Trends in Morality

[The6thMessenger]

I don't want to be needlessly mean, but let me try to be clear:
You're tolerated, because so far you've been mostly 'nice' and you haven't done anything annoying enough to enforce the rules on you. You're also typing quite a lot of content (this is good, we like content), and you may be a good teething ring, so I can see the value in others trying to argue with you when they may not have as much experience with these topics. Even arguing with a wall can be useful to gain some experience.

Isn't this a forum? I mean if you want to have a conversation with him, then shouldn't you private message him? What's the point of people being able to see what you said, yet unable to respond to it?

I'm offering advice from the sidelines for those who are engaging you; not exactly for the purposes of this conversation, so much as just for overall consistency and future use. These are people capable of understanding my arguments, and open minded enough to consider them, so my posts have value in that capacity.
They have no value to you if you're not open minded. Ignore them, you won't understand them anyway.

Okay sure, but really are you sure that you're the one who's not open minded? Most Christians i face call me the one who is close minded, yet they themselves have the unshakable faith. Are you sure that you're not one of them?

I can concede to Morality being Objective, if it's held by facts. Like there is really a standards to judge right and wrong, that is independent of human opinion.

When you assert your conclusion and refuse to answer logical and empirical challenges with broad assertions about how everybody's logic is equally right, it makes it impossible to have a real conversation with you since you have rejected the very basis of discourse off the bat.

Okay how did i not answer the logical and empirical challenges? Could you clarify what were the challenges specifically so i can address them?

About logic being equally right, not entirely but kind of. Take a look at Kalam Cosmological Argument, it's logic is correct because it follows a coherent idea, it's premises however is incorrect which makes it's conclusion incorrect. If a muslim terrorist is coherent with the ideas, we can say that on the basis of their dumb holy book as logic then they are logical. Yet their premises can be wrong, and we see them as wrong.

The correctness of the logic is ultimately hinged on the human perspective, that is why it can also change, that's why seem illogical person can be logical as we choose what is correct reasoning, this is clearly seen before our formal modernization, what seemed "flawed reasoning" back then was correct back then because of the differences of standards that were used to judge what is reasonable or not. I mean really, Jesus made "miracles" therefore he's god, what the fuck? At least we know now that it is illogical to do so, but we cannot deny that back then it was logical.

Philosophy as i see it is personal, that is why Empiricism is important to science, because it sifts through the fallible human experience, it sets an an absolute standards made from measured items, that because they are hinged on the real world measurements they are consistent every time -- at least with reasonable accuracy.

But i guess this is my temprament. The thing i notice about many of you here is you talk philosophically, whereas i argue from the the basis of known facts. I can concede in being wrong, but i as i see it based on the facts i honestly think i am not.

From what I've seen, it appears you're too arrogant and closed minded to consider the notion that there may be coherent truth worth understanding that you simply don't as of yet grasp, and as far as your mindset is currently, that's an irreconcilable problem if you're not open to correcting it.

Wierd question, what if you are the one close minded and arrogant? What i have been doing is simply reading from the facts. I also studied psychology by the way.

Maybe I'm wrong about your degree of confidence and arrogance, and I hope I am, but this is probably just something you have to grow out of. When you learn more some day (and I hope you do), you'll be embarrassed by how ignorant you were today.

This is probably not relevant, but i am an INTP, http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html, not that i'm using it a scapegoat. I'm actually shy in class, even antisocial, i hate that my classmates are noisy.

Maybe you'll come back then, and we can have a real conversation -- one based on logic, and the understanding that not everybody is equally right, not all logic is equally valid, and not all premises are true.

I see, well can you ever tell me the place where i said that everybody is equally right? No, all i ever said was the difference of opinions of morality makes it subjective, that and the logic portion. That doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is "Just as good", it simply says what it is. It's the job of our Moral Philosophy to define what is right and wrong, and that depends on ourselves. It is a discussion where people get their morality from and what it is, but it's not a discussion of what is right or wrong.

Until that day, do not try to bait people into replying to you again by addressing them with poorly conceived straw man arguments when they have made it explicitly clear they do not wish to converse with you. That's just trolling. If you make a habit of it, you may find the forum rules upheld and the implicit exception granted to you for being nicely stupid revoked.

Oh okay, can you clarify why it was a strawman? If so, can you clarify your position a bit more then? And like i said, if you don't want people to respond to you, then maybe you should convene in a private area than the threads.

Miniboes is being nice, you should focus on conversing with him, and the others here.

And that is what i doing.

If you insist on having that conversation with those who aren't as charitable or patient, you will be held to the same standards as any other troll no matter how nice or polite you're being. That means answering every question posed to you on pain of banning and not repeating the same failed arguments endlessly. These are standards I doubt you would meet.

Then maybe you shouldn't have been in the forums if you want a 1-on-1 conversation, i've read the faqs and you should be able to PM him.

Read the forum rules: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... p=224#p224

You mean this?

This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.

oookay... i presented my view, you presented yours, we gave our rebutles into one another, and that is what we see, Isn't that discussion?

Perhaps it's not about being correct then? I mean, how do you define lecturing? If there is a debate, and one side is correct and can be demonstrated so with facts that ultimately shut the other side down, would you define that as lecturing?

that's an irreconcilable problem if you're not open to correcting it.

I'm open in correcting it, but the thing is that you and Knot is yet to correct it. I think i am correct, based on facts on evidences gathered by Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology etc. , but not just jumping hoops of technicalities alone. We were discussing what makes Morality Subjective or Objective, and that is what we did, by rationalizing based on different positions, with my position basing from tangible evidences like the gathered information about human behavior, and that is where i am arguing from.

Here's a strange question, what's something that can change your mind? My position can simply be crushed by showing that the facts are otherwise, like as opposed of what is right is wrong is defined by human selfishness, it is really defined by an objective standard in which human opinion and experience as a society or an individual even is ultimately irrelevant, that it doesn't vary between cultures. Weed is bad because it is really bad, cancers and other diseases are bad because they are, etc. etc.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I am failing to understand how morality isn't subjective? Could anyone direct me to any sources refuting and supporting relativism or briefly explain it here? I apologize...morality is confusing!

[The6thMessenger]

I am failing to understand how morality isn't subjective? Could anyone direct me to any sources refuting and supporting relativism or briefly explain it here? I apologize...morality is confusing!

Well, i think there it is.

I think subjective morality is illogical. First of all it seems self-refuting, since if it were true we would have to objectively accept that morality is subjective, so we still end up with a morality that's objective.

You still see moral subjectivists who discuss morality, which doesn't make sense. If they actually believed in it, then why bother discussing morality anyway? Since no one can be wrong or right about moral issues anyway why waste the time? So people who say morality is subjective dont actually mean it. We would also live in some weird dystopian, every-man-for-himself kind of society if it was true

I don't think you really disagree with me. since moral subjectivists don't actually exists, I guess my task is to show you why you aren't one :p

Something that is true regardless of how an individual perceives or interpretes that thing. John might choose to think that 1 + 1 = 3, but that doesn't mean he's not objectively wrong about his understanding of 1 + 1.

Moral subjectivism/relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) does go against the laws of logic. It's an assertion that no one can ever be wrong or right about moral questions. But by making this assertion it's implied that this particular notion of morality IS (objectively) right. This leads to a logical contradiction:

Morality is subjective and not objective
Morality is subjective and objective

Sure, moral questions depend on things like context, available information and probability, but that doesn't make them subjective. We can't objectively say, "killing is wrong", because it's too dependent on context. But we can objectively say that killing innocent people (who don't wish to die) for fun is wrong. Here a true moral subjectivist would quote The Big Lebowski and say, "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

To me it's just proof that some people have determined an objective morality based on really bad evidence and logic (e.g. ISIS).

Morality is subjective in no way whatsoever -- subjective = opinion. That would imply that what is good to do to others depends on the opinion of the actor, rather than the acted upon.

Chocolate is delicious. This is a subjective claim; it is relative to the subject having the experience. Doing good is not an experience for the doer as tasting is an experience for the taster.

Morality is objective, but relative to context.

Person A is being fed chocolate at gunpoint. Person A loves chocolate, so no biggie, the gun is unnecessary.
Person B is being fed chocolate at gunpoint. Person B is allergic to chocolate and will die, and doesn't want to die, this is a problem.

It is completely irrelevant what the "opinion" of the gunman is. What matters is the effects as judged by the acted upon.

The more information we have, the more accurately we can understand the situation and act correctly.

The difference between a member of ISIS and a rescue worker is a difference not of intent, but of information.
ISIS believe more incorrect things, and thus sometimes with good intentions do evil.

Intent * knowledge * ability = moral action.

You have to want to do good. You have to know correctly what good is based on an accurate world view (which is not Sharia, based upon religious fiction rather than reality). You have to have the physical ability and resources to act.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

^Well, as I said and I believe you stated too, I don't find this convincing. I don't understand how these statements refute what you have said? I apologize for my incompetence. I'm more than happy to be wrong, but only if I can perceive why I am wrong.

[miniboes]

I am failing to understand how morality isn't subjective? Could anyone direct me to any sources refuting and supporting relativism or briefly explain it here? I apologize...morality is confusing!

I am slightly confused too as stated before, but I did some research and think I understand it pretty well now. The best explanation I found was in a debate between Matt Dillahunty and John Figdor on episode #154 of the podcast Dogma Debate.

As many discussions, this gets into semantics, thus I have to throw out the definitions of pink one that I agreed to work with. If morality is going to be useful as a term at all, and i think pink one somewhat agrees with this, it has to be based on well-being or a similar term. Brimstonesalad likes to use the interest of sentient beings, I believe. A definition that works would be "distinction of right and wrong, good and bad action based on the impact on the well-being or interests of sentient creatures of the action."

Here's why: nothing else works. Subjective morality is useless, since people can be wrong and it means nobody is more right than anybody else; ISIS just as right as the USA or Turkey. Some people like to base their morality on the interests of intelligent beings, which leads to conclusions they do not agree with themselves; mentally handicapped people are equal to apes, a highly developed artificial intelligence would be superior to humanity. There are more examples, but I am too lazy.

Well-being is an objective standard, not a subjective one. Just like we can make objective claims about physical fitness (e.g. "eating nothing but icecream will make you gain weight" ) we can make objective claims on well-being. If one is suffering, that is measurable (and will become more measurable as technology progresses).

To conclude; if morality is based on the well-being or interests of sentient creatures, which is the only useful thing to base it on, it is objective and therefore morality is objective. If morality is not based on the well-being of sentient creatures, then we might as well discard the term as a whole since it is as useless as trying to argue with William Lane Craig.

[brimstoneSalad]

As miniboes said he's not equipped to handle this conversation, and Cirion chimed in too. I guess, by popular demand, I will need to.

The6thMessenger, understand that you will be held to higher conversational standards than you have been. Probably higher than you have ever been in your life.

For now, you may only answer questions I have posed, and ask questions if you don't understand something. Don't make any assertions or supposed arguments of your own, I don't have time to deal with your incoherent claims (and don't hide assertions in questions).
Once you understand my position fully (probably several posts from now, if we're lucky) then and only then may you have a turn to reply with your own 'arguments'.

This will be an orderly process, right now it's my time to explain, and yours only to ask questions when you don't understand, and answer every question I pose. You will have your chance later to say what you think.

I will make my questions red, do you understand all of the above?
Do not fail to answer any of my red questions.

Isn't this a forum? I mean if you want to have a conversation with him, then shouldn't you private message him? What's the point of people being able to see what you said, yet unable to respond to it?

For the benefit of others who were following the conversation, like the two who just chimed in.

Okay sure, but really are you sure that you're the one who's not open minded?

I didn't say I was closed minded.
I'm as open minded as it's possible to be; the notion is not a linear path, but a curve with a peak.
See this image:

openmindedcurve.jpg

I'm not as skeptical as it's possible to be: the two are not linearly related. You are more skeptical than I am, but less open minded.

I'm not skeptical of philosophy, for example -- although I may be skeptical of any given argument which claims to be philosophy -- because that would be absolutely counter productive to any possible discourse.

We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brain falls out.

He misses the notion that this kind of skepticism of reality is actually closed minded, but it's the right sentiment.
It is the position you find yourself in that you have lost your brain in your quest to be open minded, and failed entirely at the endeavor as a consequence.

Do you understand the concept of the non-linear relationship between skepticism and open mindedness?
Whether you agree or not, just understand it at the very least.

As to your "views":
You have been attempting to articulate a view of strict empiricism, as opposed to rationalism.

Read this if you don't know the difference:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ratio ... mpiricism/

Do you understand the difference?

The superficial problem is that Ethics/Morality is not a physical substance. It is concept, and it is founded in philosophy.
You can not measure a cup of morality; and thus your confusion.
It is not a thing to be directly measured by science, but to be understood in a philosophical context as a methodology, which relies in practice on situational context and consequence (which CAN be measured by science).

Logical morality, as a methodology of understanding, quantifying, and comparing reality like mathematics, is not a thing to be measured based on people's erroneous views of it.
People thinking 2+2=5 wouldn't make mathematics a matter of opinion, it would just make them idiots.

So, if you're trying to live in a framework of strict Empiricism (even ignoring the problems with that), you simply aren't equipped to have these kinds of conversations.

It's as if you were a Christian, and your entire framework for reality was based on the Bible, and you were not willing to consider anything outside of "biblical evidence"; of course you would be incapable of handling something like this.
"Science" without the larger context of philosophy that supports it is just another isolated dogma, like the bible.

I'll clarify that next.

You mostly get by when dealing with strictly empirical matters like evolution, perhaps, but only due to the limited scope (and only if you're not really challenged to support science itself).
Science is a field of philosophy, and as a process of obtaining knowledge it derives its authority through rationalistic processes of philosophy, and not from observation.

Strict empiricism is a dogma that can not support itself.
Consider these two options:

A. Science is correct. We know science is correct because it's useful. We know science is useful because we can use science to prove it's useful.
No.

B. Science is the most reliable source of knowledge because it controls for human biases in observation; if there is a shared objective reality which we can access through our senses without tampering by demons unknown, science is the way to it. If there is no objective reality, then science is no more useful, but no less true than belief -- so in terms of decision theory, it is still the more reliable considering both cases. If science is tampered with by demons unknown, there's still no reason to believe human biases are more reliable; everything is equally suspect -- in terms of decision theory, science is still the most reliable, all cases considered.
Yes.
This is why science is right, not your perceptions of its usefulness, but a solid philosophical foundation.

Empiricism is reliably useful only if rationalism in its larger scope is true. You can not reject the validity of philosophy (or fail to understand logic, as you do), and expect to have a meaningful conversation about anything -- be that involving science, or more abstract matters of concept.

This discussion about ethics/morality is one of a higher level of reasoning than you are currently capable of.

As such, this is NOT yet a discussion, it is an information session I am giving out of charity to bring you up to speed to the point you may be capable of engaging in this conversation (and help others here understand the foundation of morality).

This is why you can ask questions, and answer questions. The information flow is one way here, because I already understand your position, but you don't understand the basic facts required to engage with this topic yet.

See Not Even Wrong (your current views on the topic): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

Anyway:
This distinction of logical underpinning is also why religion is not substantiated -- unlike science is has presented with a complete failure to ground itself in logic.

You have only been accidentally right that science is more correct than religion, like a Christian may be accidentally right when asserting that a particular child rape is morally wrong.

Some day -- perhaps today, or perhaps not -- when you understand why science is right, and how it is grounded in philosophy and given credibility by rationalistic thought (not empiricism), you may be able to creep your way back up that curve of open mindedness and stop being so unduly skeptical of the capacity of philosophy to tell us meaningful things.

I can concede to Morality being Objective, if it's held by facts. Like there is really a standards to judge right and wrong, that is independent of human opinion.

Do you understand how this quote emphasizes your misunderstanding of morality?

Morality is not a substance to be measured. It is not something strict empiricists are capable of understanding or discussing.
It is something soundly in the domain of philosophy. That doesn't mean that empirical knowledge is useless, but that it is subservient to the conceptual backbone of morality which is a matter of rationalist philosophy.

Also, you painfully misunderstand the concept of what "opinion" is.

Here is an opinion: Chocolate is delicious.
Here is a fact: Chocolate is delicious to me.

Opinions are just facts that aren't contextualized; particularly, facts that deal with experiences. That is: An 'opinion' is an incomplete statement. There's no magical substance in the universe that is "opinion", and exempt from falsehood.

This is not an opinion: The Earth is Flat. (this is a false statement of fact)
This is not a fact: The Earth is Flat to me. (this is just incoherent)

This is an opinion: The claim that the Earth is flat is convincing.
This is a fact: The claim that the Earth is flat is convincing to me.

When people say something like: In my opinion, the Earth is flat.
What they're properly saying (if they aren't complete morons) is: I believe that the Earth is flat. Or, the claim that the Earth is flat is convincing to me.

Much of this confusion stems from a regrettable ambiguity in English, which causes stupid people to not understand the difference between facts and opinions, or how they relate to each other.

So, how about this: To avoid confusion, STOP talking about "opinions", just talk about facts.
Just don't use the word "opinion" anymore in this thread, can you do that?

Tom hits Bob. Being hit is painful to Bob, and Bob doesn't like it.

There are all facts.

Tom believes hitting Bob is good.
Tom believes Bob enjoys getting hit.
Tom believes the Earth is flat.

These are also facts.

If we really wanted to, we could use FMRI to establish these facts conclusively in terms of brain activity.

Do you understand how these are all facts?

Opinion: Being hit is unpleasant.
Fact: Being hit is unpleasant to Bob.

Liking, or not liking something -- any kind of experience -- is a matter of fact when the subject is specified.


Now, you could assert that morality is a feeling or an experience, rather than a concept. This is completely and demonstrably false (e.g. psychopaths don't feel anything about the scenarios, but practice moral thought expertly based on the logical concepts).

You could, slightly less ignorantly, assert that morality is a concept, but that there are different types of morality.

Islamic Morality
Christian Morality
Satanic Morality
Secular Morality
etc.

This is slightly closer to the truth, but as you will learn (if you pay attention) is very much like saying there are different kinds of medicine.

Chinese Traditional Medicine
Homeopathic Medicine
Reiki Medicine
Evidence based Medicine

Or different kinds of science.

Islamic Science
Christian Science
Scientology Science
Spirit Science
Naturalistic Science

Do you see anything wrong with that?

The implication, which is false, is that these are all equal but different, and it's just up to your preference which one you like -- any will do.
When, in fact, only one of those things is actually medicine, and only one of those things is actually science. Likewise, only one of those things is actually sound Morality.

I'll explore WHY it is that some Moralities are not sound, and others are, but first let's take a look at logic:

About logic being equally right, not entirely but kind of. Take a look at Kalam Cosmological Argument, it's logic is correct because it follows a coherent idea, it's premises however is incorrect which makes it's conclusion incorrect.

Case in point, you do not understand logic.

Santa has a white beard.
Santa is the king of Christmas.
Christmas is snowy.
Therefore: Show is white.

The conclusion is actually correct -- accidentally so -- the issue is that the argument is not sound or valid; the logic is wrong, regardless of the premises.
Whether the premises are false or the logic is not valid, you can not conclude from that that the conclusion is incorrect; just that it has not been demonstrated. And that is key.

When a Christian says:

Kalam therefore Bible therefore stone homosexuals!

There is a problem supporting that conclusion due to a series of invalid logical jumps and false premises.

Christians may also say:

Kalam therefore Bible therefore don't rape children!

Likewise, there is a problem there. BUT the conclusion may be mostly correct nonetheless, like the "Santa therefore snow is white" argument.

If you understand the basics of logic, you can begin to understand why the concepts of Christian Morality, or Islamic Morality simply do not follow.

Just as if you understand the basics of Medicine or Science, you can understand why these "alternative" forms of "medicine" or "science are" not valid, and do not properly qualify as real medicine or science.

Do you understand why these alternative "medicines" and "sciences" are neither medicine nor science?

If a muslim terrorist is coherent with the ideas, we can say that on the basis of their dumb holy book as logic then they are logical. Yet their premises can be wrong, and we see them as wrong.

Muslims are not logically coherent. The basis of their beliefs rests on something inherently illogical. That alone would be enough to undermine any credibility of their moral claims.
IN ADDITION, their premises are also wildly incorrect. This isn't just our view of them being incorrect. It's a true fact.

Because of these problems, "Islamic Morality" is no longer a contender for THE morality of the universe. It's NOT EVEN a coherent concept. It is nothing useful at all. Just a jumble of non-credible claims built on top of an illogical foundation. It is, however, a very dangerous jumble.

Do you understand how "Islamic Morality" is not a coherent idea? Do you understand how it lacks credibility, and like any pseudoscience, it is itself a pseudo-philosophy?

If you do not understand at least this, you have a very serious problem.

If you do, then try this thought experiment:

Imagine a universe where there are only two concepts of morality competing. Islamic Morality, and Secular Morality. There are no other concepts of Morality in the universe, everybody agrees that one or the other of these are THE morality, and they're trying to figure out which one.
Assume Secular Morality is consistent, and any and all of the premises bear out in experimentation with credible scientific methodology.
Assume Islamic Morality has all of the problems mentioned above.
Assume one of these two moralities must be true.

Given the process of elimination, in this thought experiment, which morality is therefore true?

Determining what morality is, is much like that, except there are a LOT more contenders. You take the sum total of conceivable moralities, and then you chip them down by proving them wrong one by one (or huge groups of them sharing common fallacies), until there's only one left.

This is, by the way, why the issue of atheism is so incredibly important. Only by dismantling theism and revelation do we have a hope of arriving at a sensible common morality.

The correctness of the logic is ultimately hinged on the human perspective,

NO, it is not.

Logic is either valid, or it is not valid, there's no 'perspective' to it. It's as precise as any mathematics. Your ignorance of logic is so profound, I really don't know how you've even gotten this far. Wherever you live, your education has clearly failed you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity# ... _soundness
Read that, at least.

Do you understand the difference between Validity and Soundness?

that is why it can also change, that's why seem illogical person can be logical as we choose what is correct reasoning, this is clearly seen before our formal modernization, what seemed "flawed reasoning" back then was correct back then because of the differences of standards that were used to judge what is reasonable or not.

You are dangerously close to denying the validity of logic. If you do so, you will be banned. This is your final warning.

You have no idea what logic is, nothing you say makes any sense, and you're too ignorant to realize it.

Read this, in entirety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Do not write another post until you have read the article. If it takes you a couple days, that's fine, but it's something you need to understand.
Have you read the entire article?

Law of non-contradiction along with a couple other very simple and obvious principles make up the core of logic.
If something is not internally contradictory, and doesn't violate any of those simple rules, it is NOT evidently illogical.

Many people use the word "illogical" to mean "irrational" or "unreasonable"; these are not synonyms.
Spock's usage of the word is incorrect. Do not be misled by Star Trek.

I mean really, Jesus made "miracles" therefore he's god, what the fuck? At least we know now that it is illogical to do so, but we cannot deny that back then it was logical.

If something is not logical, it was never logical. This is not something that changes over time.

However, your claims are wrong on every level.

1. It was not argued that "Jesus made miracles, therefore he's god"
2. The Greeks had pretty well established understanding of Logic.
3. Even if it were argued that, whether it was valid logic would depend on the exact premises for form of the argument.

A. Only god can do miracles.
B. Jesus did miracles
C. Therefore: Jesus is God.

This is completely VALID logic. The premises, however, may not be true. The truth or falsehood of the premises is in part an empirical matter.

Philosophy as i see it is personal,

You "see" it wrongly. If you continue to "see" it that way, you will be incapable of having rational conversations.
This would be in violation of Rule #1.

This is a philosophical discussion. If you think it's too personal, then don't have these discussions.

that is why Empiricism is important to science,

You completely misunderstand science. I explained this above.
Science is credible as a branch of philosophy, and inherits is epistemological authority from rationalist philosophy, not from "measurements".

Without logic, there is no science. If you believe logic is subjective, you just need to leave and come back when you find your brain again.

And like i said, if you don't want people to respond to you, then maybe you should convene in a private area than the threads.

It won't be an issue for much longer. If you don't obey the forum rules, you will be banned. It's not something I really want to see happen, since you type quite a bit, but if you refuse to recognize the validity of logic and respond rationally to others, it's inevitable.

Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it

You have expressed several times your skepticism of logic. There is no real discussion outside that context, just people throwing useless rhetoric around.

Here's a strange question, what's something that can change your mind?

It's not a strange question. A sound logical argument against my position could change my mind if there were one, just as a mathematical proof that 2+2=5 could (if it existed). It would take maybe a paragraph, but could be as short as a single sentence.

This isn't something you're currently capable of, since you do not understand logic well enough to form a logical argument, and do not even understand the basics of the topic at hand.

My position can simply be crushed by showing that the facts are otherwise, like as opposed of what is right is wrong is defined by human selfishness, it is really defined by an objective standard in which human opinion and experience as a society or an individual even is ultimately irrelevant, that it doesn't vary between cultures. Weed is bad because it is really bad, cancers and other diseases are bad because they are, etc. etc.

Your ignorance is so profound that you are completely closed minded.
This is like a Christian saying "I'll be convinced of Evolution, just show me a crocoduck lol!" or "Show me a monkey turning into a human before my eyes and I'll believe you."
Is that open minded? (rhetorical question) Of course not.

All of what you just said is a huge straw man, because that's not what anybody is actually saying.

Nobody is saying Weed, or Cancer, or Murder is bad "because it is". Nobody said human experience is irrelevant.

You do not even understand the kind of evidence to look for, because you don't have the slightest grasp of the opposing argument, or know what it would mean for it to be true. You don't even understand your own beliefs.

Go ahead an answer all of the red questions I asked. Read that article. And after that, you may ask sincere questions in attempt to understand our position.

[The6thMessenger]

To conclude; if morality is based on the well-being or interests of sentient creatures, which is the only useful thing to base it on, it is objective and therefore morality is objective. If morality is not based on the well-being of sentient creatures, then we might as well discard the term as a whole since it is as useless as trying to argue with William Lane Craig.

I see, so long story short, Morality HAS to be objective, if it were to be useful for us. So really it's an appeal to consequences?

[brimstoneSalad]

Here's why: nothing else works. Subjective morality is useless, since people can be wrong and it means nobody is more right than anybody else

Most people don't understand semantics (although they scarcely understand anything in philosophy at all), but a semantic argument is only part of it.

Words must have meanings that make them useful to communication.
But being useful to communication alone only rules out subjective morality as preferable because it's meaningless -- it does not indicate which notion of objective morality is correct.

The notion of "Do whatever the bible says, because YHWH defines what is moral in the bible" is also semantically meaningful.

Likewise, it might fail to provide a distinction between deontology and consequentialism, because these could both be potentially meaningful concepts even if the former yields absurd conclusions and is practically unworkable.

Semantics is ideology neutral. We could even say that defining morality as causing the most harm possible (a complete inversion) could be meaningful.

You have to look beyond the meaninglessness, because that last definition (the inversion) is both very meaningful and completely coherent.

The reason maximizing harm isn't morality is simple: it's the same reason up is not down.
It's simply not acceptable word usage.

If you went around calling up down, and down up, nobody would understand what you're saying.
Words have meanings because those meanings are useful to communication, and inverting them and using bizarre definitions isn't. Usually the most common definition is the closest to the right definition for a word, provided it's coherent.

As to the notion of subjective morality, note above how I said its uselessness rules it out as preferable.
It doesn't rule it out completely.

If there were no possible way to define morality coherently as objective, then subjective morality would be the only option remaining.
In so far as multiple claimants to the title of objective morality are contradicting each other and you can not rule any of them out, you're forced to concede to its subjectivity (at least in those cases of conflict) to avoid contradiction.

In the context of pseudo-philosophical politically correct academic blowhards who aren't willing to say that Christian or Islamic morality is wrong, saying instead that morality is subjective gratifies their egos while appeasing their cowardice.

If you don't have the spine or intelligence to call religious "morality" out on its bullshit in the same way we should call out homeopathic "medicine", then of course all you're left with is moronically singing the praises of moral subjectivism like the pink one.

That said, even in the worst cases of religious "morality", there isn't complete disagreement, since most people do at least agree that:

1. Morality is objective (which makes this part of the preferred definition)
and
2. It has something to do with the Golden rule

Where disagreement comes in is in the more complicated cases of conflict between the interests of two parties, particularly if one of those parties is a supposed deity. Most of these disagreements can be resolved through evidence and logical argument without drifting any significant distance from the common definition.

[The6thMessenger]

The6thMessenger, understand that you will be held to higher conversational standards than you have been. Probably higher than you have ever been in your life.

Okay.

I will make my questions red, do you understand all of the above?

Yes.

Do you understand the concept of the non-linear relationship between skepticism and open mindedness?

Okay, so you are just open-minded as need be. Is that it?

Do you understand the difference?

Honestly, i skimmed it. But I do believe that Rationalists insists that Knowledge are gained innately, like humans are naturally capable of reasoning, deductions and inductions. While Empiricism is the complete opposite (obviously), as empiricism insists that knowledge can only be attained by experience, mostly to the outside world.

The superficial problem is that Ethics/Morality is not a physical substance. It is concept, and it is founded in philosophy.
You can not measure a cup of morality; and thus your confusion.

It is not a thing to be directly measured by science, but to be understood in a philosophical context as a methodology, which relies in practice on situational context and consequence (which CAN be measured by science).

Oookay. Right, psychologists don't measure people, they measure their behavior. Simply put, empirically Morality can be measured by it's effects, not by it's substance alone.

People thinking 2+2=5 wouldn't make mathematics a matter of opinion, it would just make them idiots.

Morality =/= Mathematics

So, if you're trying to live in a framework of strict Empiricism (even ignoring the problems with that), you simply aren't equipped to have these kinds of conversations.

I think it depends. I would concede that i'm ill equipped to define what is right and wrong, but really Morality is the distinction of right and wrong, but does not define it.

You mostly get by when dealing with strictly empirical matters like evolution, perhaps, but only due to the limited scope (and only if you're not really challenged to support science itself).
Science is a field of philosophy, and as a process of obtaining knowledge it derives its authority through rationalistic processes of philosophy, and not from observation.

While i understand that science's discipline is from philosophy, science becomes largely irrelevant without empiricism, data that can be taken out from observations, like statistics or experimentation.

B. Science is the most reliable source of knowledge because it controls for human biases in observation; if there is a shared objective reality which we can access through our senses without tampering by demons unknown, science is the way to it. If there is no objective reality, then science is no more useful, but no less true than belief -- so in terms of decision theory, it is still the more reliable considering both cases. If science is tampered with by demons unknown, there's still no reason to believe human biases are more reliable; everything is equally suspect -- in terms of decision theory, science is still the most reliable, all cases considered.
Yes.

Yes, but the thing is that Morality is a part of human existence. Surely the universe might be objective, i can say that Morality is subjective because it hinges on the difference of human's temprament, because psychology.

Empiricism is reliably useful only if rationalism in its larger scope is true. You can not reject the validity of philosophy (or fail to understand logic, as you do), and expect to have a meaningful conversation about anything -- be that involving science, or more abstract matters of concept.

I agree.

See Not Even Wrong (your current views on the topic): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

I don't know, i could say the same thing for you. While people like you rationalize, there are some social experiments thrown out, and psychological experiments conducted, and THEN rationalize from the data gathered.

You have only been accidentally right that science is more correct than religion, like a Christian may be accidentally right when asserting that a particular child rape is morally wrong.

I honestly think that you're not in the position to judge.

Some day -- perhaps today, or perhaps not -- when you understand why science is right, and how it is grounded in philosophy and given credibility by rationalistic thought (not empiricism), you may be able to creep your way back up that curve of open mindedness and stop being so unduly skeptical of the capacity of philosophy to tell us meaningful things.

I see science as right, because it works and religion doesn't, aside from being incoherent.

Do you understand how this quote emphasizes your misunderstanding of morality?

I understand it as how you see it.

Morality is not a substance to be measured. It is not something strict empiricists are capable of understanding or discussing.

Yes and no, morality in itself not a substance, but the behavior itself can be measured through it's effects. Heck, even Neuropsychology is mapping the brain. However, us defining what is right or wrong in it's ideal form don't.

It is something soundly in the domain of philosophy. That doesn't mean that empirical knowledge is useless, but that it is subservient to the conceptual backbone of morality which is a matter of rationalist philosophy.

And i agree to that, but really what i am defining is Morality as it is, not what is right or wrong. I admit, philosophy is used to judge what is right or wrong ideally, but the act of judging itself is Morality.

So, how about this: To avoid confusion, STOP talking about "opinions", just talk about facts.
Just don't use the word "opinion" anymore in this thread, can you do that?

Opinon, Opinion,Opinon, Opinion,Opinon, Opinion,Opinon, Opinion,Opinon, Opinion,Opinon, Opinion,Opinon, Opinion, just have to get that out of my system.

Do you understand how these are all facts?[/quote]

Yes.

Opinion: Being hit is unpleasant.
Fact: Being hit is unpleasant to Bob.

I see, so it is objective as it singles out bob, that the "unpleasant" part is only for bob and is clarified.

Now, you could assert that morality is a feeling or an experience, rather than a concept. This is completely and demonstrably false (e.g. psychopaths don't feel anything about the scenarios, but practice moral thought expertly based on the logical concepts).

Not at all, i would consider Morality as a Behavior or an action, what is Right and Wrong is conceptual.

Do you see anything wrong with that?

Honestly, except the "Morality" selections, as it beautifully defines the differences of thinking of society, because of categorization.

T

The implication, which is false, is that these are all equal but different, and it's just up to your preference which one you like -- any will do.
When, in fact, only one of those things is actually medicine, and only one of those things is actually science. Likewise, only one of those things is actually sound Morality.

I'll explore WHY it is that some Moralities are not sound, and others are, but first let's take a look at logic:

Honestly, i don't have any qualms to that, I concede that there are moralities that aren't sound. Then again, i based that from a different morality.

About logic being equally right, not entirely but kind of. Take a look at Kalam Cosmological Argument, it's logic is correct because it follows a coherent idea, it's premises however is incorrect which makes it's conclusion incorrect.

Case in point, you do not understand logic.

Santa has a white beard.
Santa is the king of Christmas.
Christmas is snowy.
Therefore: Show is white.

The conclusion is actually correct -- accidentally so -- the issue is that the argument is not sound or valid; the logic is wrong, regardless of the premises.

Isn't that the Kalam goes like this:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:The universe has a cause.

I wouldn't say that the conclusion is correct, mainly because the premises failed to make a connection from beard to snow.

Whether the premises are false or the logic is not valid, you can not conclude from that that the conclusion is incorrect; just that it has not been demonstrated. And that is key.

I can say that the KCA fails by it's premises, because i can argue the premises to be incorrect, therefore the conclusion is correct, even if the step-by-step attribution is sound. Universe is the only "thing" in the universe that began to exist ex-nihilo, while everything else is ex-materia -- or rather matter just taking form of another. And because of the Universe as it began to exist being unequal to everything else that we know that began to exist, i can say that he is in no position to assume that. Simply because P1: It's not reasonable because as human beings we have not experienced anything else outside of our universe, to impose that what happens inside our universe must happen outside of it.

Do you understand why these alternative "medicines" and "sciences" are neither medicine nor science?

Because they don't work?

If a muslim terrorist is coherent with the ideas, we can say that on the basis of their dumb holy book as logic then they are logical. Yet their premises can be wrong, and we see them as wrong.

Muslims are not logically coherent. The basis of their beliefs rests on something inherently illogical. That alone would be enough to undermine any credibility of their moral claims.
IN ADDITION, their premises are also wildly incorrect. This isn't just our view of them being incorrect. It's a true fact.

I see, well okay.

Because of these problems, "Islamic Morality" is no longer a contender for THE morality of the universe. It's NOT EVEN a coherent concept. It is nothing useful at all. Just a jumble of non-credible claims built on top of an illogical foundation. It is, however, a very dangerous jumble.

The thing is that, whether Islamic Morality is no longer a contender, nor it's not even useful, but the thing is it shows the differences of morality between societies. That's it, i'm not arguing that it could be as right as every other morality, i'm simply saying that there are different set of morals that sometimes have different conclusions upon similar events, and because of that it's subjective.

Do you understand how "Islamic Morality" is not a coherent idea? Do you understand how it lacks credibility, and like any pseudoscience, it is itself a pseudo-philosophy?

Yes.

If you do, then try this thought experiment:

Imagine a universe where there are only two concepts of morality competing. Islamic Morality, and Secular Morality. There are no other concepts of Morality in the universe, everybody agrees that one or the other of these are THE morality, and they're trying to figure out which one.
Assume Secular Morality is consistent, and any and all of the premises bear out in experimentation with credible scientific methodology.
Assume Islamic Morality has all of the problems mentioned above.
Assume one of these two moralities must be true.

Given the process of elimination, in this thought experiment, which morality is therefore true?

I won't use the term true. I'd use the term, best. I would say the best Morality is "Secular" as it will yield what is the best result for me.

Determining what morality is, is much like that, except there are a LOT more contenders. You take the sum total of conceivable moralities, and then you chip them down by proving them wrong one by one (or huge groups of them sharing common fallacies), until there's only one left.

Honestly, i don't think i could prove them wrong, i could simply concede to the part that the "wrong" ones are not the best model, or standards which right and wrong is judged, because it yields worse results for me than "Secular".

This is, by the way, why the issue of atheism is so incredibly important. Only by dismantling theism and revelation do we have a hope of arriving at a sensible common morality.

Yes i agree to that.

The correctness of the logic is ultimately hinged on the human perspective,

NO, it is not.

Logic is either valid, or it is not valid, there's no 'perspective' to it. It's as precise as any mathematics. Your ignorance of logic is so profound, I really don't know how you've even gotten this far. Wherever you live, your education has clearly failed you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity# ... _soundness
Read that, at least.

I see, well okay. I admit i came wrong to that part.

Do you understand the difference between Validity and Soundness?

Yes. I do now, thanks.

You have no idea what logic is, nothing you say makes any sense, and you're too ignorant to realize it.

I have an idea, it's not yet complete though. Although i probably could say the same thing to you, since you don't seem to have a background on Psychology and Sociology, i can just as well say that nothing you say makes sense because it doesn't conform with the real world data.

Have you read the entire article?

Not yet, still reading. I kind of understand it, but i'm still sifting through the interpretations, and i don't get

Many people use the word "illogical" to mean "irrational" or "unreasonable"; these are not synonyms.
Spock's usage of the word is incorrect. Do not be misled by Star Trek.

Not a trekkie, i didn't even liked starwars.

It's not a strange question. A sound logical argument against my position could change my mind if there were one, just as a mathematical proof that 2+2=5 could (if it existed). It would take maybe a paragraph, but could be as short as a single sentence.

But again, morality =/= to mathematics. Maybe what you mean is the actual definitions of right or wrong, not how we define right or wrong.

My position can simply be crushed by showing that the facts are otherwise, like as opposed of what is right is wrong is defined by human selfishness, it is really defined by an objective standard in which human opinion and experience as a society or an individual even is ultimately irrelevant, that it doesn't vary between cultures. Weed is bad because it is really bad, cancers and other diseases are bad because they are, etc. etc.

Your ignorance is so profound that you are completely closed minded.
This is like a Christian saying "I'll be convinced of Evolution, just show me a crocoduck lol!" or "Show me a monkey turning into a human before my eyes and I'll believe you."
Is that open minded? (rhetorical question) Of course not.

But the thing is that, crockoduck is founded upon what Evolution doesn't do. The things i asked are not.

All of what you just said is a huge straw man, because that's not what anybody is actually saying.

I see, so what are you saying? Short sentences for my puny mind, why morality is objective and not subjective?

As a concluding statement, i think that you're a Philosopher, and i am a Psychologist, Sociologist and Anthropologist. I concede that it's my mistake in trying to translate The previous three "-logy"ies to Philosophy to you.

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you understand the concept of the non-linear relationship between skepticism and open mindedness?

Okay, so you are just open-minded as need be. Is that it?

That's unfortunate. You really had to try to get a dig in instead of answering the question and attempting to understand the concept, huh?

That was not an answer to the question, nor was it a real question (It's a claim plus a rhetorical question, which you know very well, and I warned you about).

Banned for 24 hours. Try again in a day.

Oookay. Right, psychologists don't measure people, they measure their behavior. Simply put, empirically Morality can be measured by it's effects, not by it's substance alone.

This is neither answering nor asking a question.

Morality =/= Mathematics[...]While i understand that science's discipline is from philosophy, science becomes largely irrelevant without empiricism, data that can be taken out from observations, like statistics or experimentation.[..]
Yes, but the thing is that Morality is a part of human existence. Surely the universe might be objective, i can say that Morality is subjective because it hinges on the difference of human's temprament, because psychology.[...]
I don't know, i could say the same thing for you. While people like you rationalize, there are some social experiments thrown out, and psychological experiments conducted, and THEN rationalize from the data gathered.[...]I honestly think that you're not in the position to judge.[...]I see science as right, because it works and religion doesn't, aside from being incoherent.[...]Yes and no, morality in itself not a substance, but the behavior itself can be measured through it's effects. Heck, even Neuropsychology is mapping the brain. However, us defining what is right or wrong in it's ideal form don't. [...]And i agree to that, but really what i am defining is Morality as it is, not what is right or wrong. I admit, philosophy is used to judge what is right or wrong ideally, but the act of judging itself is Morality.[...]Not at all, i would consider Morality as a Behavior or an action, what is Right and Wrong is conceptual.[...]The thing is that, whether Islamic Morality is no longer a contender, nor it's not even useful, but the thing is it shows the differences of morality between societies. That's it, i'm not arguing that it could be as right as every other morality, i'm simply saying that there are different set of morals that sometimes have different conclusions upon similar events, and because of that it's subjective.[...]Honestly, i don't think i could prove them wrong, i could simply concede to the part that the "wrong" ones are not the best model, or standards which right and wrong is judged, because it yields worse results for me than "Secular".[...]I have an idea, it's not yet complete though. Although i probably could say the same thing to you, since you don't seem to have a background on Psychology and Sociology, i can just as well say that nothing you say makes sense because it doesn't conform with the real world data.[...]But again, morality =/= to mathematics.

Again, stop that.
Your job is to understand, not make quips here and dodge questions, and lace in your own interpretations and assertions of which I am already aware.
I know your position quite well already.

If you do not have a sincere question, and you're not answering my questions, then shut up and wait your turn to speak. You will have your chance to speak if you're not permanently banned.

The next ban will be a week, and then permanent. Do you understand?
You asked for this. You are being held to higher standards. You said you understood, but your actions say otherwise.

I see, so it is objective as it singles out bob, that the "unpleasant" part is only for bob and is clarified.

This looked like a question.
Right. There's nothing whatsoever subjective about it, because it is dealing in complete statements of fact.

And if it was Bob hitting Tom, then we'd look at the facts about how Tom feels about being hit. Maybe he likes it.
That's not subjective -- it's not for US to decide if Tom likes getting hit, or for Bob to decide -- either Tom does or does not like getting hit, that's just a fact.

You can scan Tom's brain if you want and prove it.

Honestly, except the "Morality" selections, as it beautifully defines the differences of thinking of society, because of categorization.

You're being completely inconsistent and ignorant of your own field here.

If you do your homework, you will find that different societies view medicine very differently too. In China, for example, traditional medicine predominates; people believe in it above and beyond all others. At best, they see these as separate but equal fields of medicine.

Why does saying Evidence based medicine is real, and TCM is not, any different?
Why does saying Naturalistic Science is real, but Quranic science is not, any different?

If you embrace ignorant social misunderstandings of morality, you must equally embrace ignorant misunderstandings of science and medicine.
Are you prepared to do that?

Morality as a philosophical concept (which underpins all civilized usage of the world) is far older than science and medicine as we know it. You would be MORE justified in questioning science and medicine in social context than morality.
Study a bit of history of philosophy and religion.

I wouldn't say that the conclusion is correct, mainly because the premises failed to make a connection from beard to snow.

How did you not understand this when I explained it so clearly?

Snow happens to be white (as long as it's not pissed on). The conclusion is accidentally factually correct. But the argument is not sound, and is not valid, and the premises are arguably untrue at that.

Just because an argument is not valid or sound, doesn't mean the conclusion is false, it just means that conclusion was not demonstrated.

See the fallacy fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

This is very basic logic.

Do you understand why these alternative "medicines" and "sciences" are neither medicine nor science?

Because they don't work?

No. You can't know they don't work except by the standards of science, which is using science to prove science; if science isn't a valid process of obtaining reliable knowledge, using it to try to prove itself is useless.

If you're only determining they don't work based on your "experiences", you're contending with placebo, which you should well know is very strong. They "work" just fine from many people's perspectives when you do not control for bias with scientific methodology (which is what science is -- a method of controlling bias).

They're not wrong simply because they "don't work", that's a brutish monomaniacal empiricist ignorance of circular reasoning, they're wrong because their epistemological methodology is flawed on a logical, philosophical, level.

I won't use the term true. I'd use the term, best. I would say the best Morality is "Secular" as it will yield what is the best result for me.

Best is relative: best for what? If you just say "best" and don't contextualize it, that is meaningless.
Truth, however, has very clear meaning.

Best results for YOU? No, that's useless. Because the best results for somebody else might be different. Only truth is useful here as a metric.
True is all we care about.

Do you not understand how, given two possible options, with one having to be true, that if one is proven false, the other must be true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination

Do you have a problem with the idea of something being true?

If there is only one definition of something remaining, obviously that is the correct definition whether you like it or not. Whether it's good for you or not.

If Secular morality were proven false instead and Islamic morality were sound, then that would would have been the true one. It has nothing to do with what you like.

Have you read the entire article?

Not yet, still reading. I kind of understand it, but i'm still sifting through the interpretations, and i don't get

Finish reading it. An actual grasp of what logic is and is not is essential to having any kind of conversation.
You shouldn't have replied until you finished, as I advised.

Maybe what you mean is the actual definitions of right or wrong, not how we define right or wrong.

This is almost a question.

OF COURSE I mean the ACTUAL definition. WTF else would I mean?

And when I talk about the origin of the universe, I'm also not talking about the Bible, or Qur'an, or traditional South American folklore.
I'm talking about the ACTUAL origin of the universe.

People define all sorts of things in bizarre and ignorant ways in primitive cultures. Christians often and loudly DEFINE the universe as "creation".
Are we supposed to dance around that and say the origin of the universe is subjective as well?

If no, you're being inconsistent.
If yes, then just give up on this whole atheism and science thing, since it's all subjective according to your reasoning since not everybody agrees on it.

But the thing is that, crockoduck is founded upon what Evolution doesn't do.

Exactly. Precisely the same as here. You really couldn't grasp the comparison?

You really can't comprehend that notion that you may have things so wrong as to make faulty assumptions here and expect a kind of evidence that shouldn't exist?

It's exactly what you're doing.

I see, so what are you saying? Short sentences for my puny mind, why morality is objective and not subjective?

Because a few idiots disagreeing about facts don't magically convert facts into opinions. If it did, so would be science, medicine, and the nature of the universe itself. We determine which among these manifold concepts is correct using reasoning, as we can do with morality by shedding the baggage it has accumulated and getting at the core concept.

Also, see my response to miniboes about semantics.

The purpose of language is communication. When you have a definition which is contentious and difficult to deal with, you try to find the best fit to enable communication. Not the fit you like the most, but the best fit for communication. You look for the common denominators among the definitions, and try to arrive at something consistent that everybody can basically agree on so the word is and remains a useful concept for communication and mutual understanding. Something a usage panel would produce favorable grunts over and that wouldn't perplex anybody coming across the usage.

Your personal definition (and the aberrant definition of blowhard academics who are too spineless to admit that religious morality might not be consistent with reality) of moral subjectivism is not a definition that would fly in common usage, and it would receive more disagreement than anything.

Overwhelmingly, people agree that morality, by definition:

1. Is objective
2. Has something to do with the golden rule

Other stuff is more contentious (like religious justifications) and on shaky ground, but that doesn't mean you throw away the points of overwhelming common agreement to adopt something where the only common agreement on it is that it's wrong.