Do you wish there's a god?

[robvalue]

Well, I find the idea of objective morals similarly redundant. Who gets to say what counts as morals? Of course an objective moral system can be set up, easily. An infinite number of possibilities exist.

If you tell me it’s a fact that morals are objective under whatever definitions you use, then I may agree. But I will probably find your definitions of no practical use to me. Same goes with trying to define purpose so that only god-purpose is valid.

I guess this comes down to the fact that terms/words don’t have objective, inherent meanings. They need to be strictly defined for the purposes of any particular debate, otherwise you’re just equivocating.

[Acrobat]

Well, I find the idea of objective morals similarly redundant. Who gets to say what counts as morals? Of course an objective moral system can be set up, easily. An infinite number of possibilities exist.

Who gets to say that 1+1 =2?

Who gets to say that torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong?

Who gets to say that anything is true?

---

I guess this comes down to the fact that terms/words don’t have objective, inherent meanings. They need to be strictly defined for the purposes of any particular debate, otherwise you’re just equivocating.

Okay I'm guessing you agree, that torturing innocent babies just for fun is bad/wrong.

When you say it, should I take it as you stating a subjective preference? Like saying dominos pizza taste bad?

[robvalue]

Well, I find the idea of objective morals similarly redundant. Who gets to say what counts as morals? Of course an objective moral system can be set up, easily. An infinite number of possibilities exist.

Who gets to say that 1+1 =2?

The person using an abstract mathematical system. It’s true because we say it’s true. That doesn’t mean it necessarily correlates to reality in any meaningful way; it doesn’t have to. Be careful not to conflate mathematics with the applications of mathematics.

Who gets to say that torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong?

No one. They can say it’s wrong in their opinion, or according to some set of moral rules they draw up. Again, "wrong" is a highly subjective term.

Yes, torturing babies for fun is wrong, in my opinion. Make of that what you will.

Who gets to say that anything is true?

No one gets to say anything about reality is true, only that they find certain evidence convincing of a hypothesis, and that they would expect people to agree. Anyone can say that statements are true about abstract systems they are in control of, such as 1+1=2. It’s true because I say it’s true, with respect to this particular abstract system. If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t be my system.

[Acrobat]

Who gets to say that 1+1 =2?

The person using an abstract mathematical system. It’s true because we say it’s true. That doesn’t mean it necessarily correlates to reality in any meaningful way; it doesn’t have to. Be careful not to conflate mathematics with the applications of mathematics.

Who gets to say that torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong?

No one. They can say it’s wrong in their opinion, or according to some set of moral rules they draw up. Again, "wrong" is a highly subjective term.

Yes, torturing babies for fun is wrong, in my opinion. Make of that what you will.

Who gets to say that anything is true?

No one gets to say anything about reality is true, only that they find certain evidence convincing of a hypothesis, and that they would expect people to agree. Anyone can say that statements are true about abstract systems they are in control of, such as 1+1=2. It’s true because I say it’s true, with respect to this particular abstract system. If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t be my system.

Okay, so in your view there's no such thing as objective truth, not just when it comes to morality, or values, or meaning, but in regards to any truth.

[robvalue]

No, I believe there are statements that can be objectively true about reality, according to the definitions of terms used. But no one has the authority to decide/declare which are true with respect to reality, because that would require some sort of omnipotence/omniscience/perfection. Of course, anyone can say anything they like, so to speak, but that doesn’t make what they are saying true or even convincing.

There are also statements which can’t be objectively true or false, because the terms they use are either too vaguely defined, or rely on personal opinion.

[Acrobat]

No, I believe there are statements that can be objectively true about reality, according to the definitions of terms used. But no one has the authority to decide/declare which are true with respect to reality, because that would require some sort of omnipotence/omniscience/perfection. Of course, anyone can say anything they like, so to speak, but that doesn’t make what they are saying true or even convincing.

There are also statements which can’t be objectively true or false, because the terms they use are either too vaguely defined, or rely on personal opinion.

So is 1+1 =2 objectively true? Or subjective?

Is the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, objectively true, or subjective opinion? If it's a subjective opinion, should i take it when you say it's wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun, you're just stating a personal taste or opinion, like telling me dominos pizza tastes bad?

[Sal]

The person using an abstract mathematical system. It’s true because we say it’s true. That doesn’t mean it necessarily correlates to reality in any meaningful way; it doesn’t have to. Be careful not to conflate mathematics with the applications of mathematics.


No one. They can say it’s wrong in their opinion, or according to some set of moral rules they draw up. Again, "wrong" is a highly subjective term.

Yes, torturing babies for fun is wrong, in my opinion. Make of that what you will.


No one gets to say anything about reality is true, only that they find certain evidence convincing of a hypothesis, and that they would expect people to agree. Anyone can say that statements are true about abstract systems they are in control of, such as 1+1=2. It’s true because I say it’s true, with respect to this particular abstract system. If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t be my system.

Okay, so in your view there's no such thing as objective truth, not just when it comes to morality, or values, or meaning, but in regards to any truth.

1+1 = 2 is internally true. We know what the numbers mean and what they correlate to. Is 1+1 = 2 Objectively true? Hard for me to say, because all of mathematics is a priori and abstract, as I understand it. And to say something to be objectively true, then it has to be true without subjective "interference".

I think most people agree that there exists an external world to ourselves, otherwise we'll simply regress to solipsism, which I find to be useless because it has no real explanatory power.

Are axioms objectively true? If so, which ones?

[robvalue]

No, I believe there are statements that can be objectively true about reality, according to the definitions of terms used. But no one has the authority to decide/declare which are true with respect to reality, because that would require some sort of omnipotence/omniscience/perfection. Of course, anyone can say anything they like, so to speak, but that doesn’t make what they are saying true or even convincing.

There are also statements which can’t be objectively true or false, because the terms they use are either too vaguely defined, or rely on personal opinion.

So is 1+1 =2 objectively true? Or subjective?

Is the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, objectively true, or subjective opinion? If it's a subjective opinion, should i take it when you say it's wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun, you're just stating a personal taste or opinion, like telling me dominos pizza tastes bad?

I already answered these questions. The first is objectively true with respect to a particular abstract system which says it’s true. It might not be true in another.

The second is subjectively true. I take my morality more seriously than pizza, but if you want to insist all kinds of subjects relating to opinions are equivalent, then that’s fine.

I can make torturing babies objectively immoral, if I want, by defining immoral in a certain way.

This is my point. Words represent vague ideas.

[Silver]

The pleasure of torturing infants is subjectively true to some people.

[Acrobat]

1+1 = 2 is internally true. We know what the numbers mean and what they correlate to. Is 1+1 = 2 Objectively true? Hard for me to say, because all of mathematics is a priori and abstract, as I understand it. And to say something to be objectively true, then it has to be true without subjective "interference".

I think most people agree that there exists an external world to ourselves, otherwise we'll simply regress to solipsism, which I find to be useless because it has no real explanatory power.

Are axioms objectively true? If so, which ones?

I have an apple, someone gives me another apple, which leaves me with two apples in total (1+1=2). To me this as objectively true as it gets. If you think otherwise, I would like to hear what you think is objectively true if this isn't? And what makes the two apples in my hand, any less objectively true than your example.