RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
June 25, 2017 at 10:35 pm
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2017 at 10:40 pm by Astonished.)
Like talking to a child, I swear.
You challenged my assertion that there were objective statements about humanity having a sense of self-preservation and instincts to that effect. My hyperbolic example had the desired effect of getting you to admit that it held water. You have a hard time separating objective facts from objective concepts, which is the problem here, I think. The PRINCIPLE of wanting to maximize well-being and minimize suffering is an objective metric we can strive for but MORALITY is based on the actions we take that either have a net positive or net negative (or potentially zero) impact. You can change the PRINCIPLE to be whatever the fuck you want, your actions will still be consistently the same but the consequences will be different depending on what principle you're trying to make a positive or negative impact on. But I reject all principles to define morality other than well-being and will not discuss any others unless they can prove themselves to be better and so far none have ever been proposed. The framework of well-being is easily defined and doesn't allow for extraneous crap like the well-being of our imaginary friends.
Don't bullshit me about your objective moral propositions having nothing to do with religion, religious morality, or beliefs revolving around that, the fact that I have repeatedly debunked the notion of there being any objective morality (in a religions context or otherwise; but why would anyone bother arguing it outside of a religious context anyway? Unless they wanted to look stupid for the attention) over and over in this thread alone shows me that you're either failing to comprehend something very simple or just being obstinate.
Well-being is grounded in objectively determined, empirical evidence, so as I have said, religious belief belongs nowhere near that whether or not it pretends to give a fuck about maximizing well-being and minimizing harm (while simultaneously promoting slavery and denouncing free thought and rationality.) Religion needs to stop being allowed to elbow itself into the table of good ideas and pretend it's not completely out of place there.
You challenged my assertion that there were objective statements about humanity having a sense of self-preservation and instincts to that effect. My hyperbolic example had the desired effect of getting you to admit that it held water. You have a hard time separating objective facts from objective concepts, which is the problem here, I think. The PRINCIPLE of wanting to maximize well-being and minimize suffering is an objective metric we can strive for but MORALITY is based on the actions we take that either have a net positive or net negative (or potentially zero) impact. You can change the PRINCIPLE to be whatever the fuck you want, your actions will still be consistently the same but the consequences will be different depending on what principle you're trying to make a positive or negative impact on. But I reject all principles to define morality other than well-being and will not discuss any others unless they can prove themselves to be better and so far none have ever been proposed. The framework of well-being is easily defined and doesn't allow for extraneous crap like the well-being of our imaginary friends.
Don't bullshit me about your objective moral propositions having nothing to do with religion, religious morality, or beliefs revolving around that, the fact that I have repeatedly debunked the notion of there being any objective morality (in a religions context or otherwise; but why would anyone bother arguing it outside of a religious context anyway? Unless they wanted to look stupid for the attention) over and over in this thread alone shows me that you're either failing to comprehend something very simple or just being obstinate.
Well-being is grounded in objectively determined, empirical evidence, so as I have said, religious belief belongs nowhere near that whether or not it pretends to give a fuck about maximizing well-being and minimizing harm (while simultaneously promoting slavery and denouncing free thought and rationality.) Religion needs to stop being allowed to elbow itself into the table of good ideas and pretend it's not completely out of place there.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.