Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
That does not stop many people from basing their morality on such a book to such a degree that they find harming others who disagree to be moral. That I would tend to agree with your assessment of morality does not make it any less subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
That is a useless distinction without some standard for determining guilt/innocence or we can never be certain that we are not punishing innocent people without some way of determining guilt/innocence.
Conning full circle it is factually accurate that I prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla so the difference between the question "what is moral" and "what is the best ice cream flavor" has not been proven any different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Physical well being is objectively measurable mental well being less so. The well being of others is an arbitrary standard. If it is what we agree upon as pur standard we can make objective statements about morality based on that standard but we could just as easily use a two thousand year old book written by goat herders as our standard. Some people do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What makes something an offense? What non subjective standard do we use to determine that something is an offense and what are we offending against? Without an agreed upon standard this does not help us determin innocence/guilt and any agreed upon standard would almost certainly be subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I tend to base my judgements (personal opinions) about morality on human harm versus wellbeing (something that can be objectively measured in some cases but not in others and which is in any case an arbitrary standard) so hydrating a human being with hydrogen peroxide (an objectively harmful act) would be immoral (based on my subjective opinion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Then it falls to fallaneze to present his case for an objective moral standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think we can say that with any degree of certainty. We still need a standard upon which to base our judgements about reality and morality. The standard will almost certainly be subjective and arbitrary and that leaves us with nothing but our opinions to go on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Then we are actually discussing what is legal not what is moral... unless they always coincide without exception. I am more than prepared to accept that we can make objective statements based on subjective standards but that is not the same as a claim that morality itself is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How do we determine the difference between reality and a convincing and persistent illusion? If the virtual world was the only one you had ever known how would you know it was a virtual world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You still have not told me what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty. Please kindly present this standard or we may be at an impasse. Without a mutually agreed upon standard we may as well be talking about which is the better icecream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Some of the images look more than random. They aren't Jackson Pollackesque sprays of dots they look like paintings of objects. Perhaps a bit abstract but if you read the article that is more like human art than a lackluster computer paint by numbers. This is what the researchers were trying to do. Honestly what makes human paintings more qualified as works of art than any of the images presented? Art stubbornly defies definition and pushes boundaries. What constitutes art is subjective not objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I believe that the only thing I can know with certainty is that I am experiencing something even if that experience does not reflect reality in any way.
I do tend to accept my experience as a reflection of reality since it is the only experience available to me and if I accept my perceptions as observations of reality then there are certain inferences that I can make about that reality. Especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Thank you. That was quite conclusive as compared to the answers I am used to. Your veiw seems very American centric. That is not in and of itself good or bad it just stands out.
Do you agree with the constitution of the United States of America and the bill of rights? Are there things about them you think could be improved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Very well you may get in touch with me if you change your mind. I am only a pm away.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I do not disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What standard are you using to determine that neither is moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Subjective means based on opinion. Objective means based on fact. If the standard is immutable, it's based on fact.I didn't say it was always moral to tell the truth.I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
Sorry I just have missed this post because I was not tagged though it is clearly addressed to me. Tell me how do you objectively determine the lesser of two evils? What non subjective standard do we use?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Morality is as real as any opinion and your right that if we can agree on a proxy we can make objective statements about morality based on that standard.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
In America footballs are not spherical and some games call for dice that are not cubes. That aside how do we determine the morality of an act objectively? What non subjective standard do we use?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok let's assume for a moment that there is some objective morality. If person A thinks that rape is not immoral but that homosexuality is and person B thinks that both rape and homosexuality are immoral and person C thinks that rape is immoral but homosexuality is not then how do we determine which one is objectively right?
Also if some things are objectively immoral they remain immoral whether humanity has a "purpose as to what they should do" or not.l so one does not logically follow the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Ah so in the sense that we never experience reality directly even if our experience does accurately reflect reality? I agree ypur brain is not an eye ball nor an ear drum and neither eyeballs nor eardrums seem to have experiences on their own.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Not only that we naturally wish to protect others that we empathize with. One of the natural consequences of evolution is that it can give rise to organisms that promote survival of the species over survival of the individual. There is no reason to think this behavior will be universal but in social animals it tends to be consistent enough to aide in survival of the species.Yes we do want to be protected from harm.
Evolution does not have goals but one of the logical consequences of evolution is that it did give rise to organisms which have goals. Survival is one of those goals and as social animals we need one another to stay mentally healthy.
What evidences your claim that "raping infants is morally wrong" is an opinion-based truth in the same sense that "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla" rather than being a fact-based truth like "2 + 2 = 4"?
"That is moral" represent a qualified statement you cannot measure morality objectively with math. Quanta are subjective meanings we impose on the real universe. They are meaningful but ultimately only as real as our subjective experience.
2+2=4 is a quantifiable objective fact. Facts are cold data and as such without meaning. Take 2+2=4. Sure but what is 2? 2 is just a placeholder for saying something twice. I have an apple and I have another apple is cumbersome. I have two apples is more efficient and it only becomes more pronounced when groupings of objects become larger. I have two hundred apples would hardly be worth typing. The number 2 however is meaningless without two objects to associate it with.
That is how they are different.
The status quo, at least among moral philosophers, is moral realism by a 2:1 margin
The argument from popularity. This is a classic logical fallacy and does not add weight to your argument.
I'm also assuming that most people who don't delve into philosophy too much would say that such a thing is truly evil, which would fall under a moral realist position as well.
Yes most people are of the subjective opinion that rape is morally reprehensible. Even evil though I don't have much use for the word evil myself feeling that it is a purely subjective term and that moral and immoral cover the concept quite nicely.
I mention this because you would need some overriding evidence to show that prevailing prima facie intuitions about it being truly evil are false.
I don't see why that would be the case as you admit that people can have differences of opinion about what is moral. You have chosen a rather extreme example but some rapists may not necessarily feel that they are doing anything wrong. This argument can be applied to anything that a group of people feel is right or wrong. I may consider something moral that you feel should be a punishable offense. That is a subjective opinion by definition.
The only way that something could be morally wrong independent of our opinions is if humanity was brought into being for a purpose.
This does not logically follow. If something were morally wrong independent of our opinions it would remain wrong whether humanity was brought into being for a purpose or if we had not or if even if we evolved naturally and were not brought into being at all. Something being objectively morally wrong has nothing to do with the origins of life in general or humanity in particular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
A purely linguistic or intellectual convention. Subjective.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
I adore this quote.Like organic gunk that accumulates in the ice machine that is the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How have you determined that this is the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How have you determined that beliefs are not formed subconciously?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
From a human perspective it is quite rational to want humans protected from harm. There is a vested interest involved. I have a vested interest in protecting humans from being raped and so it is rational for me to see rapists punished in a way that discourages rape. Nothing about that makes this anything other than a subjective opinion.
Your thread title says that if rape is morally wrong regardless of human opinions then god exists. I'm not sure if that line of reasoning holds up to rational scrutiny but it doesn't matter because rape is not morally wrong regardless of human opinions it is wrong because of human opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That does not give you licence to make unfounded claims about whatever you call god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The world is not full of information. The world is full of the world. We as humans have amassed information about it. We have evolved specifically to do so.
We could not expect any particular outcome over any other if the world arose from mindlessness. A mind would (assuming we could detect it and understand its goals) be cause to expect that the world was in keeping with the goals of that mind but the goal could just as easily be a blank unimaginative and disjointed reality as a complex one. All we can surmise from the evidence is that reality exists as it does and not in some other way which is not enough evidence to assign a probability to a universal conciousness.
Even assuming we can determine such a conciousness this would justify a belief in deism at most and it would still be beyond our epistemology to say that it was some particular god(s) responsible.
On a side note harder to believe is a subjective opinion not an objective fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Science has a better track record than any other method yet discovered by humans of discovering objective truth and improving human quality of life. If the goal is promoting human wellbeing or separating fact from fiction then a strict adherence to the scientific method is the only rational course of action.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes but only humans attach judgements like "good" or "bad" to such consequences.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
- It doesn't matter if one of us has any moral high ground. We will both be held accountable for our actions by our fellow humans. The rapist will be punished in most scenarios. I am not saying that it is right or wrong to punish him but I am saying that it will happen. Most humans agree that harming humans is immoral since we benefit from the widespread belief that harming humans is wrong and as irrational primates we seem to feel the need to punish those who cause harm. As for the punishment itself it is also neither right or wrong in its own right but it can have utility if we have a goal in mind ( like preventing rape for example) and it has the net effect of accomplishing that goal (say by deterring would be rapists with the threat of punishment).
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Goal is simply the wrong word. Evolution and internal organs have a logical consequence not a goal.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Morality is completely subjective but if we can agree on a shared standard upon which to base morality we can make objective statements about morality based on that standard. If for example we agree that it is immoral to harm other human beings then we can say that infant rape (by virtue of being harmful to infants) is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well this discussion is not about what exists it is about what can and cannot be known so if your beliefs don't matter I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to say "I don't know".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I will say that if you say "my claims about reality are unsupported by the facts". You might cap it off with a nice "there is no way to confirm that anything is eternal".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No one here is arguing that there is no truth. We just don't believe you know any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
He does however persulist in making unsupportable claims about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No one here is arguing that there is no truth. We just don't believe you know any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If we are all wrong then you do not know what is true. I went ahead and read the rest of your post but I could have stopped there since you are wrong. On a side not I'm not sure what you mean by love the truth but you cannot know what I do or do not love.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If I understand your subjective standard correctly then we are equally wicked and no amount of repentance will make us anything else. You have proposed an unrealistic standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What does common sense have to do with being pure of heart and what does either have to do with knowledge, truth, reality, noumana or any other subject we have so far discussed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm sorry but I don't understand your answer. If this is your preferred definition of pure in heart then I would appreciate some clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
She did not claim that reality is meaningless only that your definition is circular and meaningless. Please read janrsix's comments with more care she is very honest about her epistemological limits when discussing her possition.--> @janesixIf you believe that "The Ultimate Reality" is meaningless, that is certainly an assessment that comes from a paradigm that renders it meaningless.It is certainly not meaningless. Meaningless to you.
Created: