Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You literally said emotions is the sole reason behind your decisions, what did you mean to accomplish by telling me that? That being impulsive is reasonable? Are you suggesting that I should be impulsive in that same regard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is it you think I am trying to convince you of?
That a fallacy is logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is it you think I am trying to convince you of?
Before I answer I think it’s important I have the right idea, what does it mean “to participate and engage reality”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I also have no reason not to
That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, and you can emote all you want but if you believe others should have the same emotional appeals then you’re gonna have to provide something more than a fallacy to be convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"I have yet to be presented with any sufficient evidence of morality although I am aware of human systems of accountability, even if only to oneself".
Why are you linking morality with accountability?
Created:
Posted in:
To be honest I wouldn't bother
Why, you still did (even after the fact)?
Tarik likes to talk in circles and repeat things back at you
No, it only seems that way to you because you keep dodging the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is too vague to demand a response from, what specifically are you experiencing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am agreeing to that definition but as there is no sufficient reason to believe in any higher power that I have yet presented there is by necessity no reasonable logical need to believe in morality at all (as defined here).
Once you realize how depressing and confusing nihilism is maybe then you’ll change your mind.
The universe need not approve or disapprove of my actions for me to care about myself and other humans
No, but the question as to why always remains, especially if you can’t prove the value of human life.
before the higher power is demonstrated.
Well at least you believe the higher power is demonstrated, I rest my case.
Created:
Posted in:
That's the point, he doesn't believe in objective morality.
Then I ask that he demonstrate subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That nothing intrinsically moral can be demonstrated at all.
Then why do you believe in it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
only in systems of human accountability
So taking responsibility for your actions is subjectively moral? You still have to prove that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's a bit more cumbersome but changing what we call it doesn't really change what it is.
Exactly, so I don’t even know why you even offered that as a suggestion.
I am only arguing that we as humans do seem to get along enough of the time to form societies and other social groups.
So what? That doesn’t answer the big question in terms of morality.
Created:
Posted in:
Subjective morality does exist - Do not murder because it is bad to humans, that can be subjective, not believing in subjective morality is not believing in opinions
Again, I’m receiving this different from how you’re giving it to me. Do not murder because it is “objectively” bad to humans. In order to receive it differently you’re gonna have to prove it as such. As for that last point I know a plethora of opinionated topics that I’m sure you wouldn’t call “subjectively” moral, wanna know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists.
Yes you are, I don’t believe in subjective morality.
Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason.
Whatever reason isn’t a reason, and if that’s the case there’s also no point of getting along with one another.
Created:
Posted in:
I am relating the direct nature of principles.
Which I believe are objective if you want to argue otherwise you’re gonna have to prove otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You know how I think?
I know that YOU regard them as moral systems and the people that agree with YOU regard them as moral systems, don’t be so sensitive.
Created:
Posted in:
Because they are descriptions of qualities you want to have
Once again another assertion, prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And that these systems are referred to at least colloquially as moral systems?
They’re only referred to in that regard by people who think like you.
I just cannot think of a better standard and in general it serves me well enough as a metric of what is "good".
That’s just lazy, you can’t think of a better standard so you’re just gonna settle for one with many holes? How do you demonstrate how well it served you?
That put of the way appeals to a higher authority do not resolve this issue in any way owing to theists inability to agree on exactly what this higher power wants or even what it is (ie. which god(s) from a selection of thousands actually exists)
You’re right the answers to these questions are complicated but I’m not advocating for any “particular” religion I’m just saying that there’s no point in choosing a belief that you can’t prove or believe is proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Appeals to authority do not absolve you of this problem. On other words while I do not disagree that this is problematic
You mean not providing support of my claims? I only made an assertion about God AFTER you made yours about subjective morality, so explain to me how is it fair to ask me of something that you refused to provide yourself?
My preferred standard is the promotion of wellbeing and the minimization of harm.
That’s a pretty vague standard considering there’s no consensus around a single definition of well-being, harm is also just as controversial considering not everyone agrees on what is and isn’t objectively harmful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Namely at the very least all human moral systems that are not directly based on some proposed god(s).
You’ve yet to prove those systems to be “moral”.
Indeed the burden falls to you to demonstrate that some god(s)exist in the first place or else you cannot even put forward any god(s) as a possible cause for or source of anything.
Keep that same energy when you want to call something subjectively moral.
They are only useful terms in this context based on some subjective standard.
What subjective standard is that?
Created:
Posted in:
Principles cannot be objective, they are subjective
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
Morals are just a list of principles which inform what is good and what is bad, whether you prefer one principle over another is the intrinsically subjective bit, again I don't think you quite understand what morality is.
Again, your explanation likes clarity because I agree but I receive that different from how you’re giving it to me I receive that as “objective” morals are just a list of principles which inform what is “objectively” good and what is “objectively” bad. You are right about one thing though, I don’t understand what subjective morality is that’s why I view it as objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Morality is nothing more than a list of things one should or shouldn't do.
The only way you prove that is through a God that says you should or shouldn’t do something.
The actions one takes are not restricted by these laws in the same way one is constrained by say the laws of gravity.
And that’s what separates the objectively good from the objectively bad.
Created:
Posted in:
Incorrect, you have not comprehended the text above - the action to take based on a fact is the part that is subjective. I made that very clear.
But that doesn’t make that action an ought which is what morality includes.
Created:
Posted in:
there has to be a prescription of which facts are preferrable and which aren't.
There’s no such thing as a preferable fact, you observe them, you acknowledge them, and you accept them that’s it. There’s nothing to prefer here.
For example what would you say if I asked what fact should be preferred and why, the sky being blue or the grass being green?
Created:
Posted in:
This is essentially begging the question
You know a lot about that considering that’s what you did in your syllogism, the word “good” was in question and you used your version of the word without providing adequate explanation as to why your version overrules mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
How would you describe an institutionalized relationship with God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I feel like I know where you’re going with this but I’ll bite anyway just in case I’m wrong, sure just like all relationships.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Don’t quote The Bible with me, at the end of the day there’s plenty of religious people that don’t agree with everything in The Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You can’t prove a negative that’s not how logic works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I’m morally justified to kill an intruder if there’s a possibility of him harming my family.
It’s the same thing you have an appeal of emotion for family and you’re trying to manipulate me of that same emotion, one can very well not care about your family (hence why there attempted to be harmed).
Me defining morality as justified logic has nothing to do with subjectivity, try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Why?
Because you’ve basically described the same thing your unwillingness to provide an example proves this.
Well it’s good you’ve come around.
Come around from what? My position remains consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Because you must have a purpose, or you wouldn't bother to keep arguing over how to label philosophical concepts.
I have a purpose because God gives me purpose.
And humans variously regard and apply varying standards of cooperation and respect towards each other.
Why if we can’t prove our value?
the known existence of everything is significant enough in itself, and will still instil a sense of purpose in humanity.
If our purpose is to simply exist then why do you care so much about external factors? Like love for example, you love your wife do you?
So why might you find this less vivid set of data output so unreasonable?
You pretty much summed up the answer in the question “vividness” if that’s lacking in the equation it’s fair to question if we’re dealing with data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Appeal to emotion is the effort to manipulate the emotions of an audience without facts or logic.While emotional driven arguments use emotion as reason. That’s how I define it.
...Okay, so give me an example of both.
It’s merely the justification.
And that’s how I define it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Now you’re nitpicking between the appeal to emotion (an official fallacy) and emotional driven arguments.
...Seriously what’s the difference?
You still haven’t explained yourself how morality is based on logic and not emotion.
You said it yourself “You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example” no explanation from me necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You’re starting to not even respond to the substance of my arguments.Such bad faith.
The substance of your arguments is inherently fallacious, how’s that for bad faith?
Emotional arguments aren’t fallacious when directly dealing with emotions. This is what the foundation of morality is based on.Again, you haven’t explained yourself.
So give me an example when they are fallacious, I don’t see why I need to explain anything after you claimed to know what appeal of emotion fallacy is, but by the looks of it apparently not. Google is free look it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example, but morality does not stem from logic. We are not robots.
Robots aren’t the standard of logic, at the end of the day robots don’t exist without us.
All concepts that are shared are intersubjective. This is why reasoning and empathising is key instead of appealing to dictators.
Sounds like an emotional argument to me, and you know what emotional arguments are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Alright, if you want to change narrative.The death penalty is interesting. I’m sure that applies to everyone.
Doesn’t make it any less fallacious.
You do relies this all boils down to emotion, right?
You can make a case for it but it can’t lose sight of what it stems from and that’s logic.
But also intersubjective too.
Fallacies are also inter subjective which is the ultimate sign why it should be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
So it has nothing to do with our conversation of you wrongly claiming I appealed to emotion.More bad faith.
Okay, so what if the narrative was the death penalty? Whatever argument you make for or against it I’m sure is based on your emotional appeal for human life, that was my point, just because we didn’t cover the base of a specific issue doesn’t make my argument any less valid.
Can you make an argument for moralities existence without emotion?
Only if there’s a God to verify, in that case emotion can still be there but it stems from logic (wanting to go to heaven) if not it’s all emotional and inherently fallacious.
What doesn’t exist?
Morality in a purely subjective sense.
Created:
Posted in:
No see that isn't preferable - IF something can be good, and we ought to do good, THEN the goal is to be good
In regards to the example I just used yes, for some people chocolate is preferable over vanilla and vice versa but your not going to associate morality with that preference are you? Also the flaw I detect in your “syllogism” is it lacks clarity. You can’t have an IF with the subject in question without any explanation because when you say “good” it means something completely different from when I say it and I guess if the IF doesn’t work then nothing else that follows does.
if you remove the goal then there is way to distinguish whether you ought to good or bad, which is the entire point of morality.
I don’t know if this was a typo or not but did you mean to say there is no way to distinguish? Because if you are then I would argue there’s nothing to distinguish because “good” or “bad” doesn’t exist and neither does “morality”. As for that last line your right I don’t understand what subjective morality is that’s why I believe it’s objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What was the something I was deeming moral?
You didn’t, I was just generally speaking not you specifically.
You could consider all communication manipulative with that line of logic, which I don’t think you would have concluded otherwise.I consider this bad faith.
Not if the other communicated subjects is supported with something other than emotion.
Yeah I’m an atheist.
With that being said to answer this question
What is the value of morality without emotion?
Nothing because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
First of all, nihilism isn’t a claim so saying “nihilism is true” is incoherent.
No, first of all truth isn’t a claim it’s reality (so much for incoherency).
Second, I just explained to you how nihilism not only does not follow from belief in a subjective moral system but is incompatible with it. Do you not understand what I wrote on this?
Second if you’re gonna accuse me of conflating nihilism with a subjective moral system then by all means quote me otherwise your claims are dismissed.
We have morality. That does not need to be proven, at least not in the context of this debate. We’re debating whether morality is objective or subjective.
Third yes it does need to be proven especially since we both have different views on the intrinsic nature of the word.
When we talk about demonstrating something it goes without saying that we are talking about doing so while we’re alive. But let’s set that aside...
Speak for yourself on that one but okay.
God does not solve any of the problems that objective moralists throw at subjective morality.
This makes no sense, morality is only one of the two objective of subjective so to say “objective moralists throw at subjective morality” is just unsound because it implies that both are the case and it’s not. But God does solve problems by implementing justice in the after life, all good people go to heaven and all bad/evil people go to hell, sounds pretty basic and fair to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Why do you consider “Morality is regulated by emotion” both an argument and emotionally manipulative?
Because deeming something as “moral” is an argument, and since that argument is regulated by emotion than that’s what you’re attempting to appeal to which is manipulative.
How are emotions fallacious when it comes to morality? In everyday life we think of how ourselves and others will feel when making decisions, which all fall under morality. What is the value of morality without emotion? Humans are moral agents, not text. Do you talk to God directly?
I somewhat agree but before we go any further are you an atheist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Unless you consider it both an argument and emotionally manipulative.
I do
For example: Thou shalt not kill.What if it was in self-defence?Can you see any problems with that commandment?
I don’t know too many instances where murder as self defense is a necessary decision, considering there’s many ways to get the upper hand on an opponent without killing them but I hear what you’re saying, context matters in regards to morality which I agree but in order for that to be proven true there has to be some outside force other than humans that validates that belief otherwise there’s no case you can make for it other than an emotional (fallacious) one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
It being an example of a fallacy isn’t in dispute. We were discussing you didn’t know what it meant. You’re clearly obfuscating because you know you’re wrong.
I’m not obfuscating, I wouldn’t have initiated the word if I didn’t know what it meant, what I want to know is what made you come to that conclusion? Because that’s a call you’ve yet to answer.
In other words a good or bad action in one circumstance is not the same in another.
I had a hard time following that, are you saying good circumstances are different from bad ones?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
But obviously you didn’t know what it meant and now you’re just acting in bad faith.
Clearly it’s not that obvious if you can’t even explain yourself, and how am I acting in bad faith (another unproved assertion)?
Morality by definition is the distinction between right and wrong, not what Is right and wrong (it’s situation). Do you agree?
Yeah sure even though I don’t see the difference between those two definitions.
Created: