Theweakeredge

What? But harm doesn't mean immoral, thats you conflating things

The human mind- in it's entirity.

No, it is your biases that make you think that. Why is human harm objectively wrong? You haven't demonstrated that link, they don't necessarily link together, you are again - incorrect

No, the fact that god did not PROHIBIT slavery that shows that he condoned it. It is the fact that he is saying that you are allowed to own people as property and beat them.

Yes murder causes harm to a person, they were alive and then the murder is what kills them. So yes, objectively speaking, murder harms people. That has nothing to do with whether it is objectively moral or immoral however. 

No, I agreed that, yes as a human specifically with a mind it matters to me, that doesn't mean its objective however.

And again, you are just incorrect, not in the context being used

No, I think its quite the opposite, as evidenced by the fact that you want to use the same definition of agent that is clearly used in the context of chemistry for a philosophical agent, the two are clearly seperate.

The context explicitly allows and tells you how to treat slaves and where to get them, that is condoning slavery, don't try to escape that fact.

That "the fact that you call it harmful means it matters to you" that isn't cogent, I was simply describing a state of affairs. 

Chemistry agents and being-agents are clearly different things, as they have distinctly different definitions - you are being semantic to the worst degree

I'm not saying you condone slavery! I'm not even saying the church condones slavery!! Obviously most of them don't I'm simply pointing out that the bible condones slavery, that's all I was saying, and that's what this is about! I'm sorry, but I know better than any god that claims slavery to be fine.

What? First of all this isn't at all an argument that you're making, and second of all, there are very specific efforts that all companies be ware where they are getting their materials and supplies, which a conscientious consumer can easily avoid getting. Not only that, but you can start with efforts to donate to funds that work to get slavery annihilated. Trying to argue "You have no moral high ground" Is not only not an argument, it isn't even true. Not only that but there is a very large difference between intellectual property and slavery, not only that, but any ideas I come up with I came up with - and you really can't prove otherwise. Sure I was influenced by other people's ideas, but facts aren't "intellectual property" and I always cite something whenever i have a statistic, so you really have no idea what you're talking about. This is what happens whenever I back you into a corner I see. Instead of using actual arguments you resort to tu quoques and ad hominems.

Bad judges of character? Can we not pawn off the responsibility of the action and actually look at the facts here - you have presented zero data that would indicate that the majority of woman are beaten because of x or y reason, while domestic disputes are a common tactic, no one is able to predict what a person may or may not do while angry, and that is the center of sexist rhetoric.

None of that is of literally any relevance, the bible condoned slavery, do you agree or disagree? It doesn't matter if every country had it, every country also had murder, and god said to stop doing that, so why didn't he say that to slavery?

Would you not also be a little frustrated is someone continuously ignored your argument after "conceding" their own. Then whenever reminded of that argument, they go on the exact same irrelevant semantic train of an argument.

Nuh uh, "exercise"-ing power implies that the movement is intentional, which I do not believe, the universe is not an agent, you are misconstruing things to make it seem like it is.

Uh huh, so in other words, it doesn't matter that the bible condones slavery? Because that's what this is about, lets not change the subject here - the Bible condones slavery.

Yes - to me it matters, because I am a human. Not to mention "harmful" as in taking away from a physical or mental state, negatively impacting it, that doesn't logically follow. And you are correct, semantics can be important,  but just like anecdotal evidence, without any other form of objection backing up your semantics, it is not important, nor is it a cogent objection.

Look I think you are not understanding what I'm saying : It objectively causes harm, damage, whatever you want to call it to people - whether that harm matters morally is the subjective nature of it. You are being semantic again

Actually they very well can - from one mind it could be biased that harm is good and the other that harm is bad, hence the subjective aspect to it. You are still operating under the assumption that morality is objective that there is only one answer, and you would be incorrect

Someone have a party! We are finally rid of this year..... in like 12 hours for me, but still.

You didn't actually address the argument there, and I already explained how something can be subjective and a fact, which you agreed to. No, the principle of not murdering people is subjective whenever applied to murder, it is wrong because of the consciousness we have, I mean, we don't say animals hunting their food is wrong do we? Yes, murder causes objective physical and mental harm, but that harm is the subjective part, it is only morally wrong because we self aware and have minds.

What? The entire point is that principles are necessarily dependent on a mind for them to be true. Because of that they are not objective by definition. That means that the principles which inform morality are subjective, so is morality. That is the argument, what you are saying makes literally no sense and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. It doesn't matter if the princples are facts or not facts, as things which are subjective can be facts, but they aren't facts as they haven't been demonstrated, your entire argument is the most semantic thing I've ever seen and not at all cogent.

Thats just wrong, you are just incorrect. "Stated as" Does not translate to "IS" there is a distinction. You are just fundmentally flawed with your understanding of morality

Such as the fact that I can feel sad or happy. This is entirely based on the mind, and without one you wouldn't have these emotions, but I can still prove (to a degree) that I am happy or sad. You also ignored my other post, and for the third time, my argument. I am starting to assume you agree with it at this point.

Add satanism as in one of the religious options for the site....

Also - technically speaking - a fact is something that is either known to be or proven to be true. Therefore if something which is proven to be true but is also contingent on the mind, it can be a fact and subjective. 

I am quite aware, however you are not aware of the layers of objectivity. There is the actual standard itself, lets say, well-being. Obviously well-being is true, certain things affect human beings mentally and physically in an objective way. If I drop a hammer on my foot, my foot will be injured, etc etc. But that relation to morality? Not quite. As there is no objective reason to conclude that human beings being harmed or benefited is moral or immoral. We have biases that say, "Of course humans being hurt is immoral" But if we were to look at say - the universe - then certain actions which would be moral for humans would be immoral to a universe. There is more in moral philosophy than just the standard. 

Cool? But no, that's not how that works, in order to be a "pantheist" you must believe that there is some sort of agency to the universe itself, otherwise you are trying to glue on another term to a word that already has a term and that term already means something completely different. Imagine this, you have a chair, and you sit on the chair and you go, "You know what - this chair is a car. And anyone who sits on this chair is technically 'driving the car'." I mean sure.. if you define the chair as a car, yes you are driving the car, but you aren't really driving the car. The same thing applies to this definition.

What? I could care less about what the church does and doesn't condone, I care about what the book they claim to be "perfect" condones!

"Thou shalt not kill" 

That is one of the most famous commandments, hell, one of the most famous verses in the bible! Murder is a reality that any human could attest to - it is something that happened. Yet. The almighty still said that that should be stopped, he commanded that no one kill. Why didn't he do that with slavery? Because if he didn't then at the bare minimum he is not upset at it happening, he does not feel the need to prohibit the behavior of slavery. What? That sounds like condoning to me.

Not only that but these verse clearly establish that God is telling them how to get slaves and treat slaves. So again, your argument does not work there buckaroo, regulating slavery is a lot more than "acknowledging it's existence." You know, Jarrett left off a famous verse in the tells of slavery in the bible, and I won't lie, I'm a little peeved off. This one is clear in what God wants humans to do to slaves. He makes it clear exactly what is too far, and what is allowable in his eyes without punishment. 

"“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."  Exodus 21:20-21

So... as long as the Slave survives a whipping or lashing.... there is no punishment for the man... because he is his "money". That is sick and disgusting. 

Uh huh, but the majority of the other definitions don't include that, and by "being" I was referring to my definition - not yours. So... your semantic arguments are getting a little old. Any argument which only premise relies on the definition of the word with no deductive reasoning is begging the question almost all of the time.

You continously thought that something being "factual" is enough to make it objectively moral. There has to be an objective link between the standard and morality in order for it to be objective morals. That doesn't happen, and according to my argument which you'v ignored the mention of, it can't happen. Also also - certain perspectives are objectively wrong? Let's say I buy that claim, so what? Other perspective's aren't wrong.

um... I have no idea where you got that specific definition, but I didn't get that, here's what I got from being: "a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one"

Plus... seriously? Another semantic argument? 

I never made that argument as an affirmative for subjective morality, I was correcting something you were incorrect about. If you didn't "call me out" on the other argument do you accept it? Because if you accept it then you agree that morality is subjective.

That wasn't my argument, my argument was waaaay earlier, and you practically ignored it

Thats not what I referring to, I was referring to an agent as - "a being with the capacity to act"  

Then morality isn't objective, thats my only point.

Nah.. the laws of nature aren't an agent, so... no, that doesn't work. 

If the universe is as I see it, then there would be no qualifer for calling it "god" the only justification would be to equate the universe with god, but that makes no sense unless the spinoza's god also has a mind, which isn't what I believe, so no, I am not.

That has no relation to anything I said, from certain perspectives - something could be immoral, from others it could be moral - the same thing applies to laws. Why don't you try again

You're wrong... just deliberately. Moral statments are technically "facts" in the same way that laws are morals. Technically if we all agree it can be treated as a fact, or as logically necessary, but it definitely isn't objective, and the moral statement is relative at best.

Nope, that's not a thing, as the pantheistic notion of god (which isn't what pantheistic means, I have a pantheist friend and he believes in multiple gods) is still an agent, which the universe does not. Spinoza's god isn't a god, just the universe, its semantics. Nothing more

Morals aren't objective and your semantics are not appreciated, you are a joke.

The ultimate reality that you and I see must be very different, because the ultimate reality is the universe, nothing more

Look - you clearly aren't getting it: Subjective are things that are "dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence" - I am constructing an argument for morals using a claim which is subjective, just treating it as if it was objective. I know it's subjective, but in order to get morals I use it as an objective. Its not like there aren't any facts involved, but the link between the claim and morality is subjective, the claim itself is a fact. Morals are complicated and its become apparent to me that aren't really aware of that, and can't think beyond the basics in terms of morals. So actually - yes - morals can be subjective and treated as fact, are they technically "fact" well yes, because objective and fact aren't the same thing.

You have ignored the entire argument, address what I was saying or no dice. You are incorrect, what the sentence said was, "which people say are fact" not that they are indeed fact. Those are assertions. I have explained this so many times, the next time you ignore it, I'll count how many times I've said it and you've ignored it.