Evidence for God from Science

kenny wrote:
Light is known by comparing it to darkness.
Straight is known by comparing it to crooked.

RickD wrote:
No Kenny, you have that backwards. Darkness is lack of light.

And no, we don't say how straight a line is, by comparing it to a crooked line.

Kenny wrote:
My point is, with light and something straight, there is an objective standard. With morality there is not.

Begging the question.

kenny wrote:

But when it comes to morality, because there is no single objective standard of which to judge all right or wrong actions against; everybody uses their opinion, (or the opinion of their standard of choice; which is usually something they believe to be superior to themselves).
Thats why we have laws. Laws are an objective standard, not based on what is believed to be right or wrong, but what is legal or not legal

RickD wrote:
Kenny,

You do realize that the word objective in objective morality, has a different meaning than it does in objective law, don't you?

Kenny wrote:
So what is this difference?

Seriously? You sucked me in again. Got me wasting my time responding to you when you have no idea what you're talking about.

kenny wrote:
Light is known by comparing it to darkness.
Straight is known by comparing it to crooked.

RickD wrote:
No Kenny, you have that backwards. Darkness is lack of light.

And no, we don't say how straight a line is, by comparing it to a crooked line.

Kenny wrote:
My point is, with light and something straight, there is an objective standard. With morality there is not.

RickD wrote: Begging the question.

If you disagree, then what is the standard? And don't say the Bible or the God of the Bible because mankind does not consider those the standard of morality. Perhaps you do, but most people do not.

kenny wrote:

But when it comes to morality, because there is no single objective standard of which to judge all right or wrong actions against; everybody uses their opinion, (or the opinion of their standard of choice; which is usually something they believe to be superior to themselves).
Thats why we have laws. Laws are an objective standard, not based on what is believed to be right or wrong, but what is legal or not legal

RickD wrote:
Kenny,

You do realize that the word objective in objective morality, has a different meaning than it does in objective law, don't you?

Kenny wrote:
So what is this difference?

RickD wrote: Seriously? You sucked me in again. Got me wasting my time responding to you when you have no idea what you're talking about.

I know what I am talking about, but perhaps I don’t know what you are talking about. As I said before, when I speak of Objective morality, I take the word Objective, and apply it to morality. I never said anything about comparing it to objective law. Now if your definition is different than mine, then we need to get further clarification so we are no longer talking past each other.

I’ve gotta ask; what difference does it make? If morality is objective or subjective? People behave as if morality is objective; thats why people usually say “this is wrong” rather than saying “I believe this is wrong”. If morality were objective, do you really think it is going to prevent anybody from doing wrong? If morality were subjective, do you really think that would prevent someone from declaring something as wrong? People have been doing wrong, and declaring things wrong forever without the idea of subjective/objective morality even entering the picture. So at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter, but I will admit it has definitely sparked some great conversations!

Kenny wrote:

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

PaulSacramento wrote: That makes the law subjective Ken.

I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:
And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

So, even though people subjectively decide what is right and therefore legal, the Law is objective EVEN THOUGH it can be changed anytime by said people?

Ken, you keep using the word objective but I don't think it means what you think it means.

I am a bit astonished about the discussion between Ken on one side and Rick and Paul and others on the other side. It's so apparent that you talk besides each other and it took a long time until finally Ken noted that. The Wikipedia entry on Objectivity (philosophy) states in the beginning that there are several definitions of Objectivity:
"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality."

When Rich/Paul say that there is an objective morality they mean that there is a morality independent of any human thouhts. This is about how the world is, the ontological problem. When Ken says that the laws are objective I understand that he means that there is a objective way to find out about the laws, a way that is neutral to who you are (neutrality). That's what defined in Ken's reference: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective. This is about epistemological problem, how to find out facts.

It would be nice if you started to agree on what you discuss before discussing.

I myself am convinced that there is objective morality because I don't believe in any God that could be the origin of an objective morality and I don't understand those naturalists that think that there is an (objective) morality built into a materialistic nature (a nature without any God). Besides I think there is few problems with a materialistic world without any absolute morality and I have argued at length earlier in this thread for that position. I noticed that some persons insinuate that horrible things would occur if there were no absolute moralities. I have tried to explain why that is wrong but I heard no one claiming that my explanation was wrong, only continued insinuations.

Nils

Nils,
We understand that we are approaching things from a different angle than Ken, we have actually made note of that a few times in this thread and other similar threads.
Like when I said the difference between what IS good and bad and that there IS A good and bad.
Ken, however, is the one stating that there IS NO difference, that all is subjective and then goes around and says that the Law is objective.

Can't have it both ways.


As for your comment here:

I myself am convinced that there is objective morality because I don't believe in any God that could be the origin of an objective morality and I don't understand those naturalists that think that there is an (objective) morality built into a materialistic nature (a nature without any God). Besides I think there is few problems with a materialistic world without any absolute morality and I have argued at length earlier in this thread for that position. I noticed that some persons insinuate that horrible things would occur if there were no absolute moralities. I have tried to explain why that is wrong but I heard no one claiming that my explanation was wrong, only continued insinuations.

Sorry, but this paragraph is difficult to understand...

You are convinced that there IS objective morality BECAUSE you do NOT believe in any God?
And yet you can't reconcile it with a natural world?

Not sure what you are trying to state...

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils,
We understand that we are approaching things from a different angle than Ken, we have actually made note of that a few times in this thread and other similar threads.
Like when I said the difference between what IS good and bad and that there IS A good and bad.
Ken, however, is the one stating that there IS NO difference, that all is subjective and then goes around and says that the Law is objective.

Can't have it both ways.

Well, I am not quite sure of what Ken thinks. However I am sure that there are at least two different definitions of objectivity used.

As for your comment here:

I myself am convinced that there is objective morality because I don't believe in any God that could be the origin of an objective morality and I don't understand those naturalists that think that there is an (objective) morality built into a materialistic nature (a nature without any God). Besides I think there is few problems with a materialistic world without any absolute morality and I have argued at length earlier in this thread for that position. I noticed that some persons insinuate that horrible things would occur if there were no absolute moralities. I have tried to explain why that is wrong but I heard no one claiming that my explanation was wrong, only continued insinuations.

Sorry, but this paragraph is difficult to understand...

You are convinced that there IS objective morality BECAUSE you do NOT believe in any God?
And yet you can't reconcile it with a natural world?

Not sure what you are trying to state...

Oh, again! There is a missing "no". I have to buy better glasses so that I can read what I happen to write.
Paul, I am sorry. The paragraph should start: " I myself am convinced that there is NO objective morality...". Hopefully a bit clearer!

Nils

Kenny wrote:

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

PaulSacramento wrote: That makes the law subjective Ken.

I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:
And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

PaulSacramento wrote: So, even though people subjectively decide what is right and therefore legal,

No. As I said before, there is a big difference between what is believed to be right vs what is compromised in order to make legal. Example; if you and I are both lawmakers with a different set of morals, you might consider Gay marriage immoral but believe having a Christian holiday (christmas) recognized as a federal holiday as the right thing to do. I might consider having a christian holiday recognized as a federal holiday as wrong, but consider gay marriage the right thing to do. Because we have to agree on laws, I might be willing to compromise on the religious holiday if you are willing to compromise on gay marriage. So at the end of the day we both end up with some of what we want, and some of what we don't want, in order to get objective laws to be enforced.

PaulSacramento wrote: the Law is objective EVEN THOUGH it can be changed anytime by said people?

Yes! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

PaulSacramento wrote: Ken, you keep using the word objective but I don't think it means what you think it means.

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

Example; if the law of the land says that it is illegal to smoke pot, your personal opinions, or beliefs about pot will not make it legal to smoke. Whatever extenuating circumstances you might dream up will not make it legal to smoke pot; if you smoke you will have to deal with the law because the law is objective; not subjective. As we’ve seen, the law could change tomorrow and pot becomes legal.

Consider the moral issue of lying. I say it’s wrong. But suppose the year is 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo is asking if you know where any Jews are hiding? Is it still wrong to lie? How about if it is today and instead of the Gestapo it is the police, and instead of Jews it is your friend who is hiding, but you suspect your friend is innocent and the police is crooked? Is it still okay to lie? This is an example of taking extenuating circumstances, personal biases, and beliefs into consideration before deciding the right thing (not the legal thing) to do.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what part do you not understand?

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

PaulSacramento wrote: That makes the law subjective Ken.

I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:
And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

PaulSacramento wrote: So, even though people subjectively decide what is right and therefore legal,

No. As I said before, there is a big difference between what is believed to be right vs what is compromised in order to make legal. Example; if you and I are both lawmakers with a different set of morals, you might consider Gay marriage immoral but believe having a Christian holiday (christmas) recognized as a federal holiday as the right thing to do. I might consider having a christian holiday recognized as a federal holiday as wrong, but consider gay marriage the right thing to do. Because we have to agree on laws, I might be willing to compromise on the religious holiday if you are willing to compromise on gay marriage. So at the end of the day we both end up with some of what we want, and some of what we don't want, in order to get objective laws to be enforced.

PaulSacramento wrote: the Law is objective EVEN THOUGH it can be changed anytime by said people?

Yes! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

PaulSacramento wrote: Ken, you keep using the word objective but I don't think it means what you think it means.

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

Example; if the law of the land says that it is illegal to smoke pot, your personal opinions, or beliefs about pot will not make it legal to smoke. Whatever extenuating circumstances you might dream up will not make it legal to smoke pot; if you smoke you will have to deal with the law because the law is objective; not subjective. As we’ve seen, the law could change tomorrow and pot becomes legal.

Consider the moral issue of lying. I say it’s wrong. But suppose the year is 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo is asking if you know where any Jews are hiding? Is it still wrong to lie? How about if it is today and instead of the Gestapo it is the police, and instead of Jews it is your friend who is hiding, but you suspect your friend is innocent and the police is crooked? Is it still okay to lie? This is an example of taking extenuating circumstances, personal biases, and beliefs into consideration before deciding the right thing (not the legal thing) to do.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what part do you not understand?

OK but since you might think it should be legal to smoke pot it is subjective because when you are facing life and death surgery and find out the Doctor just fired up a bowl and has smoked pot legally and is going to be the one performing life and death surgery on you then you suddenly realize it was a bad idea to have it legalized and do not want the Doctor to operate on you but are stuck because it has been made legal to smoke pot.And then you'd agree with God and his law concerning drugs because it is objective.

Nils wrote: I am a bit astonished about the discussion between Ken on one side and Rick and Paul and others on the other side. It's so apparent that you talk besides each other and it took a long time until finally Ken noted that. The Wikipedia entry on Objectivity (philosophy) states in the beginning that there are several definitions of Objectivity:
"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

This is the definition I was using.

Nils wrote: A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality."

When Rich/Paul say that there is an objective morality they mean that there is a morality independent of any human thouhts. This is about how the world is, the ontological problem. When Ken says that the laws are objective I understand that he means that there is a objective way to find out about the laws, a way that is neutral to who you are (neutrality). That's what defined in Ken's reference: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective. This is about epistemological problem, how to find out facts.

It would be nice if you started to agree on what you discuss before discussing.

I’ve explained how I am defining objective morality, but I still don’t seem to be able to get through to them.

Nils wrote: I myself am convinced that there is objective morality because I don't believe in any God that could be the origin of an objective morality and I don't understand those naturalists that think that there is an (objective) morality built into a materialistic nature (a nature without any God).

So you believe morality is objective, but don't believe any God to be the origin of morality? So what is the origin; people? Because that is the view I take with subjective morality. Please explain

**I just noticed your correction several posts later; never mind.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

PaulSacramento wrote: That makes the law subjective Ken.

I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:
And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

PaulSacramento wrote: So, even though people subjectively decide what is right and therefore legal,

No. As I said before, there is a big difference between what is believed to be right vs what is compromised in order to make legal. Example; if you and I are both lawmakers with a different set of morals, you might consider Gay marriage immoral but believe having a Christian holiday (christmas) recognized as a federal holiday as the right thing to do. I might consider having a christian holiday recognized as a federal holiday as wrong, but consider gay marriage the right thing to do. Because we have to agree on laws, I might be willing to compromise on the religious holiday if you are willing to compromise on gay marriage. So at the end of the day we both end up with some of what we want, and some of what we don't want, in order to get objective laws to be enforced.

PaulSacramento wrote: the Law is objective EVEN THOUGH it can be changed anytime by said people?

Yes! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

PaulSacramento wrote: Ken, you keep using the word objective but I don't think it means what you think it means.

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

Example; if the law of the land says that it is illegal to smoke pot, your personal opinions, or beliefs about pot will not make it legal to smoke. Whatever extenuating circumstances you might dream up will not make it legal to smoke pot; if you smoke you will have to deal with the law because the law is objective; not subjective. As we’ve seen, the law could change tomorrow and pot becomes legal.

Consider the moral issue of lying. I say it’s wrong. But suppose the year is 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo is asking if you know where any Jews are hiding? Is it still wrong to lie? How about if it is today and instead of the Gestapo it is the police, and instead of Jews it is your friend who is hiding, but you suspect your friend is innocent and the police is crooked? Is it still okay to lie? This is an example of taking extenuating circumstances, personal biases, and beliefs into consideration before deciding the right thing (not the legal thing) to do.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what part do you not understand?

OK but since you might think it should be legal to smoke pot it is subjective because when you are facing life and death surgery and find out the Doctor just fired up a bowl and has smoked pot legally and is going to be the one performing life and death surgery on you then you suddenly realize it was a bad idea to have it legalized and do not want the Doctor to operate on you but are stuck because it has been made legal to smoke pot.And then you'd agree with God and his law concerning drugs because it is objective.

First of all, if alcohol can be legal without surgeons entering an operation drunk, I suspect pot can be legal without surgeons entering an operation high.
Second; The scenarios I use are not reflective of my opinions, or the opinions of anyone else. I was simply using it to make a point.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

PaulSacramento wrote: That makes the law subjective Ken.

I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:
And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

PaulSacramento wrote: So, even though people subjectively decide what is right and therefore legal,

No. As I said before, there is a big difference between what is believed to be right vs what is compromised in order to make legal. Example; if you and I are both lawmakers with a different set of morals, you might consider Gay marriage immoral but believe having a Christian holiday (christmas) recognized as a federal holiday as the right thing to do. I might consider having a christian holiday recognized as a federal holiday as wrong, but consider gay marriage the right thing to do. Because we have to agree on laws, I might be willing to compromise on the religious holiday if you are willing to compromise on gay marriage. So at the end of the day we both end up with some of what we want, and some of what we don't want, in order to get objective laws to be enforced.

PaulSacramento wrote: the Law is objective EVEN THOUGH it can be changed anytime by said people?

Yes! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

PaulSacramento wrote: Ken, you keep using the word objective but I don't think it means what you think it means.

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

Example; if the law of the land says that it is illegal to smoke pot, your personal opinions, or beliefs about pot will not make it legal to smoke. Whatever extenuating circumstances you might dream up will not make it legal to smoke pot; if you smoke you will have to deal with the law because the law is objective; not subjective. As we’ve seen, the law could change tomorrow and pot becomes legal.

Consider the moral issue of lying. I say it’s wrong. But suppose the year is 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo is asking if you know where any Jews are hiding? Is it still wrong to lie? How about if it is today and instead of the Gestapo it is the police, and instead of Jews it is your friend who is hiding, but you suspect your friend is innocent and the police is crooked? Is it still okay to lie? This is an example of taking extenuating circumstances, personal biases, and beliefs into consideration before deciding the right thing (not the legal thing) to do.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what part do you not understand?

OK but since you might think it should be legal to smoke pot it is subjective because when you are facing life and death surgery and find out the Doctor just fired up a bowl and has smoked pot legally and is going to be the one performing life and death surgery on you then you suddenly realize it was a bad idea to have it legalized and do not want the Doctor to operate on you but are stuck because it has been made legal to smoke pot.And then you'd agree with God and his law concerning drugs because it is objective.

First of all, if alcohol can be legal without surgeons entering an operation drunk, I suspect pot can be legal without surgeons entering an operation high.
Second; The scenarios I use are not reflective of my opinions, or the opinions of anyone else. I was simply using it to make a point.

But suddenly you are coming around to thinking objectively,where before it was subjective.Suddenly you want other laws/rules to cover for the objectivity of that position and in the process you're potentially putting your health at risk,and willing to do it out of subjectivity just because it was made legal to do so.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:


I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

PaulSacramento wrote: So, even though people subjectively decide what is right and therefore legal,

No. As I said before, there is a big difference between what is believed to be right vs what is compromised in order to make legal. Example; if you and I are both lawmakers with a different set of morals, you might consider Gay marriage immoral but believe having a Christian holiday (christmas) recognized as a federal holiday as the right thing to do. I might consider having a christian holiday recognized as a federal holiday as wrong, but consider gay marriage the right thing to do. Because we have to agree on laws, I might be willing to compromise on the religious holiday if you are willing to compromise on gay marriage. So at the end of the day we both end up with some of what we want, and some of what we don't want, in order to get objective laws to be enforced.

PaulSacramento wrote: the Law is objective EVEN THOUGH it can be changed anytime by said people?

Yes! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

PaulSacramento wrote: Ken, you keep using the word objective but I don't think it means what you think it means.

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

Example; if the law of the land says that it is illegal to smoke pot, your personal opinions, or beliefs about pot will not make it legal to smoke. Whatever extenuating circumstances you might dream up will not make it legal to smoke pot; if you smoke you will have to deal with the law because the law is objective; not subjective. As we’ve seen, the law could change tomorrow and pot becomes legal.

Consider the moral issue of lying. I say it’s wrong. But suppose the year is 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo is asking if you know where any Jews are hiding? Is it still wrong to lie? How about if it is today and instead of the Gestapo it is the police, and instead of Jews it is your friend who is hiding, but you suspect your friend is innocent and the police is crooked? Is it still okay to lie? This is an example of taking extenuating circumstances, personal biases, and beliefs into consideration before deciding the right thing (not the legal thing) to do.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what part do you not understand?

OK but since you might think it should be legal to smoke pot it is subjective because when you are facing life and death surgery and find out the Doctor just fired up a bowl and has smoked pot legally and is going to be the one performing life and death surgery on you then you suddenly realize it was a bad idea to have it legalized and do not want the Doctor to operate on you but are stuck because it has been made legal to smoke pot.And then you'd agree with God and his law concerning drugs because it is objective.

First of all, if alcohol can be legal without surgeons entering an operation drunk, I suspect pot can be legal without surgeons entering an operation high.
Second; The scenarios I use are not reflective of my opinions, or the opinions of anyone else. I was simply using it to make a point.

But suddenly you are coming around to thinking objectively,where before it was subjective.Suddenly you want other laws/rules to cover for the objectivity of that position and in the process you're potentially putting your health at risk,and willing to do it out of subjectivity just because it was made legal to do so.

Dude! Didn't you read the second point I made? Nothing I said reflects my actual beliefs! C'mon; I'm supposed to be the obtuse one remember?

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

No. As I said before, there is a big difference between what is believed to be right vs what is compromised in order to make legal. Example; if you and I are both lawmakers with a different set of morals, you might consider Gay marriage immoral but believe having a Christian holiday (christmas) recognized as a federal holiday as the right thing to do. I might consider having a christian holiday recognized as a federal holiday as wrong, but consider gay marriage the right thing to do. Because we have to agree on laws, I might be willing to compromise on the religious holiday if you are willing to compromise on gay marriage. So at the end of the day we both end up with some of what we want, and some of what we don't want, in order to get objective laws to be enforced.

Yes! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

Example; if the law of the land says that it is illegal to smoke pot, your personal opinions, or beliefs about pot will not make it legal to smoke. Whatever extenuating circumstances you might dream up will not make it legal to smoke pot; if you smoke you will have to deal with the law because the law is objective; not subjective. As we’ve seen, the law could change tomorrow and pot becomes legal.

Consider the moral issue of lying. I say it’s wrong. But suppose the year is 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo is asking if you know where any Jews are hiding? Is it still wrong to lie? How about if it is today and instead of the Gestapo it is the police, and instead of Jews it is your friend who is hiding, but you suspect your friend is innocent and the police is crooked? Is it still okay to lie? This is an example of taking extenuating circumstances, personal biases, and beliefs into consideration before deciding the right thing (not the legal thing) to do.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what part do you not understand?

OK but since you might think it should be legal to smoke pot it is subjective because when you are facing life and death surgery and find out the Doctor just fired up a bowl and has smoked pot legally and is going to be the one performing life and death surgery on you then you suddenly realize it was a bad idea to have it legalized and do not want the Doctor to operate on you but are stuck because it has been made legal to smoke pot.And then you'd agree with God and his law concerning drugs because it is objective.

First of all, if alcohol can be legal without surgeons entering an operation drunk, I suspect pot can be legal without surgeons entering an operation high.
Second; The scenarios I use are not reflective of my opinions, or the opinions of anyone else. I was simply using it to make a point.

But suddenly you are coming around to thinking objectively,where before it was subjective.Suddenly you want other laws/rules to cover for the objectivity of that position and in the process you're potentially putting your health at risk,and willing to do it out of subjectivity just because it was made legal to do so.

Dude! Didn't you read the second point I made? Nothing I said reflects my actual beliefs! C'mon; I'm supposed to be the obtuse one remember?

I think it was a bad point you were trying to make and I just responded as to how I was thinking when I read it.You might can come up with a better point next time whether you're being obtuse or not.Here is something that I notice you do from time to time that you may need to think through because I've been wanting to challenge you about it but it just has'nt been the right time. But I notice that you mostly are just giving your opinion about things when confronted with arguments for God.If it keeps up? I'm going to eventually call you out on your opinion and ask you for evidence it is true and correct.So you might need to think about it and think about evidence because just how you personally feel about things is making a case.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

OK but since you might think it should be legal to smoke pot it is subjective because when you are facing life and death surgery and find out the Doctor just fired up a bowl and has smoked pot legally and is going to be the one performing life and death surgery on you then you suddenly realize it was a bad idea to have it legalized and do not want the Doctor to operate on you but are stuck because it has been made legal to smoke pot.And then you'd agree with God and his law concerning drugs because it is objective.

First of all, if alcohol can be legal without surgeons entering an operation drunk, I suspect pot can be legal without surgeons entering an operation high.
Second; The scenarios I use are not reflective of my opinions, or the opinions of anyone else. I was simply using it to make a point.

But suddenly you are coming around to thinking objectively,where before it was subjective.Suddenly you want other laws/rules to cover for the objectivity of that position and in the process you're potentially putting your health at risk,and willing to do it out of subjectivity just because it was made legal to do so.

Dude! Didn't you read the second point I made? Nothing I said reflects my actual beliefs! C'mon; I'm supposed to be the obtuse one remember?

I think it was a bad point you were trying to make and I just responded as to how I was thinking when I read it.You might can come up with a better point next time whether you're being obtuse or not.Here is something that I notice you do from time to time that you may need to think through because I've been wanting to challenge you about it but it just has'nt been the right time. But I notice that you mostly are just giving your opinion about things when confronted with arguments for God.If it keeps up? I'm going to eventually call you out on your opinion and ask you for evidence it is true and correct.So you might need to think about it and think about evidence because just how you personally feel about things is making a case.

If I make a point based on opinion, I try to make it clear that it is only my opinion. If I make a point and I say it is based on fact, feel free to ask me to provide the facts.

As far as my point being a bad one, the fact that you responded by suggesting I think it should be legal to smoke pot, then commence to tell me why it is a bad idea; this tells me either you didn’t read with an understanding of what I said, or you simply misread what I said. Perhaps you should read it again.

Ken,

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote: I am a bit astonished about the discussion between Ken on one side and Rick and Paul and others on the other side. It's so apparent that you talk besides each other and it took a long time until finally Ken noted that. The Wikipedia entry on Objectivity (philosophy) states in the beginning that there are several definitions of Objectivity:
"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

This is the definition I was using.

My understanding of Wikipedia above is " when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of ANY sentient subject". This is the definition used by Paul and others. They think that God, not humans, gives morality. That is also according to my definition of objective morality and how the concept is used in philosophy.

You say that legal law is objective but is is not according to the philosophical definition. Laws are dependent on human perceptions and hence are not objective in the philosophical way. On the other hand they are in some way objective in the other meaning of the word (= neutral).

Nils wrote: A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality."

When Rich/Paul say that there is an objective morality they mean that there is a morality independent of any human thouhts. This is about how the world is, the ontological problem. When Ken says that the laws are objective I understand that he means that there is a objective way to find out about the laws, a way that is neutral to who you are (neutrality). That's what defined in Ken's reference: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective. This is about epistemological problem, how to find out facts.

It would be nice if you started to agree on what you discuss before discussing.

I’ve explained how I am defining objective morality, but I still don’t seem to be able to get through to them.

I think it would be constructive to clarify the definitions before continuing the debate. I don't understand you and others apparently don't either.
Nils