Moral Relativity?

[Grichnoch]

Great wall of text

"subjective morals still allow people to agree while also causing disagreements."

You and I already determined that objective things allow that as well...(colors).

Your entire argument against Grich could be applied to almost anything. Colors. Shapes. Things you previously listed as objective.

What is your criteria for something objective?

No, what we determined is that objective morality can not exist, as there are moral disagreements wherein both sides of the argument are morally sound.

You'll have to explain how my argument can be applied to shapes, and how shapes are objectively moral (???).

Also this captcha is ridiculous. There's no way I can read that.

Wait, we haven't determined that objective morality can't exist, you did, and that does not make it true.

What Monkey is saying is that just because we can disagree under a system of subjectiveness, does not mean that we can't also disagree under a system of objectivity. So saying that we can still disagree under subjectivity is not your ticket to heaven.

Monkey brought colors and shapes into it because they are things we know to be objective. But even though they are objective, we can see them subjectively. If I look at a cube with each side a different color, I can say I see a cube that is red, white, and black, but you might see white, black, and yellow because you are at a different angle. That does not change what the cube is.

The same with morality, what you believe to be true about morality does not change what it really is. How you react to moral law does not dictate what moral law is.

 

[Grichnoch]

Neither relative or absolute morality are perfect. Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience, but according to absolute morality, killing him would have been a sin.

Because what Hitler did was not objectively "bad". We as humans decided that, for our preservation, unmitigated murder was a bad thing to do, so we created a morality to uphold that idea.

Wrong. Like Jakub said: "Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience."

You all are working under the assumption that all killing is murder. This is not the case. During wartime, it would have been perfectly reasonable to kill Hitler, it would not have been murder, because we were at war. He would have been a casualty. Capital punishment is not murder, it is justified consequences. Medically necessary abortion (to save the mother... ONLY) is not murder. So saying that objective morals dictate that killing Hitler would have been wrong is flawed, because in the case of wartime, killing is not murder, it is war.

 

[theheroofaction]

I mean, to avoid flaming between any other moral objectionists as to where exactly the line is crossed I'll invoke godwin.
Now, we all hate the third reich,right?
They're a relatively small group who did what just about everyone would agree is wrong to what is a much larger group, that being everyone else.
Hence, they are objectively bad, pretty simple logic to that.

Wrong - you can find people who wouldn't agree with you. You can only determine that 3rd reich was wrong subjectivily. And judging from how people feel about the atrocities done by the US past to present, I'd say that had the Axis won the war, most people would be ok with what had taken place.

Like I said, I only picked them because they were somebody we could all agree to hate. That is, a group set out specifically for the elimination of all other groups.

It's groups for whom that isn't the motive that things get a little ambiguous.

Moreover, I never said that the popular opinion is always right, I was just using something we all love hating.

 

[Grichnoch]

Neither relative or absolute morality are perfect. Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience, but according to absolute morality, killing him would have been a sin.

That's a horrible misunderstanding of what both relative morality and moral absolutism are.

Moral relativity does not 'allow' people to do anything at all. Further, it's counterpart would be moral universalism, not moral absolutism. Moral relativity is a meta-ethical stance.

Moral absolutism would not necessarily say that killing Hitler is wrong. Moral absolutism says that at least on particular principle should never be violated, regardless of the circumstances. It is not necessary for someone who believes in moral absolutism to have their absolute principle be that no one should ever be killed.

Wrong again. Relative morality *does* allow anyone to do what they want and justify it(in theory). Otherwise, what is the purpose of it?
It may not allow a person to do what they want in actuality(because various things [such as law enforcement] would stop them), but it allows them to hypothetically justify anything they want.
Secondly you are assuming again that kill = murder. It does not. To say that moral relatavists believe that all killing is wrong always is not true. We do believe that murder is wrong, but only under the proper definition of murder. We do believe that we(meaning humanity) are held to a strict code of conduct as defined by the morals we live by, but for you to make such specific comments such as "no one should ever be killed" is inaccurate and you should check your sources or have a serious talk with an 'absolutest'.

 

[El Presidente]

To an extent it's true, yes. There are things such as murder, rape and theft that are generally agreed upon to be evil, the "moral relativity" card is moot in those situations. On the other hand there are smaller things like gambling or sex outside of marriage where morals differ from person to person. For that kind of thing, moral relativity is applicable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Grichnoch]

I am choosing to opt out of this conversation because I can see that you all want to embrace blatant logic errors. Having come from multiple logic courses and hours spent studying the topic, I find it impossible to converse with someone who finds in nesseccary to suspend the laws of logic in order to make a point. I mean to insult noone here, but it is true. I am arguing based on the rock solid principles of universal logic, whereas you are suspending it completely, like El Presidente saying that morals are aboslute sometimes, but relative at others... Hmmm.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ThreeWords]

This [http://xkcd.com/103/] immediately springs to mind. I may not be the first to bring it up, but I think it important to note that you're thinking of Moral Relativism.

 

[Grichnoch]

Neither relative or absolute morality are perfect. Relative allows people like Hitler to do what they do with a clear conscience, but according to absolute morality, killing him would have been a sin.

That's a horrible misunderstanding of what both relative morality and moral absolutism are.

Moral relativity does not 'allow' people to do anything at all. Further, it's counterpart would be moral universalism, not moral absolutism. Moral relativity is a meta-ethical stance.

Moral absolutism would not necessarily say that killing Hitler is wrong. Moral absolutism says that at least on particular principle should never be violated, regardless of the circumstances. It is not necessary for someone who believes in moral absolutism to have their absolute principle be that no one should ever be killed.

Wrong again. Relative morality *does* allow anyone to do what they want and justify it(in theory). Otherwise, what is the purpose of it?

What do you mean 'again'?

Anyway, moral relativity doesn't allow anything. It's a position on the truth value of a moral statement.

Also, "Othrwise, what is the purpose of it?" is a terrible argument. It's an argument from ignorance. It also ignores that moral relativity doesn't need a purpose, it's a stance on the nature of ethics. Might as well ask the purpose of knowing a star exists a billion light years away.

It may not allow a person to do what they want in actuality(because various things [such as law enforcement] would stop them), but it allows them to hypothetically justify anything they want.

It doesn't ALLOW it hypothetically. It's not an ethical stance. It's a meta-ethical stance.

Secondly you are assuming again that kill = murder. It does not. To say that moral relatavists believe that all killing is wrong always is not true.

Actually "Never murder" isn't very much a moral absolutist principle because it is context specific, while moral absolutism ignores context. So I picked the word 'kill' rather carefully there.

I also didn't say that moral absolutists believe that all killing is wrong. Good grief, can you at least read my post before replying to me? I only said something about killing in reference to moral absolutists and even then I outright said that they needn't take that as a principle.

We do believe that murder is wrong, but only under the proper definition of murder.

Oh hahaha. You're trying to speak for moral relativists' ethical positions? Give me a break. You can't because moral relativism doesn't have any specific associated ethics.

We do believe that we(meaning humanity) are held to a strict code of conduct as defined by the morals we live by, but for you to make such specific comments such as "no one should ever be killed" is inaccurate and you should check your sources or have a serious talk with an 'absolutest'.

Oh so you're speaking for absolutists? Well they need a representative that can read basic things like me saying that they needn't pick a principle saying all killing is wrong. Oops.

Anyway, you're no representative of absolutists. That you made an ethical claim on behalf of all of them just goes to show that you don't even know how a moral absolutist is defined.

Hmmm. It's a common rule of the art of debate (which I have studied extensively), that the losing party always resorts to insults and accusations of ignorance when they know they are losing. Thanks for boosting my confidence and solidifying my standpoint Mortai. Your comments only serve as
1. Another case of 'debate loser tactics'
2. Insight showing me I am getting to you and you know it.

Thanks again!

Have a good afternoon all!

 

[Phisi]

I tend to lean towards Moral nihilism but I do believe there are rules and order that society creates and uses to survive, depending on the society, I don't think a communist (Marxist) society would have the same rules of ownership as a capitalist one. Also ethics and other jazzy stuff regarding humans as special and stuff... What were we talking about again?

 

[baconfist]

I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.

I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.

So what's your take on moral relativity?

.
But... Rule of the Majority... In a Democracy, the Majority usually DOES impose their morals like they do in not letting Gays marry in most countries (And killing them in some).
But in a multi-party system, not a retarded one like the USA's, Minority groups will fight for the welfare of their own minority...
Pirates aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected... They are criminals.

Not sure If I would say that pirates are a minority. Personally I don't think I've ever met a person who hasn't pirated at least one song.

Also morality and law are really two different things. Morals are things you follow because you feel that they are the right thing to do. Laws you must follow or face the courts.

But laws are based on morals, or else they wouldn't exist. You can't tell an officer: "Well yes sir, I broke in to this house, but I think it was morally ok to that." He would say: "No, it wasn't. The law decides right and wrong, not you."

I would argue that most laws are based on practicality. I could tell an officer that breaking into a house was moral and if he shared my view strongly he would let me go.

Morals change quite often, and they are simply a reflection of current public opinion in a given area.

 

[ThreeWords]

Hmmm. It's a common rule of the art of debate (which I have studied extensively), that the losing party always resorts to insults and accusations of ignorance when they know they are losing. Thanks for boosting my confidence and solidifying my standpoint Mortai. Your comments only serve as
1. Another case of 'debate loser tactics'
2. Insight showing me I am getting to you and you know it.

Thanks again!

Have a good afternoon all!

I thought people who have no answers fall back on non-answers to attempt to humiliate their opponent.

Like you just did.

I have to say that Gravesend knows what he's talking about, but I don't need to repeat his words. He can fight his own battles, assuming you actually manage to find grounds to argue.

 

[MonkeyGH]

Morals change quite often, and they are simply a reflection of current public opinion in a given area.

Sure. Examples? What are some morals that have "changed" recently?

Also, what's your source for saying that? Where can I find the information to inform me that some specific moral has changed today?

 

[Cpu46]

I would argue that we are born with a sense of Empathy. Strong enough to promote the formation of society but weak enough to prevent us from sacrificing our own basic needs for the good of a complete stranger without one of our other needs being satisfied.

Empathy towards what? A subjective sense of wrongdoing? Not much use if something hard wired may or may not be true if the system it is used upon is subjective.

Morals would have to be objective and hard wired into our minds in order for empathy to work alongside it, it seems.

em·pa·thy   [em-puh-thee]
noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

We feel empathy with others. We know how it feels to be slighted so we are less likely to slight others. People with less empathy will slight others more often while people with more will forego their own benefit to make sure they don't slight someone else. It is more or less the golden rule in its purest form.

How it feels to be slighted? As in something wrong? I thought that was subjective.

Slighted as in being deprived of something you have come to expect or deprived of one of your basic needs. Not at all subjective.

And you're saying that in no way relates to something of the moral variety? It's just straight up, basic need things?

No, I am not. My example dealt with basic needs.

To put it in the simplest I can. You know something is wrong because you don't want it to happen to you. You know that you don't want it to happen to you from both personal and observed experience. Empathy is what keeps you from doing it to someone else.

 

[Logiclul]

Great wall of text

"subjective morals still allow people to agree while also causing disagreements."

You and I already determined that objective things allow that as well...(colors).

Your entire argument against Grich could be applied to almost anything. Colors. Shapes. Things you previously listed as objective.

What is your criteria for something objective?

No, what we determined is that objective morality can not exist, as there are moral disagreements wherein both sides of the argument are morally sound.

You'll have to explain how my argument can be applied to shapes, and how shapes are objectively moral (???).

Also this captcha is ridiculous. There's no way I can read that.

Wait, we haven't determined that objective morality can't exist, you did, and that does not make it true.

What Monkey is saying is that just because we can disagree under a system of subjectiveness, does not mean that we can't also disagree under a system of objectivity. So saying that we can still disagree under subjectivity is not your ticket to heaven.

Monkey brought colors and shapes into it because they are things we know to be objective. But even though they are objective, we can see them subjectively. If I look at a cube with each side a different color, I can say I see a cube that is red, white, and black, but you might see white, black, and yellow because you are at a different angle. That does not change what the cube is.

The same with morality, what you believe to be true about morality does not change what it really is. How you react to moral law does not dictate what moral law is.

So you're saying that there is a moral law (one which is impossible to discern as far as we can be concerned) which exists. And that that moral law is (naturally) broken by many many millions of people who have their own false-moral code.

If morals are some unknown canon, then it means nothing. Morals don't really restrict us to anything, they are simply guidelines which make us feel like we are doing good. Each person feels different things from different actions, which is why no moral codes are the same, and thus why there is moral relativity. If there is a moral code which is prime and that no one knows, then it may as well not exist. So we are back to many people with many different codes.

 

[deepseadiver]

Hmm. Interesting talk guys. Let me point out a few things (based on my very humble, yet educated (and before you call me an 'internet expert', just know that I have had more official debates then you have ever been to in your life. I am working on a degree in math and logic, with a heavy emphasis in computer science. Until you show me more about yourselves than the kind of stuff I see on most of your profiles like: "I'm a level 30 in WOW" or "I am a dread assasin" and all that junk... give me one good reason to believe you apart from your opinions... lets see some credentials.) opinion)

@Mortai: Your taste in arguments (vs Grichnoch) were rather poor. Attacking a person directly in a debate of ideas is never a good idea. Any self-respecting 'debater' knows this. In future try to restrict your 'jabs' to the realm of theory, and avoid directing your opinions towards a specific person (as a person... talking to someone is perfectly fine, just don't attack them as a person). And Grichnoch was mostly right. While it is not a rule that that kind of (bording on insulting possibly?) speech is a sign of a weak argument, people who start down that road do tend to unravel their own points. Just a quick warning.

@Kaulan: "Oh look, and internet expert... how quaint." What does that make you? I haven't seen anything to show you know more than Grichnoch or that he knows less than he is saying.

@ThreeWords: While I agree that non-arguments are flaws in a debater, let me point out a couple of things to you, First, you just did the exact same thing. You accused Grichnoch of a non-argument, at the same time as you used one. Watch that in future. Second, if you notice, Grichnoch already said we was out of the discussion, so therefore what he posted would not have been an argument, it would have just been a final note on debate.

@Logiclul: What MonkeyGH and Grichnoch were saying is that, while a person's experience will differ when it comes to morals, the morals themselves will not differ. And you said that if a moral code was undefined to us, it would be useless. Well, that's where things like the Bible, the Koran (or Qu'ran), the Book of Mormon etc come in. All of those define a moral law, that is absolute as much as it is objective (to use the words you all have been throwing around). Now I know that many of you are probably athiestic or some other variety of that, and you might say that you don't have a religion, but in reality, you do. A religion is defined as a system of beliefs, and athiests believe that there is no God, and that evolution is true, and that nature is all there is. Sounds like a system of beliefs to me. That would therefore make athiests (and naturalists) religious.

Now none of what I have said has solved any of the problems about 'subjective' 'objective' morality here. That is because I don't believe that we can in this place and time. The great thinkers of the world have been struggling with this concept for centuries, I don't see why everyone in this forum thinks they need to solve it once and for all.

That said, let me make my case, then you all can slam on my opinions all you like. But be warned, I do agree with Grichnoch on this. In his 'farewell post' he said that you all seem to be suspending logic in order to make your points. I half agree/disagree. You have all been pretty quick to make comments that make absolutely no sense from either a logical, mathematical, or rational standpoint. (like Logiclul's set T etc... what was that all about?) But at the same time you have all made some good points, and I respect you for that.

Most of what I have to say are quotes, because I can't adaquately express what I want to say in my own words.
Joshua Greene (respected neural surgeon and brain expert, and supporter of relative morality) once said: ?If everyone believed [relative morality], the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?? I agree. What is the point of anything good?
"Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society." -- Janine M. Ramsey.

"Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ?good? expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.

But, evolutionary ?science? will likely never recognize this simple truth. While continuing in its quest to overturn the existence of God in the mind of society, it is inadvertently revealing the truth regarding the ghastly implications of evolutionary philosophy. With the Discover magazine article, we are witnessing the ?leading edge? of evolutionary research drawing towards the inevitable and logical conclusion that in a world without a God there is no objective basis for moral truth. There is only human preference. A frightening, anarchical proposition.

The question is, will society continue to blindly follow this flawed theory of origins and life?"--J. M. Ramsey again

My whole argument is based on the existence of an absolute, sovereign, creative God, who creates the rules, and expects us to live by them. While you may not agree with that, I do have a flawless system of objective morals provided by God, and nothing you can say will ever undermine that argument. Just saying: "Well, I choose not to believe in God" and "Well, you can't say that cause I don't believe in God" just doesn't cut it. WHY doesn't God exist? Give me something solid please. I have yet to see anyone else (including grichnoch and monkeygh) give anything close to the definitive system of morals and beliefs that I have.

Thanks,

Cheers Chaps, I may not get back to this 'till later, but comment away!
Pip now.

 

[deepseadiver]

Hmm. Interesting talk guys. Let me point out a few things (based on my very humble, yet educated (and before you call me an 'internet expert', just know that I have had more official debates then you have ever been to in your life. I am working on a degree in math and logic, with a heavy emphasis in computer science. Until you show me more about yourselves than the kind of stuff I see on most of your profiles like: "I'm a level 30 in WOW" or "I am a dread assasin" and all that junk... give me one good reason to believe you apart from your opinions... lets see some credentials.) opinion)

@Mortai: Your taste in arguments (vs Grichnoch) were rather poor. Attacking a person directly in a debate of ideas is never a good idea. Any self-respecting 'debater' knows this. In future try to restrict your 'jabs' to the realm of theory, and avoid directing your opinions towards a specific person (as a person... talking to someone is perfectly fine, just don't attack them as a person). And Grichnoch was mostly right. While it is not a rule that that kind of (bording on insulting possibly?) speech is a sign of a weak argument, people who start down that road do tend to unravel their own points. Just a quick warning.

@Kaulan: "Oh look, and internet expert... how quaint." What does that make you? I haven't seen anything to show you know more than Grichnoch or that he knows less than he is saying.

@ThreeWords: While I agree that non-arguments are flaws in a debater, let me point out a couple of things to you, First, you just did the exact same thing. You accused Grichnoch of a non-argument, at the same time as you used one. Watch that in future. Second, if you notice, Grichnoch already said we was out of the discussion, so therefore what he posted would not have been an argument, it would have just been a final note on debate.

@Logiclul: What MonkeyGH and Grichnoch were saying is that, while a person's experience will differ when it comes to morals, the morals themselves will not differ. And you said that if a moral code was undefined to us, it would be useless. Well, that's where things like the Bible, the Koran (or Qu'ran), the Book of Mormon etc come in. All of those define a moral law, that is absolute as much as it is objective (to use the words you all have been throwing around). Now I know that many of you are probably athiestic or some other variety of that, and you might say that you don't have a religion, but in reality, you do. A religion is defined as a system of beliefs, and athiests believe that there is no God, and that evolution is true, and that nature is all there is. Sounds like a system of beliefs to me. That would therefore make athiests (and naturalists) religious.

Now none of what I have said has solved any of the problems about 'subjective' 'objective' morality here. That is because I don't believe that we can in this place and time. The great thinkers of the world have been struggling with this concept for centuries, I don't see why everyone in this forum thinks they need to solve it once and for all.

That said, let me make my case, then you all can slam on my opinions all you like. But be warned, I do agree with Grichnoch on this. In his 'farewell post' he said that you all seem to be suspending logic in order to make your points. I half agree/disagree. You have all been pretty quick to make comments that make absolutely no sense from either a logical, mathematical, or rational standpoint. (like Logiclul's set T etc... what was that all about?) But at the same time you have all made some good points, and I respect you for that.

Most of what I have to say are quotes, because I can't adaquately express what I want to say in my own words.
Joshua Greene (respected neural surgeon and brain expert, and supporter of relative morality) once said: ?If everyone believed [relative morality], the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?? I agree. What is the point of anything good?
"Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society." -- Janine M. Ramsey.

"Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ?good? expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.

But, evolutionary ?science? will likely never recognize this simple truth. While continuing in its quest to overturn the existence of God in the mind of society, it is inadvertently revealing the truth regarding the ghastly implications of evolutionary philosophy. With the Discover magazine article, we are witnessing the ?leading edge? of evolutionary research drawing towards the inevitable and logical conclusion that in a world without a God there is no objective basis for moral truth. There is only human preference. A frightening, anarchical proposition.

The question is, will society continue to blindly follow this flawed theory of origins and life?"--J. M. Ramsey again

My whole argument is based on the existence of an absolute, sovereign, creative God, who creates the rules, and expects us to live by them. While you may not agree with that, I do have a flawless system of objective morals provided by God, and nothing you can say will ever undermine that argument. Just saying: "Well, I choose not to believe in God" and "Well, you can't say that cause I don't believe in God" just doesn't cut it. WHY doesn't God exist? Give me something solid please. I have yet to see anyone else (including grichnoch and monkeygh) give anything close to the definitive system of morals and beliefs that I have.

Thanks,

Cheers Chaps, I may not get back to this 'till later, but comment away!
Pip now.

 

[deepseadiver]

Not sure why it put my bloody post in twice. Sorry chaps.

 

[chadachada123]

I think that there is relative morality, in a sense.

If you grew up in a society where young boys enter a master-apprentice relationship (with sex) with an older man, and everyone is taught that that is the norm, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, since all parties are consenting (presuming they are), and are simply living up to their civic duties. (For those that don't know, this is called pederasty, and was a main practice of ancient Greece).

That said, I suppose it's universal morality in that I see no harm in pederasty so long as all parties are consenting, or at least convinced that this particular path is the norm.

Were pederasty to be instituted in US culture, however, boys growing up would be sent many mixed messages, and many would be traumatized from being told that they were "raped"/"molested." In that sense, it's relative. It wouldn't work here because of our culture (it would harm people), but it worked in other cultures just fine without trauma.

 

[deepseadiver]

@Mortai: Your taste in arguments (vs Grichnoch) were rather poor. Attacking a person directly in a debate of ideas is never a good idea. Any self-respecting 'debater' knows this. In future try to restrict your 'jabs' to the realm of theory, and avoid directing your opinions towards a specific person (as a person... talking to someone is perfectly fine, just don't attack them as a person). And Grichnoch was mostly right. While it is not a rule that that kind of (bording on insulting possibly?) speech is a sign of a weak argument, people who start down that road do tend to unravel their own points. Just a quick warning.

How interesting. You say they're poor, but all you do is complain about the tone. What a substantive criticism of the points I made. And in support of a wonderful red herring no less. Do you have real criticism of my points, or are you going to slavishly support him?

Btw here's a better rule: The person that complains about tone without addressing the points probably has no valid reply.

Spouting weak 'rules' is worthless, it addresses nothing.

If you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually responded to any of you 'point by point' because I find that to be rather useless, as people generally like to embrace their own thoughts without giving others their ear. I don't want to get involved in the endless circle of mayhem created by everybody spouting of supposed 'facts' willy nilly. (NOTE: I will give any of your ideas thought if it is well formulated).

The reason I presented my cased as I did, is because the only way to make headway here is for all of you blokes to quit responding to each other, and start adding some meat to the discussion.

Don't view my reluctance to join in your style of conversation as a flaw, error, or logical problem, see it as my attempt at bringing this discussion to a higher level.

And I'm not defending Grichnoch singularly, I would say the same thing to you regardless of who you said those things to.

Also, I was not complaining, but giving you tips on better debating. You can say whatever you want, I don't give a blast, but in order to give your points any credence, you need to rise above directing attacks a specific persons.

"Do you have real criticism of my points, or are you going to slavishly support him?"
I don't want to criticize your points dear fellow. It would be pointless(pun intended).

If you watch those silly political debates on the tube that show the US GOP candidates going back and forth, you would see what I mean. All they do is address a particular jab or comment that a competitor made at them, which results in them looking foolish and getting nowhere. My professional policy when it comes to debate: 'Don't let your opponent dictate what you will say next. Be independant of their quips and arguments. Say meaningful things, not reactive things.'
Those are the ways to make a successful point. So until I see you fellows doing that, I feel it is truly pointless to reply individually to each one of you.

Until next time chaps!

 

[Logiclul]

[cut out to avoid walling]

First off, not sure why you went ahead and talked about atheism and religion like that, as while it is correct to say that most of the users here atheistic (there was a poll a while back; and I did not select atheism from the list), it has no bearing on the argument (except to, perhaps, classify the population, much like you did with saying none of has have credentials (and while I don't have anything which would pertain to this argument, I hardly boast a level 30 whatever; I care more about philosophy (which I admit novicy at) than games, so please refrain from broad statements like that)). I say yes, the Bible may have objective moral truths, however I contest that it is not a complete set of moral beliefs. They are certainly great morals to build on, but I think that people may have special exceptions to some of the rules, and will then make moral decisions based off of their new-edited morals (even devout christians do this).

The T-Set thing was just my way of showing that it would make sense for humans to inherently have morals which aren't part of some high-order-law which is consistent through all of time. I showed that there could be a realistic and natural progression of morals which suggests moral relativity.

I've read that Green quote before (or at least something similar) and to the posed question I say this:

The point of doing good is the satisfaction one receives when they know that they have done good.

As for your god-given morals, they do not prove objective morality even if they do exist. To convince you I will assume that they do. If not everyone adheres to them, then there is no moral obligation to those who don't. The laws of good as one might put them don't apply to them, rather an independent set which is empirically determined does.

Does that make sense?

I do enjoy, however, the company of an educated person who seems to have joined on the whimsy of intervening in our conversation. (I am being sincere)

@Mortai: Your taste in arguments (vs Grichnoch) were rather poor. Attacking a person directly in a debate of ideas is never a good idea. Any self-respecting 'debater' knows this. In future try to restrict your 'jabs' to the realm of theory, and avoid directing your opinions towards a specific person (as a person... talking to someone is perfectly fine, just don't attack them as a person). And Grichnoch was mostly right. While it is not a rule that that kind of (bording on insulting possibly?) speech is a sign of a weak argument, people who start down that road do tend to unravel their own points. Just a quick warning.

How interesting. You say they're poor, but all you do is complain about the tone. What a substantive criticism of the points I made. And in support of a wonderful red herring no less. Do you have real criticism of my points, or are you going to slavishly support him?

Btw here's a better rule: The person that complains about tone without addressing the points probably has no valid reply.

Spouting weak 'rules' is worthless, it addresses nothing.

He accused you of ad hominem, which is very valid criticism. He is saying that your points do not address the actual theoretical issues, rather it stands to attack first the speaker and then their argument by association. I haven't read your posts yet specifically and can't right now, but what he said is not stupid by any stretch I think.