Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Morality doesn't exist (nihilist) - which you've agreed I don't follow
For sake of the discussion I’m willing to argue in favor of nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Just as much as a chain link SHOULD reflect a whole chain.
No, difference is humans have a mind chain links don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That a steel link is part of a chain doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects the utility, purpose, properties or usefulness of a chain when taken as a whole.
...Wrong again, I didn’t say that humans reflect the universe, I said that we should unless you can make sense of subjective morality in the context of human endeavors, which you can’t because human endeavors make no sense as well.
But there is a moronic chance they may decide to actually engage!
Right back at you.
Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk ✌🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
We’ve had previous discussions in the past and if I recall you’ve been the obtuse party not me so come correct before you falsely accuse anyone of being obtuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
context of human endeavors
Doesn’t make sense in that context either, considering if we’re extensions of the universe it makes sense that we should reflect the universe, I’ve said this before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is a pretty clear answer.
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF you INTRACTABLY believe that there IS a reason for EVERYTHING
...No, I believe if there is no reason for something then that thing makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One does not logically follow from the other.
Oh yeah? Then give me ONE example of something that makes sense with no reason for it whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So in other words subjective morality makes no sense because there’s no reason for it, thanks for clearing that up 👍🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Subjective morality:A particular system of values and principles of conduct, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.
Okay, but one isn’t born with these personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, they develop them with time, so my question to you is why do people develop these things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How you conduct yourself is entirely down to you.
Yes but that’s not limited to principles, principles are a fundamental truth, and fundamental truths are objective.
Lastly how would you articulate subjective immorality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Subjective morality:A particular system of values and principles of conduct, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.
But there are no personal feelings, tastes, or opinions in regards to principles of conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Objective and subjective are both defined words that represent concepts, and can also be expressed in an articulated format.
Your not slick, obviously those two terms are well defined on their own but that’s not the narrative is it? The narrative is the form morality takes in regards to one of those terms, but since you’re so keen on being able to articulate “subjective morality” then put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I wouldn’t even go that far because at the very least thoughts regardless of their validity can be articulated, can’t say the same about “subjective morality”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But this opinion of yours is based on hearsay rather than an absolute fact.
I’m willing to play devils advocate here and say if objective morality doesn’t exist then neither does subjective morality, and that’s not a matter of opinion because existence is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ah, I admit views may not have been the best word but I thought you knew what I meant, nevertheless I think a more fitting phrase to describe the context here is representation of fact (although it’s a bit wordy).
Created:
Posted in:
The reason is that it may somehow spark a dark humour kind of laughter in them and build rapport, allowing for further understanding and communication.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up but only time will tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you agree with me (THEN) we are not in disagreement
Yes but it’s still fair of me to question why your saying the things your saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why are you arguing as if I’m equating the two to one another, I’m not. Although you could make an exception if both parties agree to the middle ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, but I didn’t say that’s the same as common ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
MIDDLE GROUND ≠ COMMON GROUND
Do you have a quote of me saying otherwise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Appeal to consequences fallacy
Nice try but no, it’s just a simple question dumbass.
Groundless ad hominem attack.
Again nice try but no, the “personal” attack is predicated on your looney arguments, miss me with that.
I would suggest you familiarsize yourself with the more common logical fallacies in order to avoid them
I suggest you take your own advice instead of pretending you know things when you don’t have the slightest clue.
It would be a pointless exercise.For you as much as for us.
If you truly believed this you wouldn’t continue to engage in this banter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This statement is directly contradicted by this sentiment.
No it’s not, let’s say your dealing with a lunatic whose goal is to kill 100 people are you willing to be transigent in regards to your views and say he meet you halfway with 50? I sure hope not, same thing applies here, I refuse to negotiate with a bunch of looneys, miss me with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
regardless of its soundness
No, not regardless of its soundness. If a sound argument refutes mine then I would accept it at face value but so far that hasn’t happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
so I am afraid I must reject your term because that sentence reads like nonsense.
I have no qualms with that definition in regards to morality, it’s just vague in the subjective department, which is what I was alluding to when I said it’s self refuting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.
That’s how I stay true to my views.
The dictionary defines words separately....So subjective + morality will be as defined irrespective of your point of view....Same goes for objective + morality.
True, but claiming the former word is in relation to morality is a claim you’ve yet to prove.
You must understand that not everyone agrees with your personally subjective principles.
I don’t have personally subjective principles.
Nonetheless...In either respect, morality is always internally processed data, rather than a universal constant.
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It is self explanatory.
You constantly saying that over and over again doesn’t make it any more true.
Use the dictionary that you are so fond of and apply subjective to morality.
Impossible because morality is objective.
The same principle would apply to objective morality.
It shouldn’t, since the two are completely different.
But as I've often stated....The difficulty arises when one attempts to differentiate between subjective and objective in respect of process.
That’s because the two are different in respect of process (if there even is a process to subjective morality), maybe you should read the dictionary.
All data output therefore has a level of subjectivity to it.
Your talking on both sides of your mouth here, because one minute you say there’s no difference between objectivity and subjectivity, the next you clearly differentiate the two by deeming data output as subjective. Nevertheless a response can’t be subjective if it’s proven factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Firstly supply a word which means particular systems of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
There’s already a word that describes that, it’s called self refuting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How many times I have to tell you it was just an example, think of it as a hypothetical scenario.
you can label love and hate the same thing (emotions) without confusion
That’s because emotions is a broad spectrum, I can take a specific subject such as love, if one calls it subjectively good and another calls it subjectively bad under your definition both would be correct despite both those words having opposite meanings, that’s an issue you fail to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A system can stem from those two emotions though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Don’t look too much into it dude they were just examples but under your definition both those examples would suffice as subjectively moral despite the fact that they’re both diametrically opposed to one another, that’s my case as to why subjective morality makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Which two systems SPECIFICALLY are you referring to here?
I just said love and hate, what’s vague about those two terms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Please give an example of two such systems that are "polar opposites".
Under your view one system that embraces love and another that embraces hate is the same system (in terms of what your labeling it as), despite the fact that those two things conflict with one another, makes no logical sense at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, I’m saying that labeling those systems the same thing even if they’re polar opposites is confusing and one you look up definitions in the dictionary it’s for clarity not confusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
ONLY HYPOTHETICAL.
That’s a false dichotomy, you left out impossible and that’s key here so let’s just cut to the chase shall we, your definition is impossible for the simple fact that it’s self refuting and self refuting notions cancels out period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
humans have NO WAY to evaluate morality except by our opinions
This doesn’t answer the question, the question is in regards to objective morality and your answering in regards to subjective morality no wonder it isn’t clicking for you.
Created:
Posted in:
This is 'case in point' at its finest.
Your point seems to be a slightly hypocritical one considering all the people that dislike you on this site but to each his own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The same way it has been the whole time.
Same argument applies to subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It isn't comprehensible. It is definitionally impossible.
How so? I would argue that applies to self refuting, I mean subjective morality 😬.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Comprehensible and useful are separate issues.
In this case objective morality being comprehensible is useful because that’s where the goal of being objective moral starts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My point is your literally talking on both sides of your mouth right now and your not making any sense, one minute you argue that it’s not the worlds job to make sense the next you want to complain about things not being helpful to you, if you want to argue that the world doesn’t make sense that’s one thing but when YOU start to imitate that that’s another, keep the same energy please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless we as humans have some way of distinguishing between the two this is not actually helpful to us
Aren’t you the same guy that said
Well the world is a confusing and contradictory place and under no obligation to make sense to us.
🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By the way that is both exactly what we would expect to see if morality is subjective and exactly what we do in fact see.
Speak for yourself, I see subjective morality as self refuting considering the many different diametrically opposed faces it has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By the way that is both exactly what we would expect to see if morality is subjective and exactly what we do in fact see.
What was this in response to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well the world is a confusing and contradictory place and under no obligation to make sense to us.
There you go being dramatic and flying over the handle, nobody said anything about “the world” but the meaning of morality is plain old semantics and at the very least should make sense to everyone.
That said the reason various moral systems disagree about some points (I think saying diametrically opposed is going a little far personally) is because it us subjective.
Here’s an idea, or maybe it’s because some are objectively right and others are objectively wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
When i say morality I mean a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
But how can you deem diametrically opposed systems the same thing? That sounds kinda confusing from the outside looking in because they seem to cancel each other out.
Created: