Richard Dawkins says...

[RickD]

Well! I guess it all depends on how one defines "moral relativist" huh?

Ken

Sure, I guess. If one defines a moral relativist as someone who holds to moral relativism, then you're a moral relativist.

But, if someone thinks that word definitions are subjective, then you could make up any definition.

Like I told BW (BavarianWheels) rather than going back and fourth over the definition of words, I would rather respond in the context of how the person I am responding to defines the term. The way Claysmiter described the term, it doesn’t describe me.

Of course it does. He said:

claysmithr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:42 am
Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

Moral relativism says that as far as morality, no truth claims can be made, because in moral relativism, morals are believed to be subjective. So, the claim that no truth claims can be made, is in itself a truth claim. Claysmithjr is saying that it's a self defeating argument. Surely you can see that, right?

Subjective truth claims are still truth claims.

They're really not. By definition, anything Subjective is based on an opinion, not on truth.

[Kenny]

Sure, I guess. If one defines a moral relativist as someone who holds to moral relativism, then you're a moral relativist.

But, if someone thinks that word definitions are subjective, then you could make up any definition.

Like I told BW (BavarianWheels) rather than going back and fourth over the definition of words, I would rather respond in the context of how the person I am responding to defines the term. The way Claysmiter described the term, it doesn’t describe me.

Of course it does. He said:

claysmithr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:42 am
Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

Moral relativism says that as far as morality, no truth claims can be made, because in moral relativism, morals are believed to be subjective. So, the claim that no truth claims can be made, is in itself a truth claim. Claysmithjr is saying that it's a self defeating argument. Surely you can see that, right?

Subjective truth claims are still truth claims.

They're really not. By definition, anything Subjective is based on an opinion, not on truth.

If I make the claim that my subjective opinion is also the truth, how is that not a truth claim?

Ken

[RickD]

Like I told BW (BavarianWheels) rather than going back and fourth over the definition of words, I would rather respond in the context of how the person I am responding to defines the term. The way Claysmiter described the term, it doesn’t describe me.

Of course it does. He said:

claysmithr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:42 am
Like I said moral relativism is indefensible because it claims no truth claims can be made morally, which is itself a truth claim.

Moral relativism says that as far as morality, no truth claims can be made, because in moral relativism, morals are believed to be subjective. So, the claim that no truth claims can be made, is in itself a truth claim. Claysmithjr is saying that it's a self defeating argument. Surely you can see that, right?

Subjective truth claims are still truth claims.

They're really not. By definition, anything Subjective is based on an opinion, not on truth.

If I make the claim that my subjective opinion is also the truth, how is that not a truth claim?

Ken

It is a truth claim. But it's self defeating. Being that it's subjective and an opinion, it can't be truth. Subjective means it's right for you, but not necessarily right for anyone else. If something is the truth, it's true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

[Kenny]

Of course it does. He said:


Moral relativism says that as far as morality, no truth claims can be made, because in moral relativism, morals are believed to be subjective. So, the claim that no truth claims can be made, is in itself a truth claim. Claysmithjr is saying that it's a self defeating argument. Surely you can see that, right?

Subjective truth claims are still truth claims.

They're really not. By definition, anything Subjective is based on an opinion, not on truth.

If I make the claim that my subjective opinion is also the truth, how is that not a truth claim?

Ken

It is a truth claim. But it's self defeating. Being that it's subjective and an opinion, it can't be truth. Subjective means it's right for you, but not necessarily right for anyone else. If something is the truth, it's true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

If "X" is the truth, it is true whether it carries the objective label, or the subjective label. It is the truth whether it is backed up by opinion or fact. Do you agree?

[neo-x]

Subjective truth claims are still truth claims.

They're really not. By definition, anything Subjective is based on an opinion, not on truth.

If I make the claim that my subjective opinion is also the truth, how is that not a truth claim?

Ken

It is a truth claim. But it's self defeating. Being that it's subjective and an opinion, it can't be truth. Subjective means it's right for you, but not necessarily right for anyone else. If something is the truth, it's true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

If "X" is the truth, it is true whether it carries the objective label, or the subjective label. It is the truth whether it is backed up by opinion or fact. Do you agree?

If "X" is THE truth, then it is objective by its very nature. Unless one claims that there are "alternative facts".
For example, the phrase "Kenny exists" (if you exist) is objective in nature - that it can't be true and untrue at the same time.

"Vanilla is the best ice-cream" is at best a subjective statement because while it is true that you feel that way, others might not. It differs in opinion. So it does matter because some things are subjective whereas some are objective. However, unlike you, we can't say "I think Kenny exists" is subjective, because you do exist - hence there is no alternate fact to it.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

So subjective truths do not equal objective truths, to put it mildly. Preferences and opinions are by nature subjective. Whereas truth statements regarding facts, in general, are objective. So, saying that it doesn't matter if the truth is objective or subjective is problematic at best. Somethings can't be true or untrue at the same time. I can't say I exist and not exist at the same time. However, something can. I can say that birds fly and not fly at the same time because some birds do not fly while some do. But I can't say that flying birds fly and flying birds don't fly, at the same time because then I just contradicted logic.

[Philip]

Kenny: If "X" is the truth, it is true whether it carries the objective label, or the subjective label. It is the truth whether it is backed up by opinion or fact. Do you agree?

Ken, it's remarkable, after so much debate, that you don't understand what objective truth actually is. It's whatever reality has existed in the past or present. In fact, unless objective reality exists, all debates about this topic are rather pointless. If something has existed or occurred, it matters not whether a person agrees or knows that it did or does, or about whatever else might be related to it, how it's interpreted - or even if one believes it never existed.

[Nils]

Chimpanzees have strong moral feelings about fairness for instance.
Is their moral objective or subjective?
Nils

[Kenny]

They're really not. By definition, anything Subjective is based on an opinion, not on truth.

If I make the claim that my subjective opinion is also the truth, how is that not a truth claim?

Ken

It is a truth claim. But it's self defeating. Being that it's subjective and an opinion, it can't be truth. Subjective means it's right for you, but not necessarily right for anyone else. If something is the truth, it's true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

If "X" is the truth, it is true whether it carries the objective label, or the subjective label. It is the truth whether it is backed up by opinion or fact. Do you agree?

If "X" is THE truth, then it is objective by its very nature. Unless one claims that there are "alternative facts".
For example, the phrase "Kenny exists" (if you exist) is objective in nature - that it can't be true and untrue at the same time.

I agree!

"Vanilla is the best ice-cream" is at best a subjective statement because while it is true that you feel that way, others might not. It differs in opinion. So it does matter because some things are subjective whereas some are objective. However, unlike you, we can't say "I think Kenny exists" is subjective, because you do exist - hence there is no alternate fact to it.

I agree.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

So subjective truths do not equal objective truths, to put it mildly. Preferences and opinions are by nature subjective. Whereas truth statements regarding facts, in general, are objective. So, saying that it doesn't matter if the truth is objective or subjective is problematic at best. Somethings can't be true or untrue at the same time. I can't say I exist and not exist at the same time. However, something can. I can say that birds fly and not fly at the same time because some birds do not fly while some do. But I can't say that flying birds fly and flying birds don't fly, at the same time because then I just contradicted logic.

What it comes down to is what someone calls truth vs “THE” truth (objective truth). I don’t believe there is such a thing as “THE” (objective) moral truth, only what we call moral truth. Yeah there are plenty of objective truths like when you mentioned “Kenny exists”, math would be another one, but these aren’t moral issues; they’re objective because they can be demonstrated as true.
Where I and most here disagree on is the claim that when it comes to morality, an exception is made for God because God’s nature is outside the nature of mankind thus he is in a position to dictate what is moral or immoral. Mankind is not in the position to dictate morality because all men are equal and one has no more of a right than another. I don’t see why an exception should be made for God because objective is not defined as only applying to mankind, it’s definition says it applies to everything; which would include God. So if God said “Kenny doesn’t exist” or 1+1=3, God would be wrong. His nature existing outside of mankind doesn’t allow him to dictate mathematical equations or whether I exist or not, IOW if it is objective, it has to be applied to humans and God equally. Obviously most here disagree with me on that.

The problem with my moral view (the virtue based ethical system) is the inherent inconsistency of such a system. The virtue based ethical system sounds like a nice system; and I see many people both theist and atheist naturally gravitate toward it, but it’s bound to be inconsistent because even people who claim a virtue based ethic will disagree on what actions are virtuous. Of course, every ethical system has its weakness, and that is the weakness of the virtue based system.
Christianity, however asserts God as its moral dictator, which actually makes it a deontological (duty based) system, not a virtue based system, and the good thing about this system is it’s consistency.

I and others here have discussed this issue countless times in the past and what it comes down to is if you believe in God or not. If God exists, he could put himself in a position to be the moral dictator. But I don’t believe God exists, I don’t believe there is anything in existence that is superior to mankind, thus there is nothing worthy of standing over us as any type of a dictator.

[Kurieuo]

Chimpanzees have strong moral feelings about fairness for instance.
Is their moral objective or subjective?
Nils

Answer is in your question isn't it?

[Kenny]

Kenny: If "X" is the truth, it is true whether it carries the objective label, or the subjective label. It is the truth whether it is backed up by opinion or fact. Do you agree?

Ken, it's remarkable, after so much debate, that you don't understand what objective truth actually is. It's whatever reality has existed in the past or present. In fact, unless objective reality exists, all debates about this topic are rather pointless. If something has existed or occurred, it matters not whether a person agrees or knows that it did or does, or about whatever else might be related to it, how it's interpreted - or even if one believes it never existed.

Our disagreement is not about objective truth or realities, the disagreement is about morality.