Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

True the foolish idea that any of us on this forum are going to solve this debate is just that . Men for brighter then us didn't do it . I predict that long after the WLC or the Sam Harries have been reduced to dust this conversation will still be going.

And that's because of subjectivity, right? It's just an inescapable part of it. No wonder the damn thing has no resolution.

Nope objectivity can be hard to work out I can take decades even centuries to figure out. I never said there is no resolution . only that it's not coming anytime soon .

[Astonished]

And that's because of subjectivity, right? It's just an inescapable part of it. No wonder the damn thing has no resolution.

Nope objectivity can be hard to work out I can take decades even centuries to figure out. I never said there is no resolution . only that it's not coming anytime soon .

See, that makes it sound NOT like objectivity, because of the way I've come to understand it, it shouldn't allow for dispute. But then that's why one of the main answers I got doing my research what 'it depends on what you mean by...' But then, if even the goddamn DEFINITION of objective is in dispute...fuck, man, now I hate that word.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope objectivity can be hard to work out I can take decades even centuries to figure out. I never said there is no resolution . only that it's not coming anytime soon .

See, that makes it sound NOT like objectivity, because of the way I've come to understand it, it shouldn't allow for dispute. But then that's why one of the main answers I got doing my research what 'it depends on what you mean by...' But then, if even the goddamn DEFINITION of objective is in dispute...fuck, man, now I hate that word.

In that dispute...each side attempts to refer to what are purported to be objective facts...lol...so.......is it really in dispute - or is the dispute over who has the better set of facts?

Objectivity -fosters- dispute. Two people just bullshitting each other are not having a dispute, they're just bullshitting each other. It take facts to really fucking get into a good dispute with someone. The way you came to understand what an objective morality is was tainted, and you know who I blame for that one, lol.

[Astonished]

See, that makes it sound NOT like objectivity, because of the way I've come to understand it, it shouldn't allow for dispute. But then that's why one of the main answers I got doing my research what 'it depends on what you mean by...' But then, if even the goddamn DEFINITION of objective is in dispute...fuck, man, now I hate that word.

In that dispute...each side attempts to refer to what are purported to be objective facts...lol...so.......is it really in dispute - or is the dispute over who has the better set of facts?

Objectivity -fosters- dispute.  Two people just bullshitting each other are not having a dispute, they're just bullshitting each other.  It take facts to really fucking get into a good dispute with someone.  The way you came to understand what an objective morality is was tainted, and you know who I blame for that one, lol.

But you sure seem willing to give them a good pat on the back for some insane unfathomable reason.

[Amarok]

No things that are objective can and are debated

[The Grand Nudger]

In that dispute...each side attempts to refer to what are purported to be objective facts...lol...so.......is it really in dispute - or is the dispute over who has the better set of facts?

Objectivity -fosters- dispute.  Two people just bullshitting each other are not having a dispute, they're just bullshitting each other.  It take facts to really fucking get into a good dispute with someone.  The way you came to understand what an objective morality is was tainted, and you know who I blame for that one, lol.

But you sure seem willing to give them a good pat on the back for some insane unfathomable reason.

Well, sure, they're trying to figure out whether or not we can provide a compelling explanation of an objective morality, and they're serious enough about it to make sure that even the word objective doesn't get a free pass.  Just how is it objective, in what ways, what limits to objectivity are there, how accessible is this objectivity to us, as subjective agents, for example.

[Astonished]

But you sure seem willing to give them a good pat on the back for some insane unfathomable reason.

Well, sure, they're trying to figure out whether or not we can provide a compelling explanation of an objective morality, and they're serious enough about it to make sure that even the word objective doesn't get a free pass.  Just how is it objective, in what ways, what limits to objectivity are there, how accessible is this objectivity to us, as subjective agents, for example.

I think you're addressing the wrong point (and I didn't even point out that you're wrong about who tainted my view of objective morality; I didn't even give morality serious contemplation til I started watching atheist videos online and I STILL can't find a consensus on it among actual philosophers so are you going to make the same assumption about them?), that goes to the other thread where I have no idea why you think religion can or should be allowed to try to play any kind of positive role rather than being stamped out entirely. You blame it for warping how I think but the truth is, they kept me from even thinking about it in a meaningful way til fairly recently and having exclusively anti-theistic models for constructing it since then (like Matt Dillahunty's secular morality debates and speeches) hasn't resolved this issue. Try asking next time instead of making assumptions, especially when large portions of a conversation have resulted in impasses and disagreements on definitions. It wouldn't be nearly the first time you've misunderstood something here.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're addressing the wrong point (and I didn't even point out that you're wrong about who tainted my view of objective morality; I didn't even give it serious contemplation til I started watching atheist videos online and I can't find a consensus on it among actual philosophers so are you going to make the same assumption about them?),

No assumptions need be made.  The entire field of inquiry has been deeply influenced and fucked with by religious tradition. We don't escape that simply by not being believers, ourselves, or by listening to non-believers.  Some of it is so endemic that it's bound into word usage, it's that basic..-and- that thorough.

that goes to the other thread where I have no idea why you think religion can or should be allowed to try to play any kind of positive role rather than being stamped out entirely.

You have something particular in mind when you think of religion...that...too...has been established by whatever religion or religions you have in mind.  It's probably not intrinsic to religion, but intrinsic to particular religions...and because of your cultural heritage you take the word religion to be an analog to whatever that religion was.  

You blame them for warping how I think but the truth is, they kept me from even thinking about it in a meaningful way til fairly recently and having exclusively anti-theistic models for constructing it (like Matt Dillahunty's secular morality debates and speeches) hasn't resolved this issue. Try asking next time instead of making assumptions. It wouldn't be nearly the first time you've misunderstood something here.

Keeping you from meaningfully thinking about something is a hell of a trick.  Then, when you do think meaningfully about it, you're saddled with -their- baggage.  Trying to ditch their baggage you inherently refer to it as though it were -the- baggage, -the- goods.  This isn't an assumption.  This happens to all of us, our cognition is shaped in important ways by the culture from which we arise.  

You spent, for example, what,,.90% of our conversation arguing against religious moral absolutism and the shitty things that religion does.....to me, in reference to a secular moral objectivity.  You kept telling me..and are still insisting..that this secular moral objectivity can't be objective...because it wasn't what the religious claim that their morality is.

Why do -you- think that happened?

[Astonished]

I think you're addressing the wrong point (and I didn't even point out that you're wrong about who tainted my view of objective morality; I didn't even give it serious contemplation til I started watching atheist videos online and I can't find a consensus on it among actual philosophers so are you going to make the same assumption about them?),

No assumptions need be made.  The entire field of inquiry has been deeply influenced and fucked with by religious tradition. We don't escape that simply by not being believers, ourselves, or by listening to non-believers.  Some of it is so endemic that it's bound into word usage, it's that basic..-and- that thorough.

that goes to the other thread where I have no idea why you think religion can or should be allowed to try to play any kind of positive role rather than being stamped out entirely.

You have something particular in mind when you think of religion...that...too...has been established by whatever religion or religions you have in mind.  It's probably not intrinsic to religion, but intrinsic to particular religions...and because of your cultural heritage and your cognitive and linguistic processes you take the word religion to be an analog to whatever that religion was.  

You blame them for warping how I think but the truth is, they kept me from even thinking about it in a meaningful way til fairly recently and having exclusively anti-theistic models for constructing it (like Matt Dillahunty's secular morality debates and speeches) hasn't resolved this issue. Try asking next time instead of making assumptions. It wouldn't be nearly the first time you've misunderstood something here.

Keeping you from meaningfully thinking about something is a hell of a trick.  Then, when you do think meaningfully about it, you're saddled with -their- baggage.  Trying to ditch their baggage you inherently refer to it as though it were -the- baggage, -the- goods.  This isn't an assumption.  This happens to all of us, or propositions and our very cognition is shaped in important ways by the culture from which we arise.  

You spent, for example, what,,.90% of our conversation arguing against religious moral absolutism and the shitty things that religion does.....to me, in reference to a secular moral objectivity.  You kept telling me..anmd are till insisting..that this secular moral objectivity couldn't be objective...because it wasn't what the religious claim that their morality is.  

Why do -you- think that happened?

Give me a definition of religion that doesn't in some way involve being irrational, without also being so far removed from what religion should reasonably include, and we'll talk.

And the problem was that we can't agree on definitions like objective, apparently, any more than philosophers who make a living thinking about this shit. What does that have to do with whether it comes from religion or not? Not that it does anyway but if you've got a contradictory component within the definition of objective, I can't play your game, and that's your fault. That's like asking me to accept that Yahweh is a good god, it's simply impossible given the definition of good and the character of Yahweh.

[The Grand Nudger]

I gave you a definition of a secular objective morality.  More than a definition, I gave you a primer.  We couldn;t agree on definitions because you kept insisting on definitions that would be amenable to our religious moral absolutists, because philosophers...who have for centuries been religious moral absolutists, insisted on that use of the term.  Insisted on those standards.  They never made sense...but obviously that didn't stop you from parroting them here, in a discussion with me, about secular moral objectivity - you're a product of your culture.

Your entire objection is the objection of a religious nitwit. The same objection levied at every secular morality by every religious nitwit.

"That's like, your opinion, man. "

Are you so stubborn, and so desperate to believe that you have completely rid yourself of what took centuries of religious indoctrination and jack booted control over successive generations to accomplish at a cultural level...that you won't entertain the notion? It;s very lear, to me, that you got your information on what an objective morality was and did from religious nitwits who didn't possess an objective morality and didn't know what it was, and by nitwits trying to respond to that misconception as though it were accurate.