what should i even say?

[Jacob(smooth)]

The trick with objective / subjective morality is that it gets you coming and going. If you make the case for subjective morality (which is fine), one cannot then make the case that the bible is objectively immoral, merely immoral by standards.

Wait, how is that coming and going? Can't I argue for an objective morality that's godless and come out okay?

Sure you can! But as you know my next question will be what is your basis and or criteria for your objective morality?

[Esquilax]

Sure you can! But as you know my next question will be what is your basis and or criteria for your objective morality?

The objective reality that we share, and our nature in it as biological agents. There are a set of baseline facts that we can know for objective certainty; if my pain reaction is triggered, this is generally due to an objective physical harm being done to my person. Therefore, generally speaking, pain and harm are immoral, because they're unpleasant and harmful. Life is preferable to death because, well, we've got this one confirmable life, and more importantly those that think otherwise aren't around to inform us about whether their way is better.

And we can keep going along that line, defining those things that are beneficial or harmful for us, and using those general rules to construct an objective morality that is subject to change and improvement as we learn more.

Objective standards are really quite trivial to come across, in that sense.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Couple of problems I have with that.
One, there are a shit load of "generally speakings" in there. Pain is too general a concept to be considered as moral or immoral. Pain simply is. If I have a migraine it's not immoral.
The act of inflicting pain is closer, but even then the complications are Legion. What of People like a good spanking? Or when I stick an inch or so of needle into someone's ankle?
So perhaps we should make our objective standard harm rather than pain. But again we run into difficulties. If stab you in they eye is that immoral? Not if you are trying to do the same to me?

I'm not sure baseline facts we know for certainty is a fair way to describe concepts like harm or pain, there are too many riders and amendments necessary to make them the determinant factors.

Even life or death is a bit hazy. What of taking one life to save another? Or, and here's the fun bit, what of perspective. If I tell you that ending one life will save two, is it moral to take that life? What if the one life is an elderly terminally I'll patient and the two lives saved are kids in need of transplants?

To me an objective moral code needs to be applicable in all circumstances and by all people. Can you give me such a code?

[pocaracas]

To me an objective moral code needs to be applicable in all circumstances and by all people. Can you give me such a code?

All people on the planet?
It would have to be a fairly complex code, wouldn't you think?
To account for the morality of insane people and all....

Can you give me such a code?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Nope. But I'm not making a case for a godless objective morality, Esquilax is

[Esquilax]

Couple of problems I have with that.
One, there are a shit load of "generally speakings" in there. Pain is too general a concept to be considered as moral or immoral. Pain simply is. If I have a migraine it's not immoral.

Of course there's going to be some generalities in there, because life is too complex to make broad based declarative statements about; one can always refine these things further.

The act of inflicting pain is closer, but even then the complications are Legion. What of People like a good spanking? Or when I stick an inch or so of needle into someone's ankle?

Like here, for example: I could winnow this contention down further by talking about inflicting pain without consent, which removes the bdsm crew from being put under the immoral umbrella, but then of course you could bring up the example of, say, parents immunizing their children, where that pain is nonconsensual. I'd then need to clarify further, noting that the potential benefit for the person experiencing that pain outweighs the pain itself, and that parents can decide in the best interests of their offspring...

This is a big issue, and not always a simple one. We're talking about a moral system with an objective foundation, not a complete moral system handed down from an objective source. The latter is probably impossible, anyway; even a god given source isn't objective, it's just subjective to what some have determined to be a higher standard.

So perhaps we should make our objective standard harm rather than pain. But again we run into difficulties. If stab you in they eye is that immoral? Not if you are trying to do the same to me?

One might argue there that, even if I was attempting to harm you, ending that conflict by harming me still wouldn't be the ideal situation. But since I would have already breached the moral code by attempting useless harm to begin with, the moral act would be to stop me, non-lethally if possible.

I'm not sure baseline facts we know for certainty is a fair way to describe concepts like harm or pain, there are too many riders and amendments necessary to make them the determinant factors.

That's why these are general rules, and not rigid ones: "pleasure is generally preferable to pain," allows for nuances and adaptation based on context, yet it's still objectively true.

Even life or death is a bit hazy. What of taking one life to save another? Or, and here's the fun bit, what of perspective. If I tell you that ending one life will save two, is it moral to take that life? What if the one life is an elderly terminally I'll patient and the two lives saved are kids in need of transplants?

Moral dilemmas are one thing, but not having a clear answer doesn't alter the fact that life is generally preferable to death. Hell, the whole reason these dilemmas are difficult and uncomfortable is because they involve the inevitable loss of life, something we find to be less than preferable.

To me an objective moral code needs to be applicable in all circumstances and by all people. Can you give me such a code?

Can anyone? Bar a few very basic axiomatic statements, life is far too complicated for sweeping generalizations.

[pocaracas]

Nope. But I'm not making a case for a godless objective morality, Esquilax is

Are you saying that a non-godless objective morality code is possible?


"non-godless"... sometimes, language surprises me!

[Jacob(smooth)]

I'm going to pluck and chose here cos I hate those massive point by point debate.

 But since I would have already breached the moral code by attempting useless harm to begin with, the moral act would be to stop me, non-lethally if possible. 

For example.

No, you're wrong. The moral act is to use a proportionate level of force. If you are trying to kill me I am morally justified in trying to kill you.

The above is a bald statement of opinion on what is moral, underpinned only by a fairly vague concept. But then, so was yours.

So what we have here is my belief on morality vs yours (subjective).

I'm enjoying this

[Esquilax]

For example.

No, you're wrong. The moral act is to use a proportionate level of force. If you are trying to kill me I am morally justified in trying to kill you.

Justified, yes, but I hope we can both agree that the ideal way for that situation to end involves no loss of life, yes?

The above is a bald statement of opinion on what is moral, underpinned only by a fairly vague concept. But then, so was yours.

So what we have here is my belief on morality vs yours (subjective).

But there isn't a disagreement- again, I hope - on what the moral pinnacle is, in that situation. The existence of less moral possible solutions doesn't mean we're working from a subjective base, it just means we often fall short of the ideal on questions of morality. I'm not arguing that we don't have subjective values, just that there are objective truths to be known about the world we live in, and that because of this, all of those subjective opinions aren't equal. Some can just be wrong, and one can be more right than another.

[Tonus]

i always get destroyed in arguments, mostly i think cus my low self esteem, and because i get anxiety and have no idea what to say and just pretend to agree with people to end the argument.

As rasetsu said, some of us just aren't good at that type of confrontation. Learn and adapt, or work to overcome. Or find a different approach. Instead of seeing it as a desire to win an argument or defend your beliefs, approach it as a way to understand what the other person believes.

Most importantly, think through your own beliefs and positions. DO you believe that there is an objective morality? Why or why not? If not, where does morality come from? Think of the objections and arguments used by people you've debated, and consider them seriously instead of simply trying to debunk them. See it as a learning experience and not just a chance to put a feather in your cap.

The better you understand why you believe what you believe, the easier it becomes to defend it. And when you discuss religion from a sincere desire to understand why people believe what they believe, the easier it becomes to make it difficult for them to defend it.