RE: Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.
July 22, 2014 at 9:44 am
(This post was last modified: July 22, 2014 at 10:19 am by SteveII.)
(July 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Tonus Wrote:(July 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: Would you say these are all "wrong" or would you say that they are subjective depending on the circumstances or your culture?I'm curious- would you say that each of those is objectively wrong or immoral?
Yes
(July 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm)rasetsu Wrote:(July 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: We DO perceive that objective moral values and duties exist. Why would we not trust this perception? We perceive myriads of other things and trust those perceptions.
We perceive that the earth is flat, but we know that perception is an illusion. Perception alone is seldom truly reliable.
I don't believe in objective morality, but neither am I a moral relativist. Biology and culture conspire to create moral sensations which, because they are intuitive, can't be easily reasoned about. That's why they appear objective.
Is there one "master list" of acceptable values? What about biology can create an intuitive moral code? Which culture conspired to create moral sensations?
(July 21, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:(July 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Biology and culture conspire to create moral sensations which, because they are intuitive, can't be easily reasoned about. That's why they appear objective.
That's a good way of describing it.
What makes, as an example, 'Biblical morals' rather pointless is that all of the morals touted by the Bible which have any real social or personal value are morals which are mostly ubiquitous anyway. Take those out, and you're just left with meaningless bullshit like "keep holy the Sabbath".
I did not bring up the Bible as the giver of moral values. Leave it out. The discussion is are there objective moral values and duties or are they relative?
@Esquilax
Was slavery ever "right"? People through the ages thought they had a justifiable position (inferior races, conquered people groups, parents raising money). List anything else you want that was permissible and common at one point that we would find extremely objectionable now. Was it right or wrong then?
It sounds to me like you believe in objective moral values but are unwilling to call them objective because you would have to then ascribe a source for them.
(July 21, 2014 at 10:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:A list of things that are not universally understood to be wrong:
I asked you for a list of your "objective values," bozo. Are you incapable of answering a simple question? You are asserting that these exist. What are they?
I tried to phrase that using simple words so you can understand them.
I don't have to make a list. You already know what they are because they are imprinted on every rational (and otherwise mentally undamaged) human. Unless you are damaged in which case I could try to come up with a list.