Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
The above videos are a response to these posts below by Roadrunner, read along with robvalue:
(January 31, 2016 at 5:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So, just to be clear; are you saying, that one action or behavior is no more or less moral than another? That contradictory statements can both be moral and immoral; depending on the subject? If one (or a group or a culture) decided that it was moral to kill atheists, then subjectively it would be moral....correct?
You asked for the definition of "right" and "wrong". I find it difficult to believe that you do not know what these words mean. One may also substitute the words "good" and "evil", or the way one ought to behave. I have a feeling, that you are wandering into the epistemology of morality and how we know what is "right" or "wrong". This however is separate from the ontology of morality, and the nature of "right" and "wrong" in regards to behavior or character in which to make the comparison.
You ask for precise definitions and then deny that they exist. You want to measure morality, as you would mass. This however; is a category mistake. Morality is not a physical object, that you can measure in that way. Similarly can you provide a precise numerical value to your logic which I can reproduce, for your thinking here? Is logic objective; or am I free to subjectively determine that you are being illogical?
You said that you care very much about morality, but also say that "right" and "wrong" do not exist. So I am left wondering how you define morality? You gave a premise, that "your" morality is based on helping other people and animals, and not doing them harm. However this doesn't define what the abstract concept of morality is (unless you are pressing your own subjective definition upon everyone else). You are making the very word morality meaningless or that everyone is free to make it mean whatever they want.
With what you have said so far, it seems that you:
Cannot accuse others of doing wrong
Cannot complain about the problem of Evil
Cannot place blame or accept praise for moral behavior
Claim that anything is unjust or unfair
Cannot improve your morality
Hold any meaningful discussion concerning morality
(January 31, 2016 at 8:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that there is that much confusion about what "right" and "wrong" mean in this context. And I get a little leery when people start to ask definitions over and over again about fairly basic words where will it end? First I was asked to define morality, then define right and wrong. It seems that according to Rob, right and wrong don't have any meaning in this context, other than that they fit his personal preferences. Do you agree?
Also; I think, that you are confusing what is moral (along with Rob), with what it means to be moral. Do you care to define the term? You had said wellbeing. Is providing greater wellbeing synonymous with morality? Can I behave immorally and provide a greater wellbeing or is that automatically moral? Is it moral (or ought one to) deceive, if it provides greater wellbeing in their opinion? The way that people arrive at their view of what is moral, or not; doesn't have any bearing on what it means to be moral (if it has any meaning; but I believe it does).
You said, "This is where the subjectivity comes in, and it's where proponents of objective morality completely fail, because everyone interprets data through the lens of their own values before they come to moral conclusions." Isn't this true for everything (that everything comes through the lens of interpretation)? If you are interpreting them, doesn't that imply that they exist apart from your perception? I can subjectively interpret your words to mean that you agree with me. It doesn't however correspond with reality that is outside of myself. This is what it means to be objective, not just that it is my interpretation or opinion, but how closely that opinion matches what is outside of myself.
People may disagree on if a particular situation is moral. But in general, I find that they agree quite a bit on what morality is. That there is a way we ought to behave, and a character which is objectively better. That we can judge others (including cultures) based on moral choices. That good and evil, justice and injustice; that these are real things. Even when someone behaves immorally you see them trying to justify it. I have never seen someone trying to make what is clearly immoral be called moral. Not even from a hyper relativist.
The above video is a response to this post below by orangebox21, read along with robvalue:
(February 3, 2016 at 4:08 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: To summarize for a newcomer to the thread. Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Both autonomy and utilitarianism are ontologically or foundationally derived from subjectivity and are therefore categorically subjective moralities. Autonomy is inherently subjective in that the moral truth value of a given action is entirely up to the personal feelings, and opinions of each individual. A statement that has been affirmed within this thread. Utilitarianism is subjective in that it derives the moral truth value of a given action based upon maximizing well-being, and well-being is entirely determined by the personal feelings or opinions of the individual's involved. This is also a statement that has been affirmed within this thread. However, both autonomy and utilitarianism are inconsistent and should therefore be rejected as a reasonable explanation for the ontology of morality.
Autonomy is inconsistent with reality in that while it maintains morality is not objective, society applies moral laws objectively. If autonomy were true then no single moral truth claim could be applied to multiple individuals as this would be inconsistent with the foundation of autonomy. In other words, autonomy as a moral framework, prevents any universal application of a moral truth claim. Yet, we as a society function in just the opposite way. Society functions by universally applying moral truth claims. Take the moral truth claim: it is wrong to murder. Society has establishes a law, based upon this moral truth claim, stating that murder is illegal, and that anyone who murders will be punished. If autonomy were true, then a person who murders wouldn't be punished. If autonomy were true, society would respond to the murderer by saying, well that's immoral for me, but moral for you, therefore we have no basis by which to punish you. It is in this way that autonomy is inconsistent with reality and should therefore be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.
Utilitarianism is logically inconsistent. Utilitarianism determines the moral truth value of a given action based solely upon whether or not the action maximizes well-being, and well-being is ultimately subject to an individual's opinions and preferences. Therefore the foundation or origin of morality within the utilitarian framework is subjective. The foundation of utilitarian morality is at it's essence one single moral rule: Do what maximizes well-being. Any action concurring with this rule is moral, and any action contradicting the rule is immoral. Functioning within utilitarianism however, requires applying the moral rule universally and thus subjecting every individual to it. Therein lies the inconsistency. If something is applied universally it is no longer subject to an individual's feelings or opinions and is therefore no longer subjective. This is a category mistake. Because utilitarianism derives it's moral truth values subjectively but functions objectively it makes a category mistake. Therefore, because utilitarianism is logically inconsistent it should be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.
So what about God? Isn't He a person? Isn't His asserted morality subjective in that His morality is derived from His personal feelings or opinions? If God is a person and He determines morality then isn't morality subjective after all? Is the Christian moral framework logically inconsistent as well? These are common objections that demand an answer. In Christianity, the moral truth value of a given action is determined not by God's personal feelings or opinions but by His inherent nature. This is why Christians can consistently claim that morality is objective. Morality is determined as an extension or expression of God's eternal nature, it is not determined by His personal feelings or opinions. Therefore it is by definition objective. From our perspective, it is also objective in that it is determined outside of mankind's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and is therefore universally applicable to us. Between utilitarianism, autonomy, and Christianity, only Christianity can provide a logically consistent framework of morality, and thus a reasonable ontology of morality.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
March 23, 2016 at 1:38 pm (This post was last modified: March 23, 2016 at 1:38 pm by robvalue.)
Awww, thank you I'm really glad you like them! I have so much fun making videos to share with you guys You inspired me to come out of my shell, I'd never done anything like this before so publically!
I'll add in my "fighting" videos to the index too!
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
There's meant to be a visual joke at the end, but the low quality upload meant you can't see it. I lay the paper I'm "reading" from down on the table on the end, and it just says "Please stop me" with some weird drawing around it. If I can figure out how to transfer the video from my iPad to my laptop in a reasonable timescale, I might be able to upload it in better quality!
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
I'm really glad you like them! I have so much fun making videos to share with you guys 
You inspired me to come out of my shell, I'd never done anything like this before so publically!
