Why there is no such thing as objective morality.

[Matt Dillon]

No, you said slavery was wrong based on the fact you wouldn't like to be enslaved.

You don't need God if you are going to base morality on self-interest, avoidance of pain, and self-preservation.

That can easily be explained by the scientific framework of Darwinian evolution.

^This guy...always looking for excuses.
Lame.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First, the term "objective morality" and too many meanings and is too vague to have a real sense.

Objective does not mean true, as there are things objectively false.

You're just trying to justify the fact that you're a complete scumbag.

 

[ZenMode]

Saying mortality is subjective and therefore they do not have to obey any laws.

You assume that they are going to be caught. You also assume that the actions are illegal. Two things that come to mind are clitorectomies and corporal punishment.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's actually a very important distinction. The belief that morality is subjective allows people to do terrible things, particularly in the name of their god.

People do lots of terrible things. All the way from genocide to cutting funding for feeding children.

 

[Hume]

You assume that they are going to be caught. You also assume that the actions are illegal. Two things that come to mind are clitorectomies and corporal punishment.

You do not live in Niger. Just because you do not like does not mean everyone shares your opinion

 

[Hume]

You assume that they are going to be caught.

Then objective morality has to be policed.

 

[ZenMode]

You do not live in Niger. Just because you do not like does not mean everyone shares your opinion

Right...hence the reference to objectivity.

That's why I asked if raping a 5yr old was objectively bad. You never answered.

 

[Hume]

Right...hence the reference to objectivity.

That's why I asked if raping a 5yr old was objectively bad. You never answered.

I did. You always ignore responses you do not like. Not my problem.

 

[ZenMode]

I did. You always ignore responses you do not like. Not my problem.

You provided a response, not an answer:

"Wrong" and "objectively wrong" have no real logical distinctions in meaning. "Objective" is just an intensifier"

 

[Hume]

No, you provided a response, not an answer:

"Wrong" and "objectively wrong" have no real logical distinctions in meaning. "Objective" is just an intensifier"

Yes. You might not be able to understand.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes. You might not be able to understand.

I do understand. That's why I called it out.

 

[Hume]

I do understand. That's why I called it out.

Called it out as what? Clearly I do not agree with you.

 

[ZenMode]

Called it out as what? Clearly I do not agree with you.

Called out your lack of an answer.

Agreement is irrelevant. Either you answer or don't. You didn't.

 

[Hume]

Called out your lack of an answer.

Agreement is irrelevant. Either you answer or don't. You didn't.

My answer to your question does not give you the determination of its legitimacy.

 

[ZenMode]

My answer to your question does not give you the determination of its legitimacy.

I never said it did. I just pointed out that you did not answer the question. Why?

 

[Hume]

I never said it did. I just pointed out that you did not answer the question. Why?

Either takes you a long time to formulate a thought or you really have no thought.

 

[ZenMode]

Either takes you a long time to formulate a thought or you really have no thought.

Your claim, based on the title of this thread, is that there is no such thing as objective morality. I asked of raping a 5 year old was objectively immoral.

So far, you have not answered that question.

 

[Yakuda]

Your claim, based on the title of this thread, is that there is no such thing as objective morality. I asked of raping a 5 year old was objectively immoral.

So far, you have not answered that question.

These subjective morality types will NEVER answer that question because based on their own argument there may be a circumstance where taking a 5 year old is not immoral. How repugnant is that?

 

[Cypress]

It's simple. It just means there is an absolute right and wrong, independent of opinion, consensus, or cultural norms.

and by "absolute" you mean "limited solely to humans".

Since I framed my post clearly in the context of opinion, consensus, and cultural norms it obviously only applies to humans without further elaboration or explanation required from me.

 

[Scott]

First, the term "objective morality" and too many meanings and is too vague to have a real sense.

Objective does not mean true, as there are things objectively false.

I disagree, but that doesn't mean that it's always easy to discern what is objectively moral.