Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is due to morality having implicit goals
This is another assertion, what if you have no goals? Are you implying that’s immoral?
If something can be good, that means something is preferable, IF you ought to be good, THEN the goal is to be good.
I’m not sure preferences are in regards to morality especially since we can’t help some of our preferences (I discuss some of this in my forum maybe you should check it out) are you willing to argue that someone is immoral because they prefer vanilla over chocolate or vice versa? Because they can’t help that preference even if they tried and there’s no words that can be said that can convince them otherwise outside of that preference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I use subjective morality, therefore it exists
You might THINK you’re using subjective morality but unless you can prove that no you’re not.
even if objective morality did exist that would not mean that subjective morality doesn't exist.
...Once again another assertion you can’t support 🥱.
On the other hand, morality is intrinsically subjective, which you haven't brought up a valid objection to.... I literally explained why goals are inherent to morals, and are therefore subjective.
Simply denying that ridiculous claim is enough of a valid objection considering you haven’t provided anything demonstrating that your right and no you haven’t explained anything, all you did was make a bunch of assertions.
which you've done... several times. Perhaps unintentionally, but there nonetheless.
Got any proof of this assertion man?
Furthermore I can block you whenever I wish, you don't really have power over whether I do or not.
I never said I did, I said IDGAF whether you do or you don’t it’s simple kid too bad you have a tough time comprehending that.
IF you don't understand something which multiple people have spelt out for you and you have run in circles trying to justify your objection, THEN I see no need to continue talking to you.
No you just feel the need to @ me after I already BLOCKED you first.
Especially your tendency to copy specific phrases to attempt to mock me. So. Answer my actual point, or I'll block you again. That simple.
No that’s to expose your contradicting ignorance and if you think contradicting ignorance is a point that requires an answer then go ahead snowflake block away.
Ohh I see, how interesting, you've blocked me this time. Well, that saves me time.
Another double whammy of yours, you knew you were blocked before you posted yet you still put your time and energy into posting anyway, so spare me the “saves me time” BS. Lastly, I’m almost certain that as much as you stress blocking me you’re gonna respond to this you’re pathetic ✌🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"One day we will learn that the heart can never be totally right if the head is totally wrong. Only through the bringing together of head and heart--intelligence and goodness--shall man rise to a fulfillment of his true nature." -MLK Jr.
That’s a nice little quote there by another theist born Michael King Jr.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Nihilism entails the rejection of all principals and values. There is nothing about accepting the subjective nature of morality that requires this, and in fact believing in a self described subjective moral system already makes one by definition, not a nihilist.
... Well duh I never denied this, but since there is no such thing as a subjective moral system the most logical position is nihilism (under the assumption that theism is false).
For something to be objectively proven to be true it must be empirically demonstrable. Can you demonstrate in any empirical sense the rightfulness or wrongfulness of any moral judgement?
Wouldn’t you say that once someone dies and goes to either heaven or hell that would empirically demonstrate that they were an objectively moral or immoral person? I would say so if that were to happen. Can I demonstrate this to you? Unfortunately I probably cannot so if you’re not convinced of objective morality then so be it but if you’re going to be convinced of subjective morality then just like objective morality it requires proof otherwise nihilism is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Either you don’t know what appealing to emotion is, or you’re a bad faith actor.Please do a quick search of what the fallacy means.
I know that it’s one the many examples of fallacies, if you took your own advice and did a quick search you would find that appeal of emotion is a fallacy.
No one practices the belief of nihilism in terms of morality. Is that better?How does one prove that morality exists apart from subjective/intersubjective opinion?
It doesn’t matter, because I never argued that either. As for the last question it’s through God but if God doesn’t exist neither does objective morality and if you’re an advocate of subjective morality you would have to prove it’s existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Morality is regulated by emotion
If you truly believe this morality is inherently fallacious considering appeal of emotion is a fallacy, and like I’ve said many times before nihilism would by definition be true.
No one practices nihilism in terms of morality.
That’s not applicable to anything I’ve said, in terms of morality if there’s no proof it’s objective or subjective then the only logical conclusion to draw from that realization is it’s nonexistent ergo nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Because I don’t view it as a concept within our mind, I view it as objectively proven, and if I’m wrong about this then that still doesn’t make subjective morality correct, it would make nihilism true by default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think that I was aiming at?
Me attempting to prove objective morality, if that weren’t the case it makes no sense to bring up that I can’t prove it.
And what do you think you were wrong about?
I don’t think I’m wrong I was just highlighting what it would mean if I was wrong and that’s nihilism.
And what don't I have an answer for?
Nihilism, I’m sure you don’t consider yourself a nihilist so under the assumption that there is no objective morality what makes your position most reasonable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And that was what my previous inference was aimed at.
So why are you aiming at a target that’s not there? If I attempted to prove objective morality is one thing but I’ve stressed repeatedly the circumstances of me being wrong and you still have no answer for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You still have to prove those cultural norms are “moral”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Its the "why" of a moral, this is not a claim, but an intrinsic nature of how morality works.
You not being able to support your assertions doesn’t make them any less of a claim, there is no intrinsic nature of subjective morality because subjective morality doesn’t exist.
I was highlighting your false dichotomy.
No you weren’t, I didn’t contradict myself in that regard, you did.
Either answer a question and objection straight or this will end. You have one more chance buddy. This time there won't be a unban. You've used so many different red herrings and fallacies that I don't think you want to change your mind, you want to be right and will not stop until I agree with you. If you used something more than fallacies perhaps people would.
You of all people shouldn’t be telling anyone to do anything “straight” snowflake. IDGAF who or what you ban but don’t get it twisted, if you think that even for a second that I’m just gonna stand by and stay silent while you spread your ignorance across this site then no sir not on my watch. I’m convinced you don’t know what a red herring or a fallacy is because I’ve done nothing of the sort, and don’t accuse me of things I know you’re guilty of because do you want to change your mind? I don’t think so, do you want to be “right”? I think you do (although we have different views on that word). As for the last sentence right back at ya ✌🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Morals or morality all have goals inherently - because moral statements are "oughts" not "is".
Not all oughts are goals.
Every moral command uses a goal
... A bunch of assertions with no proof, you’ve yet to prove the command is moral.
Furthermore your dichotomy was: God or Nihilism, in otherwords, objective or subjective morality.
Now your just contradicting yourself here, one minute your saying “Subjective morality does not equate to nihilism” the next your equating it to nihilism by saying “in otherwords” do you not know what in other words means? It means equating, don’t play games with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not attempt to prove anything....Because I do not need to.
Or because you cannot, you cannot prove morality is subjective, you couldn’t then and you can’t now, same old same old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That logic is flawed because it conflates general things with specific things and that difference is important for example all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, you catching my drift?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... you seem to not understand how this works - you cannot derive an ought from an is, period, oughts are always subjective.
I told you already, even if I accepted this premise you’ve yet to prove goals are moral.
Subjective morality does not equate to nihilism, but I already explained that, so I won't do it again, you not understanding how basic logic works is why you can't convince anybody on this.
You have this tendency of putting words in my mouth that I never said, unless you have a quote of me saying or implying such a thing then that argument is null and void.
From false dichtomies you dont adress
I’ve addressed your false dichotomy argument already too but I’ll reiterate because I’m a nice guy, unless you can prove goals are moral then it’s not logical to be convinced of that argument making nihilism the only valid option left (assuming theism isn’t true). The only way you’re false dichotomy argument holds any merit is if you can substantiate what your “syllogism” is contingent on and that’s goals being moral, which you’ve failed to do, so come correct next time otherwise have a nice day ✌🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I never claimed to have infinite knowledge on this subject, I just know the basics, the Ten Commandments for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I called it an example not the only example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why are you telling me what the Decalogue doesn’t say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not one of those quotes say you can’t be happy while you’re alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If happiness is the goal, why wait until AFTER you die?
When did I say this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Eternal happiness doing what?
I don’t know, why does that matter?
And ask people what gives their lives purpose.
A lot of people would say God, an argument your not using.
And no heaven no data....Nope, no data no heaven.
What’s the difference?
And the only plot as far as we know it, is birth, life and death.
Speak for yourself dude, I know a lot more than that.
Afterlife is speculation....And assuming to have actual knowledge of an afterlife, is fantasy.
I’ve already acknowledged that argument, if there’s no afterlife then nihilism is true by default.
the human purpose therein would be to instigate and advance a process of knowledge and material development
All that for what if there’s no heaven to validate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who gets in and who doesn't?
I don’t know I’m not Him.
And furthermore, (IFF) a life is only meaningful if one gets to heaven (THEN) all lives that don't get to heaven are meaningless (worthless).
No both lives have meaning in the sense that one life MEANS your good and the other MEANS your bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Peoples lives have various purposes
Prove it.
Such is how we manipulate data.
If there’s no heaven then there’s no data to manipulate.
Though I would suggest that pinning your hopes on an afterlife in a heaven, is somewhat missing the plot...And also a tad, wishful thinking.
Excuse me, but what is the plot? Because last I checked I initiated this dialogue so if anybody knows the plot it’s me.
Then tell me what can one hope to achieve there?
Ideally, eternal happiness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That’s because I knew if I did it would only lead up to the point I did address so let’s get into that shall we? Unless you can prove your side to be a valid option (which you haven’t because like you said it only works if goals are “moral” and you haven’t proven they are so as far as this discussion is concerned this current syllogism like your last is dismissed) then the only other side outside of theism is nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you have yet to prove that god exists in the first place
I’ve already acknowledged that other side of the argument when I said if God doesn’t exist then nihilism is true, but your not a nihilist are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
... Seriously? Are you honestly taking this dialogue seriously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is this a meaningless life?
No, that’s why I believe in a heaven that validates that life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Maybe but it’s the only logical position there is if there is no heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not convinced any dead people "want" anything.
Well if your right then nihilism is correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some people actually do not want to be happy.
How do you know? And how do you know that doesn’t change if they’re in hell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And yet, simply because you personally don't understand it, doesn't make it stop.
Whatever like I said you only know them as they are (alive).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Refusing to move to the back of the bus.
Good question, I don’t know if I would call it moral but I don’t know if I would call it immoral either, maybe indifference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Masochism makes no sense and you only know them as they are (alive).
Even if you consider "get to heaven" an AXIOM, there are still about eleven-zillion ways to make that happen.
Be a good person that’s the only way I can think of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
it is a perspective of human minds
It’s a fact that it’s a perspective of human minds.
The goal is a part of the syllogism, otherwise that syllogism isn't a sequitur
Once you add proof into the equation that’s when something is objective so if theirs objective proof that you should have a goal (heaven) that proof overrules any subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Because it's entertaining....And just to affirm....Because it's entertaining....And just to reaffirm....Because it's entertaining.
This isn’t responsive to anything I said, especially since I already acknowledged your affirmations.
Oh... And because of the personal and variable nature of internally generated morality, I choose to regard it as subjective.
There is no such thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nope, that is a subjective goal - you have assumptions which make you think of them as objective - your presonal increduality is not a justification for you not accepting subjective morality.
Well you don’t have to view the goal as moral just the result when it’s achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A state of contentment is discouraged by nature because it would lower our guard against possible threats to our survival.
You can be happy and careful at the same time the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you say, "breaking an immoral law is moral"?
Got any examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even if all humans agreed on something, (like avoiding unhappiness) that agreement itself (argumentum ad populum) would not magically transform their opinions into FACTS.
It’s not an opinion that nobody wants to be unhappy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ALL LAWS ARE MORAL.
Not necessarily, but breaking the law is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A moral claim cannot be false.In the same way a statement of opinion cannot be false.A moral claim cannot be true.In the same way a statement of opinion cannot be true.
Then what is morality? If you can’t be right or wrong?
What is your personal opinion regarding the "objective morality" of copyright law?
Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure the good book mentions something along the lines of obeying the law of the land so that’s your answer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
bigfootlochnessspacealiens
We don’t describe this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
because goals are intrinsinically subjective
What if you could make an objective case for the goal, like you would be unhappy for eternity if you don’t have this goal. The fact that nobody wants to be unhappy is objective.
Created: