Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Statements and concepts like "shape" and arbitrary names like "earth" do not exist without humans, they do not exist "independently of a human mind".
Facts is more than a statement or concept, it’s truth and the truth always exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, without humans there is no concept of "shape" and there is no concept of "earth".
Why does that matter? Facts exist regardless of whether or not humans can verify them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Human experience is fundamentally SAMPLE-BIASED.
Objectivity isn’t solely in regards to human experience, the earth being round is an objective fact regardless of humans and their experiences.
There are a lot of words that refer to logically-incoherent concepts.
But objectivity isn’t one of them, look if you have some form of adequate proof I’m willing to listen but even proof in itself is objective.
So what about the example I just used, is the earth being round a fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Except that mathematics is not an OBJECT.
I never said it was, you can’t just move the goal post here and expect me to follow, when you mentioned hammers I thought that was the narrative but since you want to go back to mathematics then fine.
If I say 1+1=2 is that a fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you denying that objectivity exists between conscious minds? Am I the only person you heard utter a word about objectivity? The term wouldn’t be a word if people didn’t believe in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're going to have some trouble finding a definition that matches your naked assertion.
I’m sorry but what am I asserting exactly?
The function of the hammer is a slave to the E-MOTION of the carpenter.
But if the subject is hammers and their existence then whatever the emotion of the carpenter is is irrelevant, it doesn’t mean hammers have emotion. The existence of hammers by your logic is concrete and demonstrable, making it objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Mathematics is INTERSUBJECTIVE.
Intersubjective is defined as “Existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind.”
As far as I can tell this term is meaningless because it doesn’t address the nature of what exists between multiple minds, I can easily counter this with objectivity exists between conscious minds, now what?
So again I ask, is mathematics subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
MORALITY IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT.
So is math, is math subjective?
Humans that are born without religious beliefs are still capable of moral acts.
Moral acts mean don’t mean belief, I was speaking in regards to belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
OBJECTS ARE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE.
I’m not disputing what your saying I just want you to be more specific, what are empirically demonstrable things?
Apes demonstrate (social) moral behavior.
Perhaps I should’ve been more clear, I was specifically speaking in regards to human beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No I’m arguing that moral belief is religious belief. The term link implies in regards to morality theirs a separation from religion their isn’t.
And what are concrete and demonstrable things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There is either purpose or not....Take your pick.
That’s originally what I was asking you.
And as I said, purpose could just as likely be unintentional as it could be intentional.
I don’t know why you continue to repeat this, it doesn’t answer my question.
And you're the King of circular logic.
How so? Because the difference between my claim and yours it at least I explained how.
And 3RU7AL wasn't talking specifically about religion, they simply were using a well known turn of phrase to explain differences between people.
What’s the point of that? Unless I implied people are all the same which I didn’t.
And you are the one that is seemingly, obsessively conditioned with religious data.....Assuming that I was similarly conditioned was your misunderstanding not mine.
But I already admitted to that and moved on, like I said before feel free to clarify what you meant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though how we might utilise data obviously varies, relative to how we might be conditioned differently because of "accidents of birth".
You’re using circular logic, I asked you earlier how you interpret that quote and you responded with your database and when I asked you what that was you respond with the initial subject at hand.
I personally have no data organised in the form of traditional or popular deistic/theistic belief.
But when 3RU7AL said “accident of birth” he was talking specifically about religion, so when you say your database is different from mine I took it to mean your religion is different from mine, but since I was wrong feel free to clarify what you meant.
I accept the basic principles of creation and evolution and assume there is a purpose, though whether it is an intentional or unintentional purpose it is impossible to say.
What is our purpose? If the answer is you don’t know then what made you come to the conclusion that there is such thing?
I find the notion that everything is explained in relatively recent Middle Eastern folklore, somewhat ridiculous....But that's how my database is programmed.
... So your database is ridiculous? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t see how you can conflate apparent with abstract, the existence of human beings is apparent but it’s not abstract.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The human mind is merely apparent.
Demonstrate that assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's why my database is somewhat differently conditioned to yours....And why you are labelled Tarik and I am labelled zedvictor4.
So what’s your religious database?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Was that subjectivity or subjective objectivity?....Or are you just reissuing acquired stored and perhaps modified data.
I don’t know what you’re referring because I discussed both also I don’t know if there’s such thing as subjective objectivity. What is the acquired stored and perhaps modified data in this case?
How we variously interpret sound waves is all internal process, as is how we interpret taste, as is how we interpret visual input.
What’s the internal process?
Personal morality or personal adherence to collective morality, is nothing more than personal output relative to acquired stored and perhaps modified data. Even if that process is influenced by external pressure or social oppression.
What’s the output and data in this case? Because I think of data along the lines of facts and facts are objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you seriously disputing the existence of the human mind? If not then it’s demonstrable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Maybe you should since you have a habit of presuming other peoples motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How is that possible when the response refutes the statement you deem as excellent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because it's an example of something you did because of your FEELINGS.
I don’t recall doing that.
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
Yes, and the human mind is empirically demonstrable, and logically necessary (In certain contexts).
Abstract concepts are NOT concrete objects.
I didn’t say that, I said concrete objects exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Facts isn’t an abstract concept, I literally gave an example of a fact a post ago.
But concrete objects existing is a fact is it not?
Pardon me I should’ve put a comma after saying no, I just fixed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I discuss objective and subjective in great detail in my forum https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5467-what-i-realized
Feel free to take a look and comment if you like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Now imagine a world with no human minds.Does the "definition" of "objective" still "exist"?
Yes, because that statement no human minds exist will be a fact and facts are objective.
yes, yes, no human is capable of an "objective" thought.
No, human minds existing is an objective thought because it’s factual.
What did you eat today and why?
I don’t see how answering a question with a question is responsive but nothing yet as far as I can tell (considering it’s 2:58 PM where I am and I’m not sure if I might’ve slipped something in past or during 12 AM).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure, the word objective and it’s definition exists regardless of what I say, do, or think, that’s why it’s separate, even if emotion drives every decision that’s not the same as saying there’s no objectivity, would you like me to give examples (outside religion contexts)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You’re conflating two separate things the nature of a word and it’s definition is separate from the choices that I make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
At birth we can’t even comprehend what religion is, we’re babies lol
Created:
Posted in:
For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example our tastes in food, for those of you this applies to we don’t choose to like unhealthy foods more than healthy foods we just do, or even our tastes in sound we don’t choose to like singer A’s voice more than singer B’s voice we just do. But that doesn’t apply to morality, we choose what code of conduct we want to follow and if we see another following a different one we can dispute theirs in comparison to ours with the hopes of persuading them. Unless you can give examples of other subjective things that are choice I think it’s reasonable to question why is this only the case here and not in any other case and I also think it’s reasonable to have doubt based on that observation.
Last note usually when one doesn’t know what a word means (morality) they defer to the dictionary and because they don’t know they approach the definition with an open objective mind, and if you do that that’s also operating under the assumption that the word itself is objective because if you operate under the assumption that it’s subjective your approaching the word with preconceived notions and you wouldn’t be doing that if you don’t know what a word means. But what about subjective words like opinion? I would argue that the only reason we can comprehend what an opinion is is because we ourselves have them, so probably the best way to define it is by examples like the ones I used earlier food and sound, but what if your deaf, blind, and have no sense of taste or smell? Then maybe in that case you can’t comprehend an opinion because you probably won’t have any yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionally, there is no difference between subjectivity and objectivity, in terms of process.
What’s the process?
Output is up for scrutiny and so can be labelled accordingly.
So according to this discussion what is it labeled?
So what is it that you don't know, and require answers too?
For the sake of discussion let’s assume morality and its nature, if you presume it’s subjective then a naysayer has a right to ask for proof but proof goes against subjectivity making it fundamentally impossible because proof is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
if we dispute the meaning of words, then anything might or might not mean anything
I’m going to return the question you’ve been asking me back to you because the only way you can know this claim is through objectivity (which you doubt) otherwise how do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So when you said “then anything might or might not mean anything” the only way one can come to a conclusion regarding meaning is through an answer, so I don’t know why your acting like discovering answers is an impossible task.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Any answer I give I’m sure will lead to more questions so I’ll just give a circular answer, you know somethings logical if it makes sense. But seriously what’s the point of these questions unless your doubting humans ability to detect logic, because if that’s the case we wouldn’t be able to comprehend anything.
Created:
Posted in:
Then my retort to that is objective things are proven external from one’s mind so it doesn’t matter what they accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's objectively wrong IF and ONLY IF you accept the subjective premise that people's well-being matters.
Did you mean to say subjectively wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How will I know if something makes sense? That’s how logic works it makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have already answered the questions about appeals to emotion and demonstrated how YOU DO NOT NEED ANY EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS, whatsoever to argue for subjectivity.
Okay then what arguments can you make that murder is subjectively wrong that isn’t emotional I have yet to hear it, and isn’t proof objective? Therefore proving subjective morality’s existence is fundamentally impossible yet you believe in it anyway with no proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I made a claim about myself looking for answers and you doubted that claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then why would you doubt a claim I made about myself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Finally - objective arguments hold weight over subjective arguments in a different fashion then what we are talking about - whenever something is influenced by emotions or something to that degree, then objective arguments not based on that would have an advantage, but that is conflating that subjective with the subjective I am talking about.
Great now there’s different subjectives now, what’s the difference because I don’t see it, the idea of subjective morality stems from appeal of emotion making it logically fallacious, you want me to substantiate that? Fine, take a “subjective” moral issue like murder, any argument you make against it stems from emotional appeal of humans and you can call it subjective appeal all you want but it’s emotional also because if you didn’t care about humans (caring being an emotion) you wouldn’t argue in favor of them. A huge cognitive dissonance I see among atheists is many of them don’t believe in God because they see no proof, yet they choose to believe in subjective morality even though you can’t prove subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Objective morality can be conceptualized, articulated, and comprehended, you can’t do that with arbitrary subjective things (assuming morality is subjective) if you don’t share the same emotional appeal as someone else. Also if you look at synonyms for objective and synonyms for subjective it’s nothing but positive terms for the former and negative terms for the latter so if morality is those negative things then ideally you shouldn’t want anything to do with it, I mean why do you think objective arguments hold weight in debates over subjective ones because subjectivity is flawed to some degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you mean “subjectively” bad then I dismiss both arguments because I believe bad is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
They do deviate though... not to mention, that wasn't the primary point, the point was that that could be a valid definition of god, given that you accept the subjective premise - and obviously humans do.
There is no could’ve would’ve should’ve in regards to definitions there’s just what is.
“You have yet to demonstrate that it is the preferred definition or that there is objective basis for accepting that.”
Preferred definition over what? I can almost guarantee that their isn’t a definition implying good isn’t beneficial and bad isn’t negative, if you say there is then I would like you to demonstrate that because I can’t prove a negative. I would argue that the objective basis is no other alternative definitions.
It doesn't matter if good specifically doesn't apply here, what matters is that benefiting humans is on the positive scale of morality with a objective basis or not.
For the sake of discussion I would appreciate if you specified certain terms for clarity considering our disagreements, when you say benefit do you mean subjective benefit? and when you say positive do you mean subjectively positive? Because putting emphasis on those terms impacts how I receive them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
those dictionaries also have several other definitions of harm and benefits, why aren't those the defintions here?
I’m sure the other definitions are similar it’s not like theirs a huge deviation where the two conflict with each other.
You would still have to make an assertion in arguing that it is necessarily true, which it isn't it is true if you accept a subjective premise
Truth isn’t predicated on what you accept, you don’t have to accept that the earth is round it’s still true regardless of your ignorance just like you don’t have to accept the dictionary’s definition of good and bad it’s still true regardless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
We're talking about the view that things benefiting humans are good and things causing negatives towards them is bad, thats a subjective take.
My mistake I should’ve shed light on the meaning of the word which is also semantics. Looking at the quote above semantics can objectively prove this, all you have to do is reference a dictionary, is it so hard to believe a dictionary could define good as beneficial and bad as negative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Measuring whether something is subjective or not is not semantic
It is when that thing is a word and last time I checked morality is a word, and words are semantic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay I’m still lost, can you please reword your argument without using the word “it” to be more specific.
Created: