Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

Quote:

---

You can through observation arrive at the law of non contradiction. Or law of identity.

---

No you cannot. They are axioms. They are immaterial. You cannot observe them. To be consistent with your ideas on morality, they are simply ideas that we all subjectively agree to. They are not objective.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

You can through observation arrive at the law of non contradiction. Or law of identity.

---

No you cannot. They are axioms. They are immaterial. You cannot observe them. To be consistent with your ideas on morality, they are simply ideas that we all subjectively agree to. They are not objective.

---

You can't observe gravity either. Yet we still figured it out through observation. We just did this….

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

---

I'm not claiming that I'm right and anyone else is wrong in any objective sense. More so that I believe I am right and they are wrong.

If you're thinking you can trap me into some "Aha! You do believe in objective morality!" moment I'm sorry to say but that's not going to happen.

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

---

I'm not claiming that I'm right and anyone else is wrong in any objective sense. More so that I believe I am right and they are wrong.

---

What's the difference?

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

You can through observation arrive at the law of non contradiction. Or law of identity.

---

No you cannot. They are axioms. They are immaterial. You cannot observe them. To be consistent with your ideas on morality, they are simply ideas that we all subjectively agree to. They are not objective.

---

You can't observe gravity either. Yet we still figured it out through observation. We just did this….

---

We can observe gravity. Two bodies are attracted to each other.

Of course, we can only formulate F = G*m1*m2/r^2 by taking for granted the unobservable laws of logic and a host of other scientific axioms that we all subjectively agree to. The law of gravity is not objectively true.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

---

I'm not claiming that I'm right and anyone else is wrong in any objective sense. More so that I believe I am right and they are wrong.

---

What's the difference?

---

Practically speaking? Not much. It's not necessary for a moral standard to be objective in order for it to be widely agreed upon and enforced within a society. But that's kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it?

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

---

I'm not claiming that I'm right and anyone else is wrong in any objective sense. More so that I believe I am right and they are wrong.

---

What's the difference?

---

Practically speaking? Not much. It's not necessary for a moral standard to be objective in order for it to be widely agreed upon and enforced within a society. But that's kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it?

---

So you believe that your moral beliefs, even admittedly subjective, should be enforced on others. Given they are widely agreed upon by those in your immediate vicinity. Although in our society it usually only takes a simple majority.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You didn't observe gravity, you observed movement. That movement repeatedly observed lead to the law of universal gravitation. That in turn lead to the current theory of gravity.

You could also looking at object make observations excluding quantum ones that lead to the law of the excluded middle.

But none of these findings are subjective. None depend on the opinions, emotions, imagination, ect. Of the subject. They all rest on objective standards.

---

Those "objective standards" are still in the mind of the subject. Just because they are widely agreed upon doesn't make them objective.

Quote:

---

Fundamentally Hume hit the nail on the head long ago, you can't go from an is to an ought.

---

How do you make (subjective) ought statements then?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

---

I'm not claiming that I'm right and anyone else is wrong in any objective sense. More so that I believe I am right and they are wrong.

---

What's the difference?

---

Practically speaking? Not much. It's not necessary for a moral standard to be objective in order for it to be widely agreed upon and enforced within a society. But that's kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it?

---

So you believe that your moral beliefs, even admittedly subjective, should be enforced on others. Given they are widely agreed upon by those in your immediate vicinity. Although in our society it usually only takes a simple majority.

---

It depends. If we're talking about enforcement that implies to me that we're no longer talking about what's moral but instead what is legal. Arguing about how that process works is more a political question than a philosophical one. In general, the laws of a society typically reflect the shared moral values of that society. When that isn't the case there tends to be some degree of political unrest.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

To say something is subjective is to say it's dependent on a mind, so it's dependent on individual feelings, emotions, perceptions, experiences, imagination ect.

So for instance taste in music or art. The root of subjective is subject-it depends on the subject. Even if two or more subjects agree, it won't change something from subjective to objective.

To say something is objective is to say the opposite, it doesn't rely on a mind, on preferences, it cannot be said to vary between individuals, or if it does we can demonstrate rationally that one of those individuals is wrong relying only on the rules of logic and basic presuppositions about the universe.

For instance if two rocks fall down a hill followed by three more you objectively have 5 rocks that fell. This is true regardless of your opinion, emotions, preferences ect.

To say a moral claim is objective or subjective is to see which category it falls in. There is a strong emotional preference some have for asserting a moral claim is objective. But actually demonstrating this is incredibly difficult at best (I would argue it's actually impossible).

So when we ask, objectively when is someone an adult, you see the issue. How we define "adult" is nebulous, varies wildly by individual perceptions and cultural norms and expectations. There is no rule or criteria we can assert that demonstrates this is an adult the same way we can scientifically or objectively state this person is female, this person has blue eyes, this person was born 19 years ago ect.

---

But you can't empirically prove your sense perception is reliable, so you can't know that 5 rocks fell. The foundation of the physical sciences can't be proved scientifically. We have to grant certain principles in order to "do science". Using your definition, nothing is objective.

---

No read again I included basic presuppositions about the universe and the rules of logic. A basic reliability of the senses would be included in those presuppositions

---

So you get to grant yourself an entire epistemological framework to get around the fact that you can't empirically prove scientific truths. But you reject metaphysical truths because they can't be proved empirically?

---

I grant the bare minimum to get past solipsism or mind in a vat problems. That scientific truths can operate objectively on this bare minimum is simply a side effect.

And note that the bare minimum presuppositions I'm speaking of are virtually completely universal and utterly uncontroversial. You'd have no way of managing the same for some unnecessary metaphysical presuppositions, let alone the incredible list of them you'd need for objective morality.

---

This is an incoherent double standard. Why should we presuppose things like logic and reason absent a creator? What does it even mean to behave rationally?

---

There is nothing incoherent here. You just want special pleading for your particular religion.Logic and reason demonstrate themselves. We are only presupposing induction, that the laws won't change nilly willy in the future. That can't be demonstrated only inferred. And I consider that a terribly small leap. Rules of logic can be (and were) derived from observation about our universe and you cannot demonstrate that a god is required for such things to exist.

Exactly which god(s) of what nature do you want to presuppose? You don't actually have any knowledge of god, you don't have a coherent universal definition that works for all of humanity across all times.

And even if I grant a generic creator god (we shouldn't) the claims for objective morality still fail on multiple counts. You can't get past euthyphros dilemma and you don't have any supposed access to objective morality which doesn't require subjectivity.

---

Special pleading? I haven't even argued on here for the existence of God. You're projecting. You scoff at arguments for the existence of objective metaphysical realities because it can't be empirically proven, but acknowledge the existence of other realities that also can't be empirically proven. You're jumping straight to "humans have a rational will and the ability to use logic and reason, and we can reliably measure things, and perception is reality". That's not a small leap. It's a massive leap from materialism to that.

You still seem to not grasp the basic concept. All thoughts are part of a mind or created by a mind. That doesn't make anything humans think of subjective. People can think of concepts that are not dependent on personal emotion, experience, ect. Concepts that can be applied universally without issue.

At this point maybe spend some time on the google machine until you get a feel for the concepts and excluding morality can identify an objective vs subjective standard.

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Rocag said:

---

According to my subjective moral beliefs? Yes.

---

So you are right and they are wrong. What did you mean that you can really only speak for yourself?

---

I'm not claiming that I'm right and anyone else is wrong in any objective sense. More so that I believe I am right and they are wrong.

---

What's the difference?

---

Practically speaking? Not much. It's not necessary for a moral standard to be objective in order for it to be widely agreed upon and enforced within a society. But that's kind of the whole point of this thread, isn't it?

---

So you believe that your moral beliefs, even admittedly subjective, should be enforced on others. Given they are widely agreed upon by those in your immediate vicinity. Although in our society it usually only takes a simple majority.

---

It depends. If we're talking about enforcement that implies to me that we're no longer talking about what's moral but instead what is legal. Arguing about how that process works is more a political question than a philosophical one. In general, the laws of a society typically reflect the shared moral values of that society. When that isn't the case there tends to be some degree of political unrest.

---

Enforcing moral beliefs on another is a moral belief in itself. It is good for 50, 60, 80% of people to enforce their morality on the other 50, 40, 20% of citizens.

Quote:

---

You still seem to not grasp the basic concept.

---

I guess it's not objectively true then.

That's definitely not how that works.

So says you and your subjective rules on truth.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Be specific which reality to you think I'm presupposing that isn't justified. Name them.

Then be specific, what of the metaphysical do you specifically think humans must universally presuppose?

Just because the small list of things we are presupposing are not in conflict with materialism doesn't mean materialism is presupposed. You could ostensibly (and many do) try to justify metaphysics using these same presuppositions. Same goes for materialism. Those are much broader claims.

I do in fact believe that if there were a metaphysical reality that could actually interact with our universe these same basic presuppositions could build up a foundation upon which the metaphysical reality is rationally and objectively justified.

---

I haven't said they can't be justified. I'm saying you can know certain objective truths absent empirical evidence. You've said all of these are self evident, and that's how you know they're really existing things. I say certain moral absolutes are self evident. Some truths are harder to know than others. It doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Be specific which reality to you think I'm presupposing that isn't justified. Name them.

Then be specific, what of the metaphysical do you specifically think humans must universally presuppose?

Just because the small list of things we are presupposing are not in conflict with materialism doesn't mean materialism is presupposed. You could ostensibly (and many do) try to justify metaphysics using these same presuppositions. Same goes for materialism. Those are much broader claims.

I do in fact believe that if there were a metaphysical reality that could actually interact with our universe these same basic presuppositions could build up a foundation upon which the metaphysical reality is rationally and objectively justified.

---

I haven't said they can't be justified. I'm saying you can know certain objective truths absent empirical evidence. You've said all of these are self evident, and that's how you know they're really existing things. I say certain moral absolutes are self evident. Some truths are harder to know than others. It doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

---

Again be specific, what do you think we must presuppose metaphysically?

The only things I want to presuppose is the bare minimum for us to operate in and interact without our universe without total solipsism.

Presupposing a cosmic moral structure is a dramatically different leap. What governs this moral structure? How does it operate? Where does it exist? If it's so self evident why can't you or I answer a huge array of moral questions specifically and consistently between ourselves like we might in identifying shapes and colors, texture and heat ect.

Are you presupposing a god also? Is that god subject to the moral structure or is he subject to it?


It seems to me a very plausible scenario that there isn't a moral structure to the universe. That there isn't a god or gods. And huge numbers of humans think the same. So why should we universally discount this possibility?

In comparison is it a very plausible scenario that we are minds in a vat? Are there huge numbers of people who don't find this self evident?

These are not of a like kind.

---

I don't need to presuppose anything. There's good evidence for the existence of a being whose essence is just existence, who created the universe. It makes sense to me that we're able to understand the universe if we were made in its Creator's likeness. I think we intuitively know that human beings have moral worth and there's a natural recognition that there's something innate in us that isn't purely physical. We recognize that some things are better than others, which only makes sense if there's a pinnacle of goodness.

My only point is that if the basis of your rejection for the existence of God is a lack of empirical evidence, then you've got a real problem. And you already acknowledged that you grant yourself certain things to get around that problem. I'd argue that you're presupposing the non-existence of God. I haven't just granted His existence absent any evidence. It just isn't empirical evidence.

Eta: asking if God is subject to the moral law is like asking if you're subject to your own humanity. It's a meaningless paradox. The moral law is part and parcel of who God is.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Be specific which reality to you think I'm presupposing that isn't justified. Name them.

Then be specific, what of the metaphysical do you specifically think humans must universally presuppose?

Just because the small list of things we are presupposing are not in conflict with materialism doesn't mean materialism is presupposed. You could ostensibly (and many do) try to justify metaphysics using these same presuppositions. Same goes for materialism. Those are much broader claims.

I do in fact believe that if there were a metaphysical reality that could actually interact with our universe these same basic presuppositions could build up a foundation upon which the metaphysical reality is rationally and objectively justified.

---

I haven't said they can't be justified. I'm saying you can know certain objective truths absent empirical evidence. You've said all of these are self evident, and that's how you know they're really existing things. I say certain moral absolutes are self evident. Some truths are harder to know than others. It doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

---

Again be specific, what do you think we must presuppose metaphysically?

The only things I want to presuppose is the bare minimum for us to operate in and interact without our universe without total solipsism.

Presupposing a cosmic moral structure is a dramatically different leap. What governs this moral structure? How does it operate? Where does it exist? If it's so self evident why can't you or I answer a huge array of moral questions specifically and consistently between ourselves like we might in identifying shapes and colors, texture and heat ect.

Are you presupposing a god also? Is that god subject to the moral structure or is he subject to it?


It seems to me a very plausible scenario that there isn't a moral structure to the universe. That there isn't a god or gods. And huge numbers of humans think the same. So why should we universally discount this possibility?

In comparison is it a very plausible scenario that we are minds in a vat? Are there huge numbers of people who don't find this self evident?

These are not of a like kind.

---

I don't need to presuppose anything. There's good evidence for the existence of a being whose essence is just existence, who created the universe. It makes sense to me that we're able to understand the universe if we were made in its Creator's likeness. I think we intuitively know that human beings have moral worth and there's a natural recognition that there's something innate in us that isn't purely physical. We recognize that some things are better than others, which only makes sense if there's a pinnacle of goodness.

My only point is that if the basis of your rejection for the existence of God is a lack of empirical evidence, then you've got a real problem. And you already acknowledged that you grant yourself certain things to get around that problem. I'd argue that you're presupposing the non-existence of God. I haven't just granted His existence absent any evidence. It just isn't empirical evidence.

---

I don't see that I have any issue whatsoever, certainly not one you can point to. First you complain about the nature of my presuppositions. Then you acknowledge both that you cannot point to an issue of anything I have presupposed nor can you state anything else I should have additionally presupposed.

You state there is good evidence for your arguments-what evidence? As I previously argued if there were a metaphysical reality that interacts with our universe the basic empirical methods and rational thinking should support this view objectively.And plenty of people think it does. So the idea that I've presupposed gods non existence is rather obviously false. So what's the issue? I see no problem you can actually identify.


In the other hand, I see a huge issue the other way round. To take on your view we have no method or means of determining if there is no god-or at least not one that readily interacts with our universe.

You seem to be offering nothing and losing much.

---

You're wanting to get into a "God not real though" debate. I'm not interested in that. I was replying to your claim that you can't know if something is objectively true absent empirical evidence, which you acknowledged is wrong. That's the issue. If you can arrive at the correct conclusion that our sense perceptions are reliable even though you can't prove it scientifically, then you can't point to lack of empirical evidence to support your claim that objective moral truths don't exist.

You keep saying the metaphysical would have to be bound by the laws of physics in order for it to be true. THAT is not rational. We can arrive at the existence of God through logic and reason, which isn't the same thing as radical empiricism. If you want book recommendations to know what I believe, read An Elementary Christian Metaphysics. Or anything by Thomas Aquinas on epistemology or the philosophy of the human person. Or George Weigel has some good stuff that's easy to read on morals. Or the Splendor of Truth by Pope St. John Paul II (really this one might be the most apt recommendation).

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Be specific which reality to you think I'm presupposing that isn't justified. Name them.

Then be specific, what of the metaphysical do you specifically think humans must universally presuppose?

Just because the small list of things we are presupposing are not in conflict with materialism doesn't mean materialism is presupposed. You could ostensibly (and many do) try to justify metaphysics using these same presuppositions. Same goes for materialism. Those are much broader claims.

I do in fact believe that if there were a metaphysical reality that could actually interact with our universe these same basic presuppositions could build up a foundation upon which the metaphysical reality is rationally and objectively justified.

---

I haven't said they can't be justified. I'm saying you can know certain objective truths absent empirical evidence. You've said all of these are self evident, and that's how you know they're really existing things. I say certain moral absolutes are self evident. Some truths are harder to know than others. It doesn't mean they aren't objectively true.

---

Again be specific, what do you think we must presuppose metaphysically?

The only things I want to presuppose is the bare minimum for us to operate in and interact without our universe without total solipsism.

Presupposing a cosmic moral structure is a dramatically different leap. What governs this moral structure? How does it operate? Where does it exist? If it's so self evident why can't you or I answer a huge array of moral questions specifically and consistently between ourselves like we might in identifying shapes and colors, texture and heat ect.

Are you presupposing a god also? Is that god subject to the moral structure or is he subject to it?


It seems to me a very plausible scenario that there isn't a moral structure to the universe. That there isn't a god or gods. And huge numbers of humans think the same. So why should we universally discount this possibility?

In comparison is it a very plausible scenario that we are minds in a vat? Are there huge numbers of people who don't find this self evident?

These are not of a like kind.

---

I don't need to presuppose anything. There's good evidence for the existence of a being whose essence is just existence, who created the universe. It makes sense to me that we're able to understand the universe if we were made in its Creator's likeness. I think we intuitively know that human beings have moral worth and there's a natural recognition that there's something innate in us that isn't purely physical. We recognize that some things are better than others, which only makes sense if there's a pinnacle of goodness.

My only point is that if the basis of your rejection for the existence of God is a lack of empirical evidence, then you've got a real problem. And you already acknowledged that you grant yourself certain things to get around that problem. I'd argue that you're presupposing the non-existence of God. I haven't just granted His existence absent any evidence. It just isn't empirical evidence.

---

I don't see that I have any issue whatsoever, certainly not one you can point to. First you complain about the nature of my presuppositions. Then you acknowledge both that you cannot point to an issue of anything I have presupposed nor can you state anything else I should have additionally presupposed.

You state there is good evidence for your arguments-what evidence? As I previously argued if there were a metaphysical reality that interacts with our universe the basic empirical methods and rational thinking should support this view objectively.And plenty of people think it does. So the idea that I've presupposed gods non existence is rather obviously false. So what's the issue? I see no problem you can actually identify.


In the other hand, I see a huge issue the other way round. To take on your view we have no method or means of determining if there is no god-or at least not one that readily interacts with our universe.

You seem to be offering nothing and losing much.

---

You're wanting to get into a "God not real though" debate. I'm not interested in that. I was replying to your claim that you can't know if something is objectively true absent empirical evidence, which you acknowledged is wrong. That's the issue. If you can arrive at the correct conclusion that our sense perceptions are reliable even though you can't prove it scientifically, then you can't point to lack of empirical evidence to support your claim that objective moral truths don't exist.

You keep saying the metaphysical would have to be bound by the laws of physics in order for it to be true. THAT is not rational. We can arrive at the existence of God through logic and reason, which isn't the same thing as radical empiricism. If you want book recommendations to know what I believe, read An Elementary Christian Metaphysics. Or anything by Thomas Aquinas on epistemology or the philosophy of the human person. Or George Weigel has some good stuff that's easy to read on morals. Or the Splendor of Truth by Pope St. John Paul II (really this one might be the most apt recommendation).

---

There is not one way thus far in which you've changed my view. I don't know of any acknowledgment of any point you've made yet. Why don't you point to it. I think you are confused here.

In fact the only place I spoke of my presuppositions was in a conversation with someone else. So I'm not really sure what point you think you made. Of course we need basic presuppositions to get past solipsism an acknowledge a world beyond our own mind. You seem to think this some sort of irrational position or that the acceptance of anything presuppositionally requires the acceptance of your own metaphysical views as well. The acceptance of a basic reliability of the senses doesn't equate empirical science to a personal emotion. Nor does it logically follow that we must accept anything else presuppositionally, which I've asked for many times and you cannot offer.

Until you can actually point to what we should accept presuppositionally different than what I have already I consider this line of argument bunk. Until you can do this you will have nothing to offer.

You call my empiricism "radical" but cannot state why or how it should be altered.

And I never once said the metaphysical must be bound by the laws of physics. Where do you think I even implied that? I only said if the metaphysical interacts with the physical in any way the presuppositions I put forth are enough to objectively substantiate those views. Interaction doesn't imply nor demand being bound.

Again you offer a view which offers no way to determine if any of your beliefs are wrong and what I have put forth leaves plenty of room to acknowledge a metaphysical that actually interacts with the physical.

If a metaphysical exists that never interacts with the physical I don't see any way in which we could know it exists. Nor do I see any practical difference between never interacting with the physical and non existence.

This isn't about god, I'm not trying to make it so, I'm only pointing out those questions to show just how incredibly extensive your supposed self evident knowledge is supposed to be.

You are trying to claim a vague exception for your own personal feelings about certain unnamed unsubstantiated non specific moral precepts to be granted objectivity for no other reason than you seem uncomfortable with the idea that they are subjective.

What compelling reason can you put forth to accept such a notion?

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

Bob Lee said:

---

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

---

But over and over again you cannot state how or why it's deficient or how it should be modified. Why should I take that seriously?

That with a silent invisible god and the universe being as it appears to be you have zero chance of supporting an objective morality is precisely why several of us in this thread have been telling you there is no such thing. How have you been missing that? We live in a universe utterly consistent with no objective morality.

If we lived in a universe where people received an electric shock every time they committed certain moral acts you'd have one hell of a case.

To your second question-if I'm right why should you care what other people think? For basically the exact same reasons you should care if people with differing opinions pretend at objective morality. Societies need rules to function. Since no objective morality exists or at the very least no objective way to access whatever the unknown objective morals are we must decide collectively on the rules amongst ourselves.

You live in a world of subjective morals. Acknowledging that really changes nothing in a practical sense besides encouraging a tiny bit of humility when making laws.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

---

But over and over again you cannot state how or why it's deficient or how it should be modified. Why should I take that seriously?

That with a silent invisible god and the universe being as it appears to be you have zero chance of supporting an objective morality is precisely why several of us in this thread have been telling you there is no such thing. How have you been missing that? We live in a universe utterly consistent with no objective morality.

If we lived in a universe where people received an electric shock every time they committed certain moral acts you'd have one hell of a case.

To your second question-if I'm right why should you care what other people think? For basically the exact same reasons you should care if people with differing opinions pretend at objective morality. Societies need rules to function. Since no objective morality exists or at the very least no objective way to access whatever the unknown objective morals are we must decide collectively on the rules amongst ourselves.

You live in a world of subjective morals. Acknowledging that really changes nothing in a practical sense besides encouraging a tiny bit of humility when making laws.

---

Why could societies not function without rules? Why have rules if they're equal parts just and unjust? Why should I care?

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

---

But over and over again you cannot state how or why it's deficient or how it should be modified. Why should I take that seriously?

That with a silent invisible god and the universe being as it appears to be you have zero chance of supporting an objective morality is precisely why several of us in this thread have been telling you there is no such thing. How have you been missing that? We live in a universe utterly consistent with no objective morality.

If we lived in a universe where people received an electric shock every time they committed certain moral acts you'd have one hell of a case.

To your second question-if I'm right why should you care what other people think? For basically the exact same reasons you should care if people with differing opinions pretend at objective morality. Societies need rules to function. Since no objective morality exists or at the very least no objective way to access whatever the unknown objective morals are we must decide collectively on the rules amongst ourselves.

You live in a world of subjective morals. Acknowledging that really changes nothing in a practical sense besides encouraging a tiny bit of humility when making laws.

---

Why could societies not function without rules? Why have rules if they're equal parts just and unjust? Why should I care?

---

the premise that a rule is unjust just because it's not objective isn't workable. As we showed with Martin earlier objectively demonstrate that a 17 year old is a child and an 18 year old is an adult.

If laws are unjust if they cannot be objectively demonstrated then laws are unjust regardless of whether you believe objective morals exist. This is a silly standard.

A small enough society might work without rules, at least without explicit ones. But large enough societies statistically always have people that are poor enough neighbors the other citizens want a way to address their behavior.

I don't particularly want to live in a lawless society, nor do I particularly want to live in a theocracy. Most of us want something in between so we will compromise with our neighbors.

I'm always amazed theists actually think this presents any problem. We've lived a very long time with disagreement about morals. This is nothing new.

---

It does present a problem. You can't answer the "why" because you know how that plays out. If morals are subjective, then a theocracy is as good as anything, unless you can tell me why it isn't without telling me what you want or don't want. There's no reason for me to care about you or what you want.

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

---

But over and over again you cannot state how or why it's deficient or how it should be modified. Why should I take that seriously?

That with a silent invisible god and the universe being as it appears to be you have zero chance of supporting an objective morality is precisely why several of us in this thread have been telling you there is no such thing. How have you been missing that? We live in a universe utterly consistent with no objective morality.

If we lived in a universe where people received an electric shock every time they committed certain moral acts you'd have one hell of a case.

To your second question-if I'm right why should you care what other people think? For basically the exact same reasons you should care if people with differing opinions pretend at objective morality. Societies need rules to function. Since no objective morality exists or at the very least no objective way to access whatever the unknown objective morals are we must decide collectively on the rules amongst ourselves.

You live in a world of subjective morals. Acknowledging that really changes nothing in a practical sense besides encouraging a tiny bit of humility when making laws.

---

Why could societies not function without rules? Why have rules if they're equal parts just and unjust? Why should I care?

---

the premise that a rule is unjust just because it's not objective isn't workable. As we showed with Martin earlier objectively demonstrate that a 17 year old is a child and an 18 year old is an adult.

If laws are unjust if they cannot be objectively demonstrated then laws are unjust regardless of whether you believe objective morals exist. This is a silly standard.

A small enough society might work without rules, at least without explicit ones. But large enough societies statistically always have people that are poor enough neighbors the other citizens want a way to address their behavior.

I don't particularly want to live in a lawless society, nor do I particularly want to live in a theocracy. Most of us want something in between so we will compromise with our neighbors.

I'm always amazed theists actually think this presents any problem. We've lived a very long time with disagreement about morals. This is nothing new.

---

It does present a problem. You can't answer the "why" because you know how that plays out. If morals are subjective, then a theocracy is as good as anything, unless you can tell me why it isn't without telling me what you want or don't want. There's no reason for me to care about you or what you want.

---

I did answer your question. Me pretending at objective morality or you pretending at objective morality changes nothing about how much we should care about someone we disagree with.

The things we don't like about a theocracy don't change one bit by pretending at objective morality either on behalf of the theocracy or against it.


What exactly does the pretense at objectively buy you?

Rocag said:

---

Quote:

---

If we're reducing morals to a matter of personal preference then there's nothing TRULY wrong with rape or incest. That you find those things repugnant doesn't speak to their moral worth. It just speaks to your aversion to them even if you can't justify your aversion.

---

So what? It's understandable that you would prefer to say that your moral code is objective and absolute and to be enforced on all people but that's just a matter of preference. It has nothing to do with whether that standard actually exists.

"I believe in God and objective morality because I don't like the consequences of them not existing" is not a strong argument in favor of either.

---

Well that's not my argument. My argument is that it's impossible for humans to have moral worth unless we also have moral obligations. So if you think the first thing is true, you can't get around the second thing.

So what? So the wisdom of repugnance is actually pretty compelling because normal people recognize rape and incest as disordered behavior even if they can't explain exactly why.