Come on ratty, piss or get off the pot…
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn
1 Like
The wave lengths of light are objectively set. The eyes of people have evolved in an objective manner which allows them to accept light waves. The process in the brain which gives rise to the perception of light does not differ from one person to the next. Everything that gives rise to colour occurs in objective ways which can be sussed out. The fact that there is an observer is your only recourse to “subjectivity”. Everything else is standard and equal and that is exactly why we are able to communicate with each other.
I wouldn’t answer. I’d reserve the right not to answer.
Ah yes. “Pretending” to be moral has its advantage. As does screwing over your fellow man. In some circles of society morality is prized. But not all. See: the life and times of Jesus Christ.
Yes. And they were motivated by greed, hatred, and ignorance. You cannot make a “moral” decision on the basis of those things. Hence we are fully justified in saying the Romans and Pharisees were “wrong” when they imprisoned, tortured, and executed Jesus.
I wouldn’t say anything. I’d hold my tongue and let them torture me if that was necessary.
What you’re failing to understand is that there’s a survival ship condition being stated here. We lie to preserve our survival ship. Or the survival ship of others. It doesn’t make it right, but everyone is guilty of some amount of wrong doing in their life. The exception is Jesus. He lived a perfectly holy life and could have easily avoided crucifixion had be bowed down to Pontus. Or rescinded his claim of being God, or stopped healing on the Sabbath. He did not bow down to the unrighteous. And that is why they killed him.
It is objectively wrong to kill someone based on an ideology that is created out of greed, hatred, lust, or any combination of the *three. A man who is perfectly moral and perfectly free from greed, hatred and lust cannot intentionally kill, lie, fornicate with women unlawfully, or do any other the finite behaviours human’s with morality will agree are “wrong”. See: the definition of a “saint” in Buddhism.
One moral outlook with two categories: those with a conscience and those without.
Well then, you missed the entire point. I was “veering off” towards that objective demonstration of morality. Here it is again:
Genocide is “objectively immoral” because there is no ideology or motivation for genocide which is not founded on greed, hatred, or ignorance.
Show me one ideology or motivation for genocide that successfully established the inferiority of another race - AND isn’t founded on greed, hatred, or ignorance and I will grant you that the moral question of genocide has a subjective answer.
We ourselves would then be guilty of sin. Every wrong doer deserves a chance to right his wrongs. That is the entire purpose of forgiveness.
Yes, but what we see is subjective, we’ve done this already, it’s an unnecessary segway.
You have ignored the question because you know it refutes your earlier claim that lying is always wrong, so I ask again:
Would it be wrong to lie to a rapist and withhold the whereabouts of a chid he wanted to rape?
- moral claims are still subjective, whether they help us, others, or both.
- You know nothing about what the character Jesus depicted in the gospel myths did or said, since it’s all second-hand hearsay written decades after the fact.
- The moral views expressed in the gospel myths are subjective.
- The moral view expressed by the Jesus character in the gospel myths fully and unequivocally endorse old testament laws, including slavery and stoning women for adultery, I do not find this a worthy moral standard, far from it.
You think it would be bad to lie to a rapist to protect a child from that rapist? I must say I disagree.
You don’t know what anyone in this story was motivated by, but that’s not relevant, what is relevant is that all the moral claims are subjective. including your claims here that greed hatred and ignorance can never form the basis of moral acts.
Yes, you demonstrably can, you just gave examples of what you claim is people doing just that? People do it all the time? That others disagree does not make them objectively wrong.
That a subjective claim nonetheless.
No it isn’t that’s a subjective opinion, it also relative, in a war against the Nazis greed and hatred would have motivated the allies often, they could not have won otherwise, so whether we find killing moral or immoral is both subjective and relative.
No thanks, it has no relevance to the fact that morality is subjective, and is itself of course a subjective definition.
No it wasn’t, go back read it again.
Except those motives are not objectively immoral, that’s a subjective claim.
Demonstrate a single moral or immoral act this does not ultimately rest on a subjective claim or opinion. You have still failed do this.
You are making the erroneous assumption that greed, hatred and ignorance are objectively immoral, but this is just another subjective viewpoint. I’d bet that if you explained why you found these immoral, we would have more subjective claims. Try it:
Offer objective evidence to support your claim hatred, greed or ignorance are immoral, without basing your claim on further subjective claims.
I don’t believe in unevidenced supernatural curses like sin, and you seem to have entirely missed the point of the quote. I also don’t agree that every wrongdoer deserves a chance at my forgiveness, I believe some acts are beyond that, though of course this is a subjective opinion, as are all moral claims.
I’m having trouble sorting this all out. Maybe this will help.
Can anyone offer a moral - or immoral - act that is 100%, always, subjective? How can we tell if that’s the case?
1 Like
I can’t think of one that does not ultimately rest on a subjective opinion. Nor has anyone who claims morality can be objective, ever done so that I am aware of.
1 Like
What the fuck is sin anyway? Isn’t that subjective as well?
1 Like
Then we have all had benefit from genocide.
How many animals have we driven into extinction for our convienence?
But since animals aren’t people, then maybe exclude this fact.
If so, then what of the Neanderthals and Denisovians? It seems that we probably drove them into extinction for our benefit. When has mankind ever been anything other than genocidal?
And if we follow your reasoning, then mankind is objectively evil . . . so why try to be “good” for any reason? It would be unnatural.
So, we are now in a space where even the theist argument of objective good falls apart by its own standards.
To the extent that you are a “subject” which observes, the phenomenon is “subjective”. To the extent that the process can be defined objectively, it is objective. You are interlacing the meaning of being the “subject” of something with “subjective” interpretation. There is nothing “subjective” about the interpretation of colour.
Whatever weighs on your conscience …
It’s obvious from the story itself
Moral decisions based on hatred, greed, and delusion? Please provide me with an example of a moral decision based on greed, hatred and/or delusion and I’ll conceed
Again, you’ve failed to show that decisions based on hatred, greed, and/or delusion can be moral, so it suffices to say that there is no subjective way to make such a decision. All decisions based on hatred, greed, and/or delusion are always immoral, and thus there is an objective standard by which to measure and grade morality and immorality.
Suit yourself.
Moot point.
You have failed to show how hatred, greed, or delusion allow one to make a moral decision.
The fact that you cannot provide an example of a moral decision motivated by hatred, greed, or delusion is evidence of your challenge.
provide a successful example of a ideology which promotes genocide which is not motivated by hatred, greed, or delusion
Except you know what “sin” means. How can you escape the meaning of a word which you understand full and well. Hanahhahahaha! You are a sinner - come play with the rest of us!
No, you said lying was always wrong, so which is it? Is it a matter of subjective conscience, or is it always wrong? You seem to be making two contrary claims now?
I hate the abuse of children, or someone being raped, there are two examples. NB This is still a subjective opinion I hold.
quod erat demonstrandum…
I hate fascism, rape and child abuse, these are examples of me making a (subjective) moral assertion based on hatred.
- This is a subjective claim, not an objective one.
- If you believe this claim, then my hatred of rape, and child abuse would be immoral, is that what you believe?
You are failing to understand the result would still be subjective, as is your claim such motives must always be immoral.
- Why is hatred immoral, why is greed immoral, (you’ve changed ignorance to delusion, who knows why?)
- Can you answer those two question without using a subjective claim? So far you have not done so.
Whether I think they can be used to make moral decisions is irrelevant, though they clearly can, but my opinions would also be subjective. I hate fascism, I hate misogyny, I hate racism, I hate the abuse of children, I’d bet you do as well. So why you keep pretending we can’t base a moral assertion on this is baffling?
I have done so, but this rather misses the point, it remains a subjective claim those motives are immoral, or that they are moral.
You are offering a subjective claim, and insisting it must be objective because you believe it to be so, that’s just bizarre.
What objective evidence can you offer that these motives must always be immoral, or moral, beyond a subjective claim?
Why? I agree (subjectively) that genocide is immoral, nor have I ever claimed such acts could be possible without those motives.
Indeed, that is why I don’t lend such woo woo superstition any credence. You might as well tell me what you think mermaids smell like, then tell me they would smell the same to me.
I do not need to escape a fictional superstition, I merely withhold belief from it.
I don’t believe you, please demonstrate some objective evidence that “sin” exists, or is even possible? Otherwise it remains a meaningless claim to me. FYI, I find the notion that babies are born with the weight of a supernatural curse (sin), to be morally repugnant, luckily it is unsupported by any objective evidence.
1 Like
It’s not wrong if you’re acting out of compassion.
Yeah. It makes you furious. Furious enough to kill?
You “hate” them? Enough to kill? Ahahahahahah? Or do you just harbour this hate? That isn’t healthy you know? Maybe let the police handle it?
Because people create suffering in the world with those as motivation.
Because morality is a phenomenon, and within the scope of that phenomenon there are real things. Real things pertaining to real intentions.
Subjectively? So there is a subjective moral framework which justifies genocide outside the motives of hatred, greed, and delusion?
Well, since they live in the ocean they obviously smell like fish. And a sin is an immoral act. Hard to understand I suppose when your definition of right and wrong are so flimsy.
Do you know what the word means? That’s a good starting place.
Give the baby time. It will learn. Just like we all did. Ahahahahahaha. Satan LIVES. He rules with DOMINION over this world!!! Ahahahahahahah. Even the babies are not safe! Ahahahahaha. A pox! A pox, I say!!! Ahahahahaha.
Let all sinners unite under the dominion of HA-SATAN / the Lord of Darkness and all that is evil. Let his one thousand year reign over this earth BEGIN!!!
Do you pledge your allegiance, Sheldon? To Ha-Satan? The great overlord of this earth? Hahahahahahaha! EEEEEEEE-VIL. EVIL WILL RULE A THOUSAND YEARS!
So it was not an example of something that is objectively immoral then, as morality is subjective and relative. NB Note that your new qualified claim, that contradicts your original absolute claim, is again subjective.
Yes absolutely, the rape or abuse of a child would make me furious. Now you claimed nothing motivated by hatred could ever be moral, claiming this was an example of something that was objectively immoral, and when I said this was not true you asked for examples, I gave you two, so are you now going to admit that your claim was not example of objective morality, or spin this off into tangential irrelevance?
I hate child abuse, are you telling me that is not a moral position? Otherwise hatred can demonstrably motivate a moral position, just as it can motivate immoral ones, so again it is subjective and relative.
I see, but causing suffering is not objectively immoral is it, that is a subjective opinion as well. So again we see that every moral claim ultimately rests on a subjective opinion, as I said.
I have read that half a dozen times, and can see no relevance whatsoever to my post? Also not one word of it is objective evidence that those motives must always be immoral or moral, we are still left with just your subjective claim?
Why do you believe it is objectively immoral? Can you offer anything that doesn’t ultimately rest on subjective opinion? And yes of course people have created subjective opinions that genocide is acceptable or moral, there are many examples.
I don’t believe in supernatural curses like sin, telling me what you think it is must remain meaningless, unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence it exists, or that it is even possible. That people assign the word “sin” to real events, does not make sin real.
I have not offered any definition of right and wrong? And by now, you should really know better than to offer straw men, or try to use semantics, as I am always very careful not to stray from the common usage without clarifying why.
Obviously I do, now can you demonstrate any objective evidence that divine law exists, otherwise having a word to describe violating it (sin) is, as I have said repeatedly, meaningless to me.
So we still don’t have a single example of anything that is objectively moral or immoral, all your examples ultimately rest on a subjective claim. I can’t say I am surprised, as I have never seen anyone able to offer one. Though some people often conflate objective facts about how X is caused, with the subjective claim, that causing X is moral or immoral.
Three types of sin:
- Something you can do that I can’t.
- Something you can do that I can but won’t because I’m a coward.
- Something you can that I can do but I might get caught.
I’m not sure who this is aimed at, or what it is in response to, but I generally start with common usage, so the dictionary, and the primary definition.
Sin
noun
- an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
So if anyone is deviating from that, that’s fine, but they need to clearly and specifically say what they mean. In this case ratty has introduced the word, and as far as I can see it has no direct relevance to his claim, that morality is objective. All he would need to do is demonstrate objective evidence that wa sufficient to support that claim, and so far every moral claim he has offered as examples of objective morality, have rested ultimately on subjective opinion. FWIW, I find that always to be the case every time this is debated.
I understand why people find this troubling, the idea (for example) that the most heinous acts are not objectively wrong, is something most people find troubling, but how we feel about any claim or idea, is of course not at all relevant to whether it is true or not.
1 Like
I was hoping Rat_Spit (RS) would respond, because I thought his perspective might be interesting, but I only got a response from Sheldon, and while it is appreciated, not only is it what I would expect from him, it is also my own position – nothing to learn there! So I am going to go forward without that response.
It appears to me that even if there is an objective morality, because humans have to interpret that, morality is in effect subjective. That is, we operate on a subjective morality, whether an objective morality exists or not.
For an objective morality to exist, there has to be a reason for its existence, and there is no evidence to support either its existence nor the reason for its existence.
Conversely, a subjective morality exists because humans exist.
Worse, many people try to use the existence of an objective morality to justify the existence of a god. This is just backwards.
1 Like
If any of this shit was even real, I’d gladly volunteer to help Lucifer’s side. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
Why?
No. Your hate is fuelled by sympathy or empathy for victims of child abuse. Your sympathy and empathy are reflections of morality, whereas your hatred for the child abused is a reflection of survivalship. Child abusers often meet with violent ends. The hate you feel is neither moral nor immoral. It’s a basic instinct that prompts you to eliminate child abusers from the gene pool.
I don’t know what makes you think I can read your mind. I have no idea why you believe that it is a subjective opinion. You’ve offered zero explanation.
And we cannot objectively state whether these justifications for “moral genocide” are wrong? They think it’s “right” therefore we cannot declare it to be wrong? We who see all genocide as motivated by greed, hatred, or delusion?
You also have not provided a single justification for genocide which isn’t motivated by greed, hatred, or delusion.
Unless you can, it is safe to say that all genocide is objectively rooted in hatred, greed, and ignorance. Thus it is ALWAYS immoral.
Provide one instance of genocide which is justified outside of greed, hatred, and/or delusion and I will grant you that morality is subjective.
I can see that you’re uncomfortable with the word “sin”. Most sinners in denial are like this. That is fine. You are absolved of your sin, simply by remaining ignorant of it.
The fact that you understand the meaning of “divine law” indicates that it exists. Your understanding of it does not differ from mine. We both know what it means. The fact that the word “divine” has meaning, indicates that it’s real.
Genocide is objectively immoral because there is no instance of genocide which is not motivated by greed, hatred, or ignorance.
If you could give me an example which is motivated outside of greed, hatred, and/or delusion it would follow that genocide can be either moral or immoral (depending on the motivation). Since that is not the case, it is always immoral.
It does not matter that a person “thinks” they’re justified. You cannot justify an action as moral on the basis of hatred, greed, or anger.
You “hate” child abuse … based on the hate, would you kill a child abuser? Would that be a moral act?
If you acted out of this hate, you would be punished by the law. Consider this man:
I think we can objectively define the morality/immorality of an act based on the motive.
Acts motivated by love, or compassion are moral. Acts motivated by hatred, greed, or delusion are immoral.
A moral act will not weigh on one’s conscience. An immoral act will.
The true test of whether something is moral or immoral is whether or not it weighs on one’s conscience.
One man can kill out of anger and be filled with remorse and another can kill out of anger and not regret a thing. That is only to say that the first man has a conscience and the second does not. Having a conscience is a precondition for understanding morality.
Because to even discover or test what the speed of light is, you have to at the very least start with subjective hypothesis. How the fuck can you know that the speed of light is constant before you’ve even tested.
I’ve read enough, plus much is common sense, but you can also do what you did previously and ask ChatGPT or do a cursory google search.
Yeah, watch predator and chill
Well clearly we can say Einsteins assumption is special relativity, they are his hypothesis that were later valided to very high precision.