The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics

[Squible]

Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong.

I never said you did. But it seems you side stepped the deeper question in a slight of hand. You didn't agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think. Therefore you are saying, Murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong, but the moral view "murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong" is dependent upon other peoples opinions.

If this is the case then really those who did it were just following the reigning opinion at the time and at that time there wasn't really anything wrong with it, since it wasn't wrong regardless of peoples opinions.

Or do you wish to agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think?

It was not my intention to side step anything; perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, allow me to rephrase.
I believe murdering people because of the color of their skin is wrong regardless of what others think.
With that said; I also believe there are some things are wrong that according to your Bible is right; thus you will perceive as right as well. I believe these things are wrong regardless of what you or others might say; and regardless of what the Bible says.
Now is that Subjective? or Objective.

You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

I never said anywhere that those who believe in subjective morality are immoral and this is what your statement here implies. Anyway, this is not what the conversation is about.

No; I said you seem to believe subjective morality equals no morality at all.

The point is to establish whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

What are Objective moral duties? Can you provide some examples of them?

Ken

Kenny,

You are attempting to cloud the issue by introducing all these other topics. I am not going to enter into these side line discussions because it is merely a distraction from the main point. We are not talking about the bible or Christian belief here Kenny, we are discussing whether or not objective morality exists. This question sits independent of Christian belief and doesn't need those topics raised in order to answer it.

The point is Kenny, the statement "Murdering someone for the color of their skin is wrong" is true independent of peoples opinions. If it can be established that at least one or more moral facts exist independent of peoples opinions, then an objective moral reality does exist.

If subjective morality is absolutely true, and there is no objective moral reality, Kenny, then basically morality is whatever the reigning opinion of the time is, this problem cannot be avoided. And perhaps you fail to recognize this? I am not saying that all of those opinions would be immoral either if it were true. The point is there are no moral absolutes under moral subjectivism / relativism.

Moral duties are about moral obligation. so we have an obligation regardless of whether or not we agree to do certain things. So for example we have an obligation not to murder someone simply because of the color of their skin even if everyone else thought it was okay to commit this act.

Bottom line is Kenny, you do agree that at least at some level an objective moral reality does exist, given that you seem to recognize that there is at least one or more moral facts which are true independent of peoples opinions.

Lets leave it here for now.

[Kenny]

Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong.

I never said you did. But it seems you side stepped the deeper question in a slight of hand. You didn't agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think. Therefore you are saying, Murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong, but the moral view "murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong" is dependent upon other peoples opinions.

If this is the case then really those who did it were just following the reigning opinion at the time and at that time there wasn't really anything wrong with it, since it wasn't wrong regardless of peoples opinions.

Or do you wish to agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think?

It was not my intention to side step anything; perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, allow me to rephrase.
I believe murdering people because of the color of their skin is wrong regardless of what others think.
With that said; I also believe there are some things are wrong that according to your Bible is right; thus you will perceive as right as well. I believe these things are wrong regardless of what you or others might say; and regardless of what the Bible says.
Now is that Subjective? or Objective.

You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

I never said anywhere that those who believe in subjective morality are immoral and this is what your statement here implies. Anyway, this is not what the conversation is about.

No; I said you seem to believe subjective morality equals no morality at all.

The point is to establish whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

What are Objective moral duties? Can you provide some examples of them?

Ken

Kenny,

You are attempting to cloud the issue by introducing all these other topics. I am not going to enter into these side line discussions because it is merely a distraction from the main point. We are not talking about the bible or Christian belief here Kenny, we are discussing whether or not objective morality exists. This question sits independent of Christian belief and doesn't need those topics raised in order to answer it.

The point is Kenny, the statement "Murdering someone for the color of their skin is wrong" is true independent of peoples opinions. If it can be established that at least one or more moral facts exist independent of peoples opinions, then an objective moral reality does exist.

If subjective morality is absolutely true, and there is no objective moral reality, Kenny, then basically morality is whatever the reigning opinion of the time is, this problem cannot be avoided. And perhaps you fail to recognize this? I am not saying that all of those opinions would be immoral either if it were true. The point is there are no moral absolutes under moral subjectivism / relativism.

Moral duties are about moral obligation. so we have an obligation regardless of whether or not we agree to do certain things. So for example we have an obligation not to murder someone simply because of the color of their skin even if everyone else thought it was okay to commit this act.

Bottom line is Kenny, you do agree that at least at some level an objective moral reality does exist, given that you seem to recognize that there is at least one or more moral facts which are true independent of peoples opinions.

Lets leave it here for now.

I would like to end things on a positive note, but it would be less than honest of me if I didn’t clarify again. I believe murdering someone because of the color of their skin is wrong, I believe it is morally wrong regardless of what anybody else says or thinks, but I don’t believe any of this is based upon fact. Facts can be demonstrated, and moral issues, this one included; can’t be demonstrated.

Ken

[Squible]

It doesn't have to be absolutely proven, we only need to establish that it is innately true or self evidently true. And you innately know it to be true regardless of other people's opinions as do many others, that's enough to establish that objective morality exists

[Kenny]

It doesn't have to be absolutely proven, we only need to establish that it is innately true or self evidently true.

Sorry but I'm gonna have to disagree with you my friend; facts do have to be absolutely proven. If it isn't absolutely proven it isn't a fact.

Ken

[Squible]

The point is Kenny you know murdering someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong independent of people's opinions, you know it to your core. So be honest with what that conclusion means with regard to an objective moral reality.

[Squible]

It doesn't have to be absolutely proven, we only need to establish that it is innately true or self evidently true.

Sorry but I'm gonna have to disagree with you my friend; facts do have to be absolutely proven. If it isn't absolutely proven it isn't a fact.

Ken

Squirm all you like Kenny!

I may have been loose with that term, however raising this makes no difference to the conclusion.

[RickD]

ken wrote:
would like to end things on a positive note, but it would be less than honest of me if I didn’t clarify again. I believe murdering someone because of the color of their skin is wrong, I believe it is morally wrong regardless of what anybody else says or thinks, but I don’t believe any of this is based upon fact. Facts can be demonstrated, and moral issues, this one included; can’t be demonstrated.

Finally we get Kenny to realize he's holding to OM.

[Kenny]

The point is Kenny you know murdering someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong independent of people's opinions, you know it to your core. So be honest with what that conclusion means with regard to an objective moral reality.

We've been over this already; calling morality Objective doesn't make it any more authentic. You seem to think subjective morality is equal to no morality at all

Ken

[Squible]

The point is Kenny you know murdering someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong independent of people's opinions, you know it to your core. So be honest with what that conclusion means with regard to an objective moral reality.

We've been over this already; calling morality Objective doesn't make it any more authentic. You seem to think subjective morality is equal to no morality at all

Ken

We'll just let the entire conversation speak for itself.

People can replace moral facts with moral statements or propositions, since I was a bit loose with some of my wording in the last few posts.

Have a good day!

[Kurieuo]

@Kenny, do you understand the difference between moral values and moral laws?

Moral values: Moral issues you find important
Moral laws: Moral issues you are required to live by

I get the feeling you see them as interpreted differently. How do you define the two terms?

Consider love.
Is love a value or moral law?

Consider do not lie.
Is thou shalt not lie a value or moral law?

[Kenny]

The point is Kenny you know murdering someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong independent of people's opinions, you know it to your core. So be honest with what that conclusion means with regard to an objective moral reality.

We've been over this already; calling morality Objective doesn't make it any more authentic. You seem to think subjective morality is equal to no morality at all

Ken

We'll just let the entire conversation speak for itself.

People can replace moral facts with moral statements or propositions, since I was a bit loose with some of my wording in the last few posts.

Have a good day!

Good day. Nice discussing with you my friend!

K

[Kenny]

@Kenny, do you understand the difference between moral values and moral laws?

Moral values: Moral issues you find important
Moral laws: Moral issues you are required to live by

I get the feeling you see them as interpreted differently. How do you define the two terms?

Consider love.
Is love a value or moral law?

Consider do not lie.
Is thou shalt not lie a value or moral law?

Love is something I value. Don't steal would be a law. Do you agree?

k

[Kurieuo]

They were direct yes/no questions Kenny.
I didn't ask whether it was/wasn't a value you personally have.

Which makes more sense.

Love is a value.
Love is a moral law.

Do not lie is a value.
Do not lie is moral law.

When you answer, then more than happy to answer your questions.

[Nicki]

Kenny,

Your response demonstrates that either you fail to understand what I wrote or perhaps you are trying to side step answering it directly because you didn't like the conclusion.

The reasons for someone committing murder are by definition subjective Kenny,

I didn’t say that; I said weather the killing is murder or not is subjective. If the person killed is innocent it’s murder; if he is guilty it is not murder

whether murder is right or wrong is a different thing all together.

Now I was making the point that if certain actions are right or wrong regardless of what others think then objective morality exists.

Answer the question directly and to use something you did a few posts back:

Is murdering someone due to their skin colour wrong regardless of what other people think?

Yes or No.

Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong. You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

Now that I’ve answered your question; please answer mine. Is lying to the SS wrong?

Ken

What would someone killed by someone else have to be guilty of for it not to be murder?

I think your firm beliefs about murder and your mention of a 'moral obligation' to mislead the SS really speak of a concrete, factual morality, which is independent of what some people might think.

[Kenny]

They were direct yes/no questions Kenny.
I didn't ask whether it was/wasn't a value you personally have.

Which makes more sense.

Love is a value.
Love is a moral law.

Do not lie is a value.
Do not lie is moral law.

When you answer, then more than happy to answer your questions.

Thus far, none of the questions you asked were yes/no; they have all been (a)/(b). I answered the question the best way I know how, I don't know how I can make it any clearer. I see love as a value, I see the order "do not lie" as a law.

Ken