Total posts: 2,481
-->
@Shila
Jesus got himself crucified when he could have avoided that from happening. Was he immoral?
No
Created:
-->
@Shila
Being a fool is not being immoral.
Don’t cherry-pick, there’s a lot more to the scriptures.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Bible does not say it is immoral to reject God. But there is punishment for rejecting God.
Psalms 14 and 53, and Rom 3:10–12.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yet, you judge all Atheists as immoral?
That’s because I believe they’re going to hell, I love how you only want to quote The Bible whenever it suits your narrative.
Can you show me where in the Bible you get the idea that morality is a matter of belief?
Psalms 14 and 53, and Rom 3:10–12.
Do you think a Christian is moral because of his faith, no matter what his actions are?
Your actions are a part of what makes a Christian.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Sidewalker
I see on your profile that you are a Christian, the Bible says not to judge others others over 40 times, why do you suppose that is?
Because we don’t know what it’s like to be others.
how can we do that if we don't recognize that his belief is to him, what your belief is to you?
But it’s not, if your referring to the discussion between Double_R and I then I recognize my belief as objective fact and he recognizes his as subjective opinion, we are not the same.
I don't know, but accordoing to the Bible it's not for me to decide.
Although you have no problem deciding that those who reject God are moral.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Morality is about behavior and conduct, not about metaphysical beliefs
Can those who don’t believe go to heaven?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If only God can define goodness, how do you account for the fact that most atheists tend to be ethical people of high moral character.
There’s nothing moral about the rejection of God.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Your choices do not make morality objective.
Your right, God’s choice does.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Just as I could choose to define goodness differently.
But you can’t, the concept of goodness existed long before you but it started with God hence why only He can define it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
if "god's morality" is NOT "black & white" then how can it be a useful standard ?
What’s the point of asking me questions if you’re just gonna project everything I say?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
How did you determine that anything he created was good? What standard are you using to make that assessment?
The definition of God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do we know which laws are "moral" and which are "immoral" ?
Morality is a spectrum you can’t sum all laws into one.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
does your god believe it is moral to extend the current 20 years of patent protections to 100 years of patent protections ?
🤷🏾♂️
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do we translate that into practical terms ?
Love is practical.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Unless you are going to argue “might equals right”, this does nothing to rationally justify accepting him as your moral standard. It is nothing more than self preservation.
You got it twisted, it’s not about might (in this instance) it’s about causation. If God is the creator of all things good then that means He created morality, it all starts with Him.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Do you know of anyone else that does the same things as Double_R?
What do you mean?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what does your god want me to do ?
Love
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I understand your version of it, I’m pointing out that there are plenty other versions out there for one to adopt and apply to their life, which is what makes this subjective.
Well I already told you my issue with your “version”, you went on to list three examples of right subjective answers then backpedaled by agreeing there objective under a given pretense, no wonder why you’re a subjectivity advocate because you can’t keep your arguments objectively consistent.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.
That’s not much different from saying my only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.
Your argument hinges on the idea that if we don’t obey God’s moral code we will be sent to hell, but the “objective result” of going to hell is irrelevant to the question of whether said repercussions are moral.
Well if you knew what morality was (at least my understanding of it) you would see that your question is redundant in the sense that it already has the answer, morality is the religious path one must follow to achieve eternal bliss, any deviation from that is the literal example of immorality.
Whether his word can be overruled is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity.
That’s not what I said.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This does not support your original statement.
What do you think my original statement was?
So first of all, you have yet to explain why god is objectively, the moral standard.
I did that already and all you did was reject my reasoning with no explanation as to why, no point of that a second time, only difference is I said heaven was the standard https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7916/post-links/344564
You also ignore the fact that if God is an all powerful mind, then he can change his mind so even if you get past my first objection, the fact that he can change what is moral on a whim still makes it subjective.
What He can do doesn’t and shouldn’t overrule what He will do, therefore it remains objective.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
that sounds a lot like a "NO"
If that’s your take then you have comprehension issues.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?
Depends on the narrative.
i will never go to imaginary hell no matter what i dobecause i trust in imaginary jesus
Do you believe morality is also imaginary? Because you can’t have morality without heaven and hell. Last note, even atheists concede to the existence of Jesus through the empirical evidence.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The word “share” was not written anywhere in my post, so why are you responding to it and why are you putting it in quotations?
Maybe not in post #404 but you most certainly said shared in post #391.
And what does “the results are what they are” have to do with anything I just said?
Because it doesn’t matter if two individuals agree on a “moral” standard, if it doesn’t align with God’s then they both will have to deal with the objective result of going to hell, making that standard meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
but morality requires the individual to choose the starting point making it necessarily subjective.
No, because there’s a fundamental objective difference between God’s choice and an opposing individuals choice and that’s the results that I alluded to in the upper paragraph.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"
Parole is not a regulation dude, stop reaching.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests
Okay, but I never argued that they were.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study findsPrisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers
Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you can't see how "the rules" are subjectiveand if you can't see how "enforcement" is also subjectiveyou must live in a perfect world where everyone is treated fairly
I don’t know how you can come to that reach of a conclusion based off of one work example.
where everyone gets exactly what they "objectively" deserve
In the end sure, justice will always be served.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Now apply this to morality
In regards to morality you don’t have to “share” anything the results are what they are period.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
only if "the rules" are coherentand enforcement is uniform
If your only play here is to go in circles that’s how you know you lost, have a nice day 3.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
“the point isthat the employer and or their proxySUBJECTIVELYdecides"what is best for the company"
No, the point is that violating agreed upon rules of the workplace is a fireable offense plain and simple, how those rules were determined remains separate to the firing itself.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniformneither of these is a given
Which is the proper assumption based on Double_R’s use of the term “right”, and the sole purpose of rules is to be enforced, that’s a given.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.
You’re the one that can’t see the forest from the trees, fact of the matter is the rules of the workplace are exactly that the rules of the workplace, and if one were to violate said rules then they are by definition wrong, there employee handbook which they agreed upon through signature is objective proof of this.
There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.
Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve, fact of the matter is they did decide and the move wasn’t in accordance to the decision, not following protocol is objectively wrong.
There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.
The phrase off key/pitch exists for a reason, we literally have computer systems that can detect pitch and sound because that’s an objectively real thing dude 🤦🏾♂️
All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.
Making those conclusions objective under that shared starting point, enough with your examples man.
Once again, objectivity requires independence from thinking minds. This is a logically incoherent concept.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Morality is a system by which we judge actions as right or wrong.
But objective facts are right, a subjective opinion is neither right or wrong.
Q1: Is language objective or subjective?
It’s an objective way of effectively communicating yes, the mutual understanding of both parties using it is objective proof of this.
Q2: Can languages be taught?
Yes
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I gave you a detailed breakdown of my position on morality.
But I asked for a definition, which you’ve failed to elaborate on. Here’s my take, the mere fact that morality could be taught is exactly why it’s an objective fact, you can’t teach a subjective opinion, you either have it or you don’t, it’s literally nature vs nurture.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You have to understand what objectivity and subjectivity is before you can apply it to anything.
True, but like I said that’s not the point of contention here.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Everyone else reading this conversation understands the difference between objective and subjective.
That’s not the point of contention here, it’s your appliance to morality.
3RU7AL even had to use the ‘my left is not your left’ example and you still don’t get it.
And what you don’t get is what I already said before
relative directions aren’t based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
When you are ready to have a post grade school conversation let me know.
Not to be that guy but if this conversation really is pre grade school then why are you having such a hard time demonstrating? Just asking 🤷🏾♂️
Created:
-->
@Double_R
“Ice cream is delicious” is right for some, for others it is not.
So to bring this back to our point of contention, anyone that disagrees with you regarding ice cream is immoral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Geez man you practically listed everybody, your better off saying the artists you do like instead.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
subjectivity is like - - RELATIVE DIRECTIONS - - up, down, left, right
Except relative directions aren’t based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In subjectivity there is no right or wrong answer because the answer is subject to the individual.
This sentence alone is exactly why your position makes no sense, is there an answer or not?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
You were asked the question because you raised the issue about not having MEANING.
Tarik: Well in order for morality to be objective it must have MEANING right?
Check again sir the word “not” was never used in my quote meaning the claim your accusing me of is indeed the opposite.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
Why are you continuing to argue about something that you know does not have a right or wrong answer?
Maybe you should ask Double_R that question since that was his argument you highlighted not mine.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Is the truth value of 2+2=4 dependent on whether one considers the statement to have meaning? Yes or no?
No, but that wasn’t the narrative when the subject of nihilism was originally introduced. Let’s recap, originally you said
To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.
My retort to that was that’s the literal definition of nihilism because they too don’t believe in right or wrong answers, now you’re saying peoples opinions have no bearing on objectivity which I agree but that wasn’t the original narrative, the narrative was what nihilism was not whether or not it was true.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I reject your premise “morality is objective” as a false statement. That’s about logic, not meaning.
Oh the contrary, it’s about both because there’s nothing meaningful about false statements, therefore there meaningless.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Nihilists use their thinking minds to determine it has no meaning to them.
Why do you put emphasis on this “meaningless” point anyway since when does anybody reject anything they find meaningful? The meaningless argument should already be a given, before you said
They reject it on completely different grounds so this point is irrelevant.
And went on to use the “meaningless” argument, but like I already said that’s already implied in the rejection so what other grounds is there and why is that relevant? Fact of the matter is they reject it and that’s all there is to it.
What do you think subjective means?
A concept or notion with no facts attached, but I don’t know why you’re asking me this because last time you completely yanked my chain by dismissing my answer saying something along the lines of “that’s what it means to you” not a retort in the slightest and a complete waste of time, so now the spotlights on you and no I haven’t deliberately dismissed your definitions as false just vague to the point of necessary elaboration.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Meaning is necessarily the product of a thinking mind.
Except nihilists have a thinking mind and they still reject it, how do you explain that?
Morality is a system by which we judge actions as right or wrong.
To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.
In the words of you
These are two logically contradictory ideas.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
They reject it on completely different grounds so this point is irrelevant. Once again, nihilists reject morality as meaningless. We’re talking about whether morality is objective.
Well in order for morality to be objective it must have MEANING right?
Moral standard is a phrase, not a definition.
Nonetheless a definition is what I asked for, so you can keep your “phrase” or define that too while you’re at it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Nihilism is about rejecting various ideas as meaningless. We’re talking about truth and logic. These are not the same thing.
More specifically we’re talking about morality a notion (which I’ve already stated) nihilists reject.
There’s nothing about this begging the question.
The fact that I’m practically asking you the same questions based off your response is a literal example of question begging, take for example in your latest reply you said
You begin with a moral standard, you then judge actions against those standards.
Again, what is a moral standard? You can’t include the word itself in the definition, how helpful would that be?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nothing substantive has been provided yet again. My position stands in the wake of your fallacies. I see no reason to drag this attempt at a conversation any further. Adieu.
Odd coming from you considering you came for me, I didn’t send for you. Nonetheless this is finally something you and I can both agree on (except your fallacies argument) ✌🏾.
Created: