Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe this to show that two people can do the exact same thing and one be considered morally right and the other morally wrong because it's based on something that is subjective to the individual, perhaps it is their intension.
Not all theists believes in the God depicted in The Bible, as for me the God I believe in is morally consistent and objective because that makes the most sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that God is subjective, as I highlighted in the bible, but morality is objective and consistent for all individuals?
Sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe that the Bible emphasizes God is subjective through the many different ways that it expresses God to different individuals.
I believe morality is objective based on the objective results, if you’ve lived good you’ll be rewarded through heaven and if you’ve lived bad you will be punished through hell, those results is how I assess morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What makes you believe your belief in God makes morality objective?
I didn’t say my belief in God makes morality objective, I said my belief in God is why I believe morality is objective. The former is a declaration of fact and the latter is simply stating one’s beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Which category do you believe morality to fall and why?
Objective because I believe in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you agree with the following, and if not, where do you get your definition?
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
My explanation was meant to be coherent with morality's relation to objectivity. This is why I was trying to provide a clearer example of how something can exist subjectively while not objectively.
That makes no sense, how can something that doesn’t exist be related to anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Imagine reality as a three-dimensional space.
We weren’t discussing reality, we were discussing context which is more specific and less broad then the wide scope of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
This does not imply they cannot coexist. Beauty can be viewed as both objectively nonexistent and subjectively existent simultaneously.
Non existence and existence are polar opposites, so this notion that they coexist with each other is logically incoherent, if anything they cancel each other out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty.
Then they don’t coexist under that example because according to you you can’t objectively prove beauty therefore it doesn’t objectively exist within that context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Hopefully we can meet again on a different topic.
It’s clear that you use AI to make your arguments so here’s what I read.
Relativism is a philosophical position that asserts that truth and morality are subjective and vary depending on individual perspectives or cultural contexts. One common criticism of relativism is that it can be seen as self-refuting because if it claims that all truths are relative, then the statement itself would also be relative, leading to an inherent contradiction.
The argument against relativism is that it undermines its own claim by proposing an absolute truth about the nature of truth. As a result, some philosophers argue that adopting relativism leads to logical inconsistencies.
However, it's essential to recognize that relativism, like any philosophical perspective, has various interpretations and counterarguments. Some proponents of relativism might respond to the self-refuting criticism in different ways. Philosophical debates often involve exploring the nuances and complexities of different positions to gain a deeper understanding of the subject.
Do you agree that it’s a self refuting notion, if not then what’s your counterargument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I was saying individuals who come to a platform to publicly share their opinions and hear the opinions of others should be treated as individuals who have come to a public platform to share their opinions and hear the opinions of others, respectfully.
Respectfully? The only reason to conclude on that note is if individuals can engage in that very act without being “respectful” and that goes against what you said when you originally used that term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Not quite
Then what did you mean by “treated as such”? Treated as what exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
So in other words everyone’s views should be treated as “respectable”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Please reference my exact quote where I said such a thing.
I shouldn’t have to, it’s called putting two and two together and me paraphrasing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow.
Respecting that kind of mentality doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to more problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I respect their perspective as a conscious individual. This does not mean I support serial killers.
No, you just respect their perspective, which is problematic in and of itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What I believe you mean to ask is, "with that perspective, how would you treat a serial killer."
No, I meant exactly what I said, because last I checked the word you used was respect when you were talking about our treatment of other peoples viewpoints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.
Should we respect the acts of a serial killer regardless of whether we personally accept it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I've explained numerous times why it's not circular, and "because it's not circular" was never the explanation.
Well it might as well be because saying this
Because you're accusing me of doing that to which I'm not.
is literally no different, but you can name call all you want pretending to be smarter than you actually are, it doesn’t move the needle any further but that shouldn’t surprise me because that’s your specialty✌🏾
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You continually claim I'm engaging in circular reasoning while ignoring that I have already addressed why that's not the case.
Because you're accusing me of doing that to which I'm not.
If this is your so called “explanation” this is literally the equivalent of saying I’m not using circular reasoning because I’m not using circular reasoning which is circular in itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I've explained it about 3 times already.
And everything I’ve said to this point has been responsive to your so called “explanation” yet here we are.
No, it proves you either aren't paying attention or have serious reading comprehension issues.
Right back at ya dude 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"Moral" in "moral standard" is not a descriptive, it's not saying the standard was evaluated as being moral. The phrase moral standard means 'standard for morality'.
Just because a word is used twice doesn't mean the reasoning is circular. You need to pay attention to what people are actually arguing.
And how do you go about explaining what a standard for morality is?
The mere fact that I asked you this before proves it’s circularity. You need to pay attention to what people are actually asking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you have an actual issue with my explanation for what morality is and how it works?
I told you already, it’s the mere fact that you used the word “moral” in your “explanation” which isn’t “substantive” in the slightest sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You can still follow a moral standard even if you don't know what it is, just as one can easily commit a logical fallacy without knowing it.
Be that as it may, you can’t reasonably expect one to understand the validity of your if/then statement if they don’t understand the terminology you’re using to make it, which according to you I don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That's not what moral standard is.
If your moral standard is X
I take issue with this part of this, how can you give an example of me having a moral standard of x when according to you I don’t even know what a moral standard is? You first need to address what a moral standard is before you can give examples surrounding it, and you’ve failed to do so after I already asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Circular reasoning is when the individual points supporting a proposition all rely on each other to be affirmed.
Yes, and in this case
So if wrong is violating a moral standard then what is a moral standard? What one deems as right or wrong?
the proposition relies on the word “wrong” because it starts and ends with it, creating a circle, hence the name.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
For example, if God is your moral standard then "God is good" is nothing more than a taughtology. That's circular reasoning.
How is that any different from what I said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It means in violation of basic moral principals that are used to form a moral standard, namely fairness and harm.
So if wrong is violating a moral standard then what is a moral standard? What one deems as right or wrong? That’s circular reasoning at its finest yet you wanna call me out for arguments from ignorance 🥱
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have no idea why anyone would claim it must have come from some other force of nature.
Because there’s no other logical reason to believe the activity you engaged in was even “wrong” in the first place. What does “wrong” even mean to you anyway? Because as far as I’m concerned that concept can only be understood through eternal damnation, which is what hell symbolizes.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Did you tag me in this by accident?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations.
No, a person’s moral worth is based on whether or not they go to heaven.
I'm interested in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of your perspective on morals, and would appreciate your thoughts to be posted on the "Morality is Objective" debate that I, "Critical-Tim," and "YouFound_Lxam" are currently debating in.
Sure, feel free to respond to this there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Referring to something subjectively does not allow one to speak for the whole, as that refers to individuals experiences and interpretations.
But if the one judging there experience is ignorant then whatever their interpretation is irrelevant, objectively speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
It caused more harm than good to society as a whole, as evidenced by riots, wars, and other violent problems.
This argument just opens another can of worms because where’s the evidence that riots, wars, and other forms of violence are harmful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
It caused more harm than good to society as a whole, as evidenced by riots, wars, and other violent problems.
Operative word being evidence which is an objective term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Since there are 449 posts, it will take me awhile to get through it and perhaps to respond.
I don’t need you to read all 449 posts, I just thought the original post was relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I should have said nothing.
Okay well I’ll say this, our understanding of subjective opinions comes from within the nature in which we’re conceived which we don’t choose, we do however choose to be moral people. I touched on this “subject” in greater depth here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5467-what-i-realized
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.
Societies failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I shouldn't have said that.
Then what should you have said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
In some societies, law enforcement favors certain groups over others, but it's better than nothing.
How do you prove that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Yes, that would be injustice by my standards.
What’s the point of having any standards if they can’t be proven objectively?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Again, that's why we have judges.
Yourself included, I’m sure you would judge someone that killed all your loved ones and got away with it. There can’t be injustice if there’s no such thing as justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
To me, objective is not letting my feelings influence me.
Then how do you appraise justice? What do you draw from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I get it as not letting my personal feelings influence my appraisal of what is just.
But I thought you didn’t believe in objective justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I don't understand that. Can you elaborate?
Objective is synonymous with just, and the definition of just is based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I have an idea about justice.
That idea can only be communicated through objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
It would be an approximation of justice
But in order to know that you’ll also have to know what actual justice looks like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I believe that it's possible to create justice in a human legal system.
But how do you prove that legal system to be just is the question?
Created: