Re: Objective Morality
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:17 pm
Jlay
Ken,
I think a reply can often be better understood by what it fails to respond to than what what it does respond to. What you failed to respond to is telling. Unfortunately you've kind of backed yourself into a corner and now are forced to defend an untenable position. Better to face a minute of embarrassment and humility than to continue trying to defend this nonsense. I have a lot of respect for people who admit such, but little for people who stubbornly refuse to put aside foolishness.
Ken
If there is something I neglected to respond to, let me know and I will be happy to give a response.
Jlay
.
I concur. Are you sincerely saying you cannot demonstrate that murder and rape are wrong?
If so, remind me to stay away from your neighborhood.
Ken
I said I can demonstrate it is wrong using MY moral standards; not his.
Jlay
You argue and prove a point by using universal standards. You are saying they are WRONG. You know they are wrong. All you are saying is you can't prove it. In fact you are arguing for OM here. Well, first that is pretty weak if you can't argue why someone shouldn't steal, for example. As if they only thing you have to go on is your opinion. Imagine teaching a child like this. "Well son, I don't think you should steal. But it's just my opinion. No behavior is objectively right or wrong. But I'd prefer you not steal."
Good grief.
Ken
I said I couldn’t argue why someone shouldn’t steal using THEIR standards, only my own; which they would not respect.
Jlay
Ken, I've already stated that the GR is not itself OM. It is grounded in OM. What you are doing is taking an example of depraved behavior that is in violation of OM to try and prove that the GR doesn't hold. It's actually pretty sad that you can't see what you are doing. It's like saying, "I want you to tell me how much this weighs, in inches."
Ken
So are you changing your mind now? Are you back-tracking? At first you said the Golden Rule is true in all places, and times regardless of opinion; which includes depraved behaviour. Now you are saying the Golden Rule does not work in depraved behaviour. Sounds like you are making my point.
Jlay
Ken, it can absolutely be demonstrated that morality can be measured. You measure it, we all measure it. In fact, you have measured it in this thread. What do you think someone is saying when they state that murder is WRONG? Do you really think they are saying they "prefer" non murder over murder? Or, are they saying it REALLY is wrong?
Ken
I don’t see that as measuring morality. Murder is wrong weather it is labelled subjective or objective. The act doesn’t become less immoral become some lexicographer put it in the category of subjective.
Jlay
This makes absolutely no sense. People who deny OM should be beaten and burned until they agree that to be beaten and burned is not the same as to not be beaten and burned. (that's a joke btw)
Ken
Would you mind responding to what I said?
Jlay
What kind of nonsense is it to lump same sex and interracial marriage?
Ken
There was a time when most Christians in the USA thought interracial marriage was as immoral as they currently believe same sex marriage is today! Are you telling me for 170 years most Christians had this objective morality wrong then in the last 50 years ( around the time the law changed) they finally saw the light and realized interracial marriage was okay after all?
Jlay
Again you are not distinguishing physics and metaphysics. Just like in logic, I can demonstrate a fallacious argument. But there is nothing physical to measure it like you can with a triangle. Again, why should I even listen to you? On what grounds are you trying to say you are right, or that your position is better?
Ken
I gave my definitions of subjective moral claims and objective moral claims as you asked. Would you mind responding to that please?
Jlay
First, you have again blurred ontology and epistemology. Rules are NOT OM. I've never claimed that.
Ken
I believe rules and laws are objective. If the law says to not steal and I tell you it is against the law to steal, I can point to the portion of the law that says don’t steal, and that would be proof that stealing is illegal
Jlay
-Shouldn't? According to what? Ken, like most people who argue your side, you just smuggled in OM. What do mean by wrong? Wrong according to......? You are using these terms (should, shouldn't, right, wrong) as if they actually correspond to a standard.
Ken
Yes! According to my standard. I think what it comes down to is we have different interpretations of subjective morality. You seem to think subjective morality means all opinions should be given equal consideration. I disagree; I believe only my opinion should be considered because all others are wrong.
Jlay
Again, this makes me question whether you really understand the term objective. And yes, you can prove to people that they are wrong. I see it all the time. As a parent I have had my child do bad things and not feel bad about them. But by teaching them and showing them the truth they come to understand and even regret what they've done. I've seen this with addicts, criminals, etc. And all first hand. So, please don't tell me that we can't convince someone that their particular ethic or lack thereof is wrong.
Ken
That’s easy! They have the same standard that you have. It’s easy to demonstrate when they share the same standards as you! I’m talking about those with different standards. From my understanding, the United Methodist Church has a different standard on Gay right than many other denominations. Everybody reads the same bible, everybody worships the same God yet there is inconsistency on the Gay rights issue. How can you call this objective? You have 2 people arguing at each other, pointing to the same bible saying they are right and the other person is wrong.
Jlay
You stated earlier that you can prove that 2+2=4. Agree. Now, imagine if you had someone who insisted that 2+2=5. You repeatedly work thru the equation demonstrating that your position is the objective truth, but they refuse to listen.
Ken
I would assume that person does not know math, because the rules of math are agreed upon by everybody. The rules of morality are not.
Ken
Ken,
I think a reply can often be better understood by what it fails to respond to than what what it does respond to. What you failed to respond to is telling. Unfortunately you've kind of backed yourself into a corner and now are forced to defend an untenable position. Better to face a minute of embarrassment and humility than to continue trying to defend this nonsense. I have a lot of respect for people who admit such, but little for people who stubbornly refuse to put aside foolishness.
Ken
If there is something I neglected to respond to, let me know and I will be happy to give a response.
Jlay
.
I concur. Are you sincerely saying you cannot demonstrate that murder and rape are wrong?
If so, remind me to stay away from your neighborhood.
Ken
I said I can demonstrate it is wrong using MY moral standards; not his.
Jlay
You argue and prove a point by using universal standards. You are saying they are WRONG. You know they are wrong. All you are saying is you can't prove it. In fact you are arguing for OM here. Well, first that is pretty weak if you can't argue why someone shouldn't steal, for example. As if they only thing you have to go on is your opinion. Imagine teaching a child like this. "Well son, I don't think you should steal. But it's just my opinion. No behavior is objectively right or wrong. But I'd prefer you not steal."
Good grief.
Ken
I said I couldn’t argue why someone shouldn’t steal using THEIR standards, only my own; which they would not respect.
Jlay
Ken, I've already stated that the GR is not itself OM. It is grounded in OM. What you are doing is taking an example of depraved behavior that is in violation of OM to try and prove that the GR doesn't hold. It's actually pretty sad that you can't see what you are doing. It's like saying, "I want you to tell me how much this weighs, in inches."
Ken
So are you changing your mind now? Are you back-tracking? At first you said the Golden Rule is true in all places, and times regardless of opinion; which includes depraved behaviour. Now you are saying the Golden Rule does not work in depraved behaviour. Sounds like you are making my point.
Jlay
Ken, it can absolutely be demonstrated that morality can be measured. You measure it, we all measure it. In fact, you have measured it in this thread. What do you think someone is saying when they state that murder is WRONG? Do you really think they are saying they "prefer" non murder over murder? Or, are they saying it REALLY is wrong?
Ken
I don’t see that as measuring morality. Murder is wrong weather it is labelled subjective or objective. The act doesn’t become less immoral become some lexicographer put it in the category of subjective.
Jlay
This makes absolutely no sense. People who deny OM should be beaten and burned until they agree that to be beaten and burned is not the same as to not be beaten and burned. (that's a joke btw)
Ken
Would you mind responding to what I said?
Jlay
What kind of nonsense is it to lump same sex and interracial marriage?
Ken
There was a time when most Christians in the USA thought interracial marriage was as immoral as they currently believe same sex marriage is today! Are you telling me for 170 years most Christians had this objective morality wrong then in the last 50 years ( around the time the law changed) they finally saw the light and realized interracial marriage was okay after all?
Jlay
Again you are not distinguishing physics and metaphysics. Just like in logic, I can demonstrate a fallacious argument. But there is nothing physical to measure it like you can with a triangle. Again, why should I even listen to you? On what grounds are you trying to say you are right, or that your position is better?
Ken
I gave my definitions of subjective moral claims and objective moral claims as you asked. Would you mind responding to that please?
Jlay
First, you have again blurred ontology and epistemology. Rules are NOT OM. I've never claimed that.
Ken
I believe rules and laws are objective. If the law says to not steal and I tell you it is against the law to steal, I can point to the portion of the law that says don’t steal, and that would be proof that stealing is illegal
Jlay
-Shouldn't? According to what? Ken, like most people who argue your side, you just smuggled in OM. What do mean by wrong? Wrong according to......? You are using these terms (should, shouldn't, right, wrong) as if they actually correspond to a standard.
Ken
Yes! According to my standard. I think what it comes down to is we have different interpretations of subjective morality. You seem to think subjective morality means all opinions should be given equal consideration. I disagree; I believe only my opinion should be considered because all others are wrong.
Jlay
Again, this makes me question whether you really understand the term objective. And yes, you can prove to people that they are wrong. I see it all the time. As a parent I have had my child do bad things and not feel bad about them. But by teaching them and showing them the truth they come to understand and even regret what they've done. I've seen this with addicts, criminals, etc. And all first hand. So, please don't tell me that we can't convince someone that their particular ethic or lack thereof is wrong.
Ken
That’s easy! They have the same standard that you have. It’s easy to demonstrate when they share the same standards as you! I’m talking about those with different standards. From my understanding, the United Methodist Church has a different standard on Gay right than many other denominations. Everybody reads the same bible, everybody worships the same God yet there is inconsistency on the Gay rights issue. How can you call this objective? You have 2 people arguing at each other, pointing to the same bible saying they are right and the other person is wrong.
Jlay
You stated earlier that you can prove that 2+2=4. Agree. Now, imagine if you had someone who insisted that 2+2=5. You repeatedly work thru the equation demonstrating that your position is the objective truth, but they refuse to listen.
Ken
I would assume that person does not know math, because the rules of math are agreed upon by everybody. The rules of morality are not.
Ken
