like suffering is wrong, cruelness is wrong, etc. When we start with basic moral assumptions. They themselves are just assumptions and cannot be logically demonstrated insofar as I can tell.

Do you have any evidence, out from the outset, without any assumptions, of any objective morality? Because all these assumptions are made by people, subjectively. Ultimately all we have evidence of is the fact we all have different moral views - which is subjective morality - right?

Yes, without assumptions, how exactly can murder be logically shown to be objectively wrong? Ultimately it's a subjective matter, right?

You can whine all you want and call it "meaningless", 'not true morality' or even 'immoral', but that won't change the reality of the matter.

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Or right?

The morality of murder has always been argued by the simple expedient of changing the definition:


It continues to this day. When the State commits murder it's called 'capital punishment' or 'war'.
The Americans even invented a new euphemism for murder within war; 'collateral damage' .

Muslim terrorists have no trouble morally justifying the murders they commit:Simple;they're not murder.

The Torah is replete with examples of murder encouraged and commanded by YHWH.My favourite is the massacre of the inhabitants who happened to be living in Canaan when the chosen people turned up,after having been lost for 40 years.

I would love to hear an example of an a moral absolute. Up to about 5 years ago, I simply accepted there were such things.Then a friend challenged me to name one. I could not,and have not been able to think of one..

[Edwardo Piet]

Exactly, Ecolox can dislike my position that all matters of morality/immorality are subjecte, by questioning in disbelief like "Oh right?" Etc, but that gets him no where since he hasn't supported his position.

If he can genuinely provide evidence for any moral absolutes then I shall change my position. Untill then we've got the obvious fact that different people have different views on the subject: Which is subjective morality. And no matter how much he dislikes that, that has no effect on the reality of the matter.

EvF