Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What was meant to be about avoiding negative consequences?
You’re the one that first mentioned that argument and it’s simply not true if you take as many lives as you can before taking your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Earlier when I said, "if you accomplish your goal it doesn't mean you had a good life," I was giving the context of "a good life" in the emotional sense.
Well now you’re just moving the goalposts, at first it was avoiding negative consequences, and after I theorize a premise where that’s not a factor you talk about emotional claims which literally has nothing to do with someone who doesn’t care about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Good is what is beneficial towards an entity. What is beneficial is subjective to one's goals.
This isn’t beneficial at all dude, you’re contradicting yourself left and right and you’re inability to see that is frustrating. I literally just linked good to goals and you rejected it just to do the same thing less than 3 posts later, give me a break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
If you accomplish your goal, it doesn't mean you had a good life.
Well if there’s no afterlife then who defines good anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What I said was, we should act morally regardless of the existence of an afterlife because acting morally will have more positive consequences for our lives and acting immorally will have more negative consequences for our lives, as proven demonstrated in comment 187.
But what if your goal is to take as many lives before taking your own? The consequences if that goal was successful would then be irrelevant would it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
This emphasizes the importance of morality for psychological well-being, social harmony, and successful leadership, irrespective of an afterlife.
Well if there’s no afterlife then who judges well-being? And if there’s no after life then why should we care about harmony and leadership?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
You have asked a great many questions; which one was the original?
If there’s no afterlife to validate everything we do then why should we care about anything at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Moreover, you have yet to ask me an infinite number of questions and cannot given your limited existence, proving that you cannot disprove my claim by asking many questions as long as my theory can answer them.
Well as far as I’m concerned you still haven’t answered the original question, because leadership isn’t of any interest to someone who doesn’t care about anything, so bringing that up proves nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Question itself doesnt refute anything.
No, but one can arrive to that conclusion by there inability to answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The mere fact that you can ask an infinite number of questions does not display fallacy on the opposing side.
It does if those questions are a direct result of question begging from the opposing side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its tactic that uses infinite questions fallacy.
There’s no such thing, however the mere fact that I can ask those infinite questions only displays fallacy on the opposing side, and it’s called circular reasoning in case you didn’t know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Did you read it?
I did, and all you did was rant about status and the like, but that still begs the question, why should we care about that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What do you think?
I think this has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
This is why I can only ask others to receive my words for their explicit meanings that I meant to be conveyed.
Well I’m no “religious texts” expert so you referencing it isn’t responsive to the argument I’m making (especially when you take into account the various different interpretations) I do however believe in a higher power, I also believe that what we do in this life (morality) matters in the next otherwise it’s fair to question why care about anything at all in this life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I said I was referring to religious text in general.
But you weren’t, you were referring to The Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Why do you think me referencing the Bible for moral questions is significant?
Because you said
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific.
Last I checked The Bible is pretty specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe everything can be viewed as consistent and inconsistent given different scopes.
That doesn’t explain why you only reference The Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe everything can be viewed as consistent and inconsistent given different scopes.
Care to elaborate on that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific.
Then why do you only quote The Bible when referring to inconsistencies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Cultural norm fluctuates, religious text has consistently been idolised by the majority of people throughout recorded history and various cultures, which I believe to demonstrate significance.
I’m not so sure about that, many people who claim to be religious have reservations about The Bible, not to mention there’s many other religious texts as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I said I do not believe cultural norm is much of an indicator, I did not say the majority of people.
Any culture concerning the majority of people is normal, anything significantly less would be abnormal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I do believe it is a reasonable assumption to make for most people.
Most people huh? Aren’t you the one that said
I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
However, the larger picture includes there are many different individuals, which are treated by various different moral structures as demonstrated in the Bible.
How do you know The Bible is the foundation of objective morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that morality is consistent subjectively, but objectively this would be an inconsistency because you're looking at a larger picture.
Then I guess that begs the question, what makes it objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The first example shows their actions judging the afterlife are inconsistent as one person doing an action gets a result and another person doing the same action a different result
I don’t believe this, I believe the same actions warrants the same results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
In the first case it was their actions judging their afterlife, and in the second it was whether humans always go to heaven or hell.
What’s the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that morality is consistent subjectively, but objectively this would be an inconsistency because you're looking at a larger picture.
The larger picture remains in the afterlife because life on earth is temporary but death is forever, and within that consistency is those that are judged good in this life goes to heaven and those that are judged bad goes to hell, sounds pretty consistent to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I apologize if I confused you, but I do not recall ever claiming the Bible is inconsistent.
Do you recall claiming this?
I noticed several points in the Bible where men make commit murder, and one is considered honorable and the other a horrific error, yet they killed the person in the exact same manner it just depended on who and why.
Or this?
For instance, it may be morally correct for one person to enter the Tabernacle such as the high priest where another individual is not allowed to enter the Tabernacle otherwise, they will be stricken dead by God himself.
What was the purpose of you mentioning this if not to claim inconsistency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So my morality is based on logic.
I never called you the owner of morality, get over yourself dude.
If X true, then Y is true" means that if Y not being true, then X isnt true either you know.
Where did I dispute this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is not logic, but pure feeling. So the values are based on a feeling.
It’s logical to avoid a painful feeling in pursuit of a pleasant one.
Learn how "if" works.
I do know how it works, but clearly you don’t by misconstruing my words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator on the definition of God because cultural values are always fluctuating, and I believe that God is the way to live life properly, which I believe is not determined solely by cultural values such as hedonism but has a more fundamental concept that is consistent.
Consistent huh? Yet you want to nitpick scriptures from The Bible with the sole purpose of trying to demonstrate its inconsistency, perhaps you should be more consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Morality is not based on logic, you assume. Morality is based on person's set of values.
If it’s not based on logic then how does one go about answering the reason as to why they have said “values”?
Thanks for conceding that morality is not same for all.
I did no such thing, please work on your reading comprehension skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I don't believe that cultural norm is much of an indicator on the definition of God.
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I was using this example to show that language is able to capture concepts through the implementation of ambiguity that was demonstrated here.
Well perhaps you should use another, because most people I know have reached consensus on what the idea of God is and it isn’t as open-ended as you’re making it out to be, that includes atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Perhaps that's why the definition of God is "is."
I don’t recall reading that definition of God until reading it from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You didnt know that people can have different opinions?
People having different opinions has nothing to do with the nature of morality, in order for any meaning or argument to make sense it must remain consistent, that’s how coherent logic works my friend 😉
I hope to get heart attack or cancer.
Both can be pretty painful
I value lack of pain.
In the words of you
Make up your mind, will you.
If morality is same for all, then my morality is same as general morality, and same as yours.
And if morality is same for all then there would be no need to preface morality by saying “my” which you did not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you ask about morality of other people, you should probably ask those other people. I dont see why you ask me about someone else's morality that I dont hold.
Morality is the same regardless of who you are, if it had that many faces to it like you claim then it would be impossible to interpret.
I dont value my life. I value my comfort much. I value lack of pain.
Well pain comes with old age, will you be committing suicide by then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If a car was about to hit a person, I wouldnt try to step in to save the person because it risks me being hit.
Why do you value your life so much if there’s nothing to give it inherent value? Unless you believe there’s something waiting for you on the other side 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You asked about my morality. I told you about it.
I asked about morality in general, not solely in reference to you, but you’ve already made it clear that you’re a narcissist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe some definitions are necessary to be less definitive to capture the complexity of an idea.
Well if an idea is so complex that it can’t be understood perhaps the idea itself is inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They dont. But in any situation where its me or them.
Then why choose to bring up such situations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would choose 2. The morality is really, all about me and doing myself a favor.
Why do others have to suffer for you do to yourself a favor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
That would just be benefiting oneself, which isn't very altruistic.
I don’t believe altruism was a talking point in your original definition.
Definitions are supposed to provide clarity, not lead to more ambiguity and questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I like fairytales too.
Is the concept of morality also a fairytale? Do you consider yourself to be a nihilist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
Money? So billionaires that accumulated there wealth by exploiting and depriving others of there rights are doing a moral deed under your view?
“When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” —Shirley Chisholm
This may appear to be true on the surface to the superficial but even the richest of the rich still have to answer to the man above, regardless of how many zeroes are in there bank account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I accept that there is a chance in the future we will discover an objective morality, but until then it seems to me more reasonable that the most likely explanation is morality is subjective, as for the evidence we currently have.
Define morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
It is still possible there is an objective morality, but I am unaware of any evidence for it.
If it’s possible then the other different views people have are irrelevant and emphasizes nothing, the only view that matters is the objective view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Which is why I said earlier that it would be considered a religious belief, not a credible scientific or philosophical deduction.
So where’s your scientific credibility on your assessment of morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
There's biblical evidence for religious people, and psychological evidence for others.
Just because there’s different kinds of people doesn’t mean there’s different kinds of morality, those other peoples outlook on morality could just be objectively wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Ultimately, you can believe in an objective morality, but the evidence suggests it is subjective.
What evidence is that?
Created: