Kenny wrote:
True! Someone else could say that; but he didn’t ask someone else, he asked me. Again; what does it mean to embrase the position that morality is subjective?
Kenny, the issue isn't whether he could ask someone else. The issue is whether that person's opinion is an
equally valid position.
If it is regardless of opinion; this implies truth goes beyond human concept. If this is the case, because you are human; how do you know this is the truth? Is it just a matter of blind faith? In other words; If God decides truth, how do you know this since you are just a human who cannot recognize truth when you see it?
You honestly can't recognize truth when you see it? How did you make this conclusion? If you can't know truth, then why are you making so many truth claims about morality?
Let me make it clear that I patently reject what you imply in your question, and the onus is on you to demonstrate that moral, intelligent beings are incapable of recognizing truth? Even when it comes to morality. Also, you will never hear me appeal to blind faith. So, stop making straw man arguments.
Although, having this discussion with you certainly gives me reason to think that some people are incapable (more likely unwilling) of knowing truth.
Earlier you appealed to logic and reason, but this doesn't work in your case. Your question implies a hyper-skepticsm. Basically, how do we know anything? Well, you earlier said we know by using logic and reason. Ok, please provide me material evidence for logic and reason. You can't. You'd be forced to say they are also human constructs. And then you are left with circular reasoning. But the problem is that you are appealing to logic and reason in an objective sense. Further you are separating logic from morality. On what basis?
If it had no meaning to humans; humans wouldn’t bother to construct it. The fact that it is a human construct, means it has meaning to humans.
This is good. You really ought to read what you write before you submit. Cart before the horse. Morality has meaning to humans, so they construct it? How does something that you say doesn't exist (objectively) have meaning to someone?
The fact that there are mentally sick people who believe murder is good, proves my point! Unless…. you can figure out a way to demonstrate that they are wrong. Remember, to simply say they are wrong; you are doing the same thing I do; voice your opinion. But to say they are wrong based upon fact, for that you would have to demonstrate your facts.
Proves your point? They are wrong based on objective reality. Otherwise you'd have to say that people believing murder is good, is an
equally valid subjective moral conclusion. But you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't refer to them as "sick."
Saying they are sick is saying that there is something impacting their way of thinking THE RIGHT WAY when it comes to moral choices. And thus, they are behaving is a way they OUGHT not behave. Unless you'd like to try to convince us that being sick is the same as being well. Again, you keep appealing to OM. Ken, your position is contradictory and self-defeating. If we let you talk long enough, you always provide examples which light the fuse to blow up your own argument.
Earlier you also appealed to things that are harmful by definition. Whose definition? Mankind's? Again, circular reasoning. Or, has man rightly interpreted that somethings actually ARE harmful? Of course this term is based on an objective standard. Is it BETTER to do things that help or harm? It first presumes that humans have intrinsic value and that there is a way we OUGHT to treat each other.
If we follow your reasoning we might as well let the criminally insane go free because you think we can't prove they are wrong? Me thinks you are criminally insane. Your examples are getting bizarre.
No. I’ve made it clear what we should believe is decided by mankind. You believe what we should believe goes beyond mankind; so I ask you’ who decides what we should believe
Should?
Did you hear that everyone?? Ken said WE SHOULD. He is AGAIN smuggling in objective morality. Should? According to who? You are implying that there is a way we OUGHT to believe (morally speaking). Your appeal is to "mankind." Fine.
But you have contradicted this multiple times. I gave examples of societies (mankind) that might define puppy torture as virtuous. (For a authentic example, we could look at Nazi Germany.) I then stated that following your line of thinking, that you OUGHT to comply. You said, no. Without any explanation of course. But this is contradictory to your statement. You are saying we OUGHT to comply to what mankind decides. And as soon as the implications of that reasoning are turned back on you, you say, "No." This appeals to moral values being objective.
So we get to the point that he says “yes” and I say “no”. Who breaks the tie, and how do you know this tie-breaker is telling the truth?
Obviously Ken, I break the tie. See how easy that was.
