WLC and the moral argument

[PaulSacramento]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

[RickD]

Kenny,

I'm pretty sure that you said something along the lines of morality being a construct of the human mind, and without humans, there'd be no morality.

[Kenny]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I'm pretty sure that you said something along the lines of morality being a construct of the human mind, and without humans, there'd be no morality.

I may have said it, I just don't recall; but that does sound like something I could agree with.
Do you agree with the examples I gave?

[PaulSacramento]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.

So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?

[Kenny]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.

So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?

When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.

[RickD]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.

So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?

Paul, I don't think Kenny is seeing what you're saying. While the statement, "stealing is wrong...", is an objective truth statement, Kenny thinks you're asking if stealing is objectively wrong.

But then again, I don't think Kenny would agree that it's an objective truth statement, because he believes stealing being right or wrong, is subjective.

[PaulSacramento]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.

So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?

When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.

Did those very same German people view stealing the same way when it happened to them?

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, I don't think Kenny is seeing what you're saying. While the statement, "stealing is wrong...", is an objective truth statement, Kenny thinks you're asking if stealing is objectively wrong.

But then again, I don't think Kenny would agree that it's an objective truth statement, because he believes stealing being right or wrong, is subjective.

Probably.

[Kenny]

Ken,
If you didn't say that Morality exists only in the mind, then I am sorry.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your view.

Yo use your examples and to make sure we are discussing the same thing in the same way:

Morality:
Objective - Stealing is wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right

Subjective - It may be justifiable to steal to feed your children.

Would you agree with this?

No. I don't agree with what you labeled objective, because it can't be proven/demonstrated as wrong.

So, you are saying that, the statement : Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong and there is no evidence in recorded history if it ever being right.
Is NOT an objective statement?
Even though it has a FACTUAL, provable, base to it and is NOT based on opinion?

When the Nazi's came to power in Europe, German citizens were legally allowed to take from Jewish people, because they were considered inferior. There are countless examples especially during war when what you might call stealing was believed to be okay (by those in power) considering the circumstances. Your statement is wrong.

Did those very same German people view stealing the same way when it happened to them?

The examples were supposed to EXCLUDE Theism and morality. All of your examples were about morality. Would you like to try again? This time anything except theism and morality

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, answer my question first.

[Kenny]

Sure, answer my question first.

The Germans at that time felt they were the superior race, so of course they would consider it wrong to steal from the superior race, it's only okay when you take from those who are inferior
Same thing with Slavery; slaves were considered to be 3/5 human so it was okay to enslave/own them; sorta the same way today we consider it okay to own a dog, cat, or any other animal that isn't human. People will come up with all sorts of logic in order to justify evil behavior.
Now care to answer my question?

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, answer my question first.

The Germans at that time felt they were the superior race, so of course they would consider it wrong to steal from the superior race, it's only okay when you take from those who are inferior
Same thing with Slavery; slaves were considered to be 3/5 human so it was okay to enslave/own them; sorta the same way today we consider it okay to own a dog, cat, or any other animal that isn't human. People will come up with all sorts of logic in order to justify evil behavior.
Now care to answer my question?

So the Germans would view it to be WRONG if anyone took from them.
Making my point that NEVER at any point in recorded history has there been a case of stealing to be right.
Stealing from another, sure, but not from me !

LOL

[Kenny]

Sure, answer my question first.

The Germans at that time felt they were the superior race, so of course they would consider it wrong to steal from the superior race, it's only okay when you take from those who are inferior
Same thing with Slavery; slaves were considered to be 3/5 human so it was okay to enslave/own them; sorta the same way today we consider it okay to own a dog, cat, or any other animal that isn't human. People will come up with all sorts of logic in order to justify evil behavior.
Now care to answer my question?

So the Germans would view it to be WRONG if anyone took from them.
Making my point that NEVER at any point in recorded history has there been a case of stealing to be right.
Stealing from another, sure, but not from me !

LOL

Not quite. If I recall correctly, you claimed there has never been a time when taking something that doesn't belong to you was considered okay. (which is the same as stealing) In this case the NAZI's just redefined stealing as taking from me, not you. So they were okay with taking something that doesn't belong to them (the point you made) as long as they were taking from specific people.

Ken
PS let me guess; you aren't going to answer my question are you. Why am I not surprised....

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, answer my question first.

The Germans at that time felt they were the superior race, so of course they would consider it wrong to steal from the superior race, it's only okay when you take from those who are inferior
Same thing with Slavery; slaves were considered to be 3/5 human so it was okay to enslave/own them; sorta the same way today we consider it okay to own a dog, cat, or any other animal that isn't human. People will come up with all sorts of logic in order to justify evil behavior.
Now care to answer my question?

So the Germans would view it to be WRONG if anyone took from them.
Making my point that NEVER at any point in recorded history has there been a case of stealing to be right.
Stealing from another, sure, but not from me !

LOL

Not quite. If I recall correctly, you claimed there has never been a time when taking something that doesn't belong to you was considered okay. (which is the same as stealing) In this case the NAZI's just redefined stealing as taking from me, not you. So they were okay with taking something that doesn't belong to them (the point you made) as long as they were taking from specific people.

Ken
PS let me guess; you aren't going to answer my question are you. Why am I not surprised....

My point to you, Ken, was that your example was wrong because the Nazi's didn't view stealing as right, they viewed stealing what belong to Jews as right.
Stealing was still wrong to them since if someone stole from them they would say, "that's wrong".