(December 8, 2017 at 1:56 am)Grandizer Wrote:(December 8, 2017 at 12:19 am)wallym Wrote: 1) I'm an atheist. You're an atheist. Why do you keep bringing up what religious people think? It's like tourettes with you people on here.
2) The discussion is about whether humans being harmed is objectively immoral. Which is tricky, because you're going to have a hard time pulling up morality in the lab. So right of the bat, if you are a believer in science and 'show me proof', objective morality probably isn't for you. But it sounds like you're just getting into this stuff. I think you'll find that most people here think objective morality is dopey idea. You just caught a bad break that the person you were taking the side of held such a lousy opinion.
1. Yes, you're an atheist. The implicit "you" was rhetorical.
2. To be accurate, I'm just getting into the philosophical stuff regarding morality and ethics. It does not mean I never did any reading or thinking regarding morality. It's just that most of the time I've pondered morality was with respect to the claims theists made themselves. Not too long ago, I was an avid moral subjectivist due to my ignorance of what academic philosophers had to say in the field of ethics. But for a while now, I've been wary of adhering strictly to moral subjectivity and now consider myself to be an agnostic regarding the question of whether morality is purely subjective. I see the points made by Khemikal and Tizheruk, but I have to have time to think about these matters. At this point, I see no problem with objective morality being possible in the absence of God, but what is the best system to have is the other question I have been pondering about myself. It's certainly not the theistic system, which is (as I keep saying) practically useless. So yeah, that's basically my stance right now with regards to morality. I am way more into metaphysics than I am into ethics, though.
1) I understand you weren't directing it at me. But you and I were the ones exchanging posts. So it's a bit of a non-sequitur to address christian beliefs again, in a discussion you and I are having that has nothing to do with christian beliefs. Talking about christians, for the most part, isn't that exciting. But here we have atheism, where we've got all these different opinions on how people should live their lives and there's substantial disagreements on the nature of a godless world, and you're still hung up on the God stuff. You're an atheist. You've made the call on their pitch. It's time to move on. Don't be one of these losers who just follows around the 5 theists and says "Nuh-uh" after every post, and that's the extent of their philosophical endeavors.
2) The thing with objectivity, is that it's premises also have to be objective. An objective conclusion based on a subjective premise is subjective. That's where people are going to try and slip one by you.