Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've all agreed that there are some moral absolutes---such as the idea that torturing babies for personal pleasure is wrong. Where does that come from? The existence of that truth requires an absolute morality source---and that is God.
You can claim it comes from society, or from biology, or whatever...but that's simply dodging it. Those are not able to account for a universal moral truth.
We have a greed to no such thing. There are nearly universally held morals but that doesn't make them absolute or objective, just common. And no god isn't necessary to explain it. Common characteristics of disparate humans will cause them to tend to arrive at very similar conclusions in some matters. They aren't dodges at all. It is you who are dodging simple and mundane explanations in order to preserve your complex and fantastical explanations.
We have a greed to no such thing. There are nearly universally held morals but that doesn't make them absolute or objective, just common. And no god isn't necessary to explain it. Common characteristics of disparate humans will cause them to tend to arrive at very similar conclusions in some matters. They aren't dodges at all. It is you who are dodging simple and mundane explanations in order to preserve your complex and fantastical explanations.
So it's not wrong to torture babies for personal pleasure? Funny...I thought we agreed it was.
So it's not wrong to torture babies for personal pleasure? Funny...I thought we agreed it was.
Nope, I think it is wrong, you think it is wrong, but you have yet to prove that it is objectively wrong, namely because you have yet to demonstrate that there is some objective basis for morality.
Nope, I think it is wrong, you think it is wrong, but you have yet to prove that it is objectively wrong, namely because you have yet to demonstrate that there is some objective basis for morality.
Ball is in your court...
-NoCapo
The fact that we all agree it's wrong demonstrates the moral absolute.
Based on your logic, I'd wonder if you actually believe trees exist. I mean..so what that we all agree they do....
The fact that we all agree it's wrong demonstrates the moral absolute.
Based on your logic, I'd wonder if you actually believe trees exist. I mean..so what that we all agree they do....
Your point about trees highlights the point that agreeing does not demonstrate its objectivity. But we can always test that if we find people who don't believe us.
On the contrary, we can't test for the objective basis of your morality...and you have yet to demonstrate how we could.
The fact that we all agree it's wrong demonstrates the moral absolute.
What? How? Is this your whole argument in a nutshell?
There's near universal agreement that shoving a pencil into your eye is a bad idea. That doesn't prove the existence of a Higher Consciousness who says it is bad to shove a pencil into your eye.
The fact that we all agree it's wrong demonstrates the moral absolute.
Based on your logic, I'd wonder if you actually believe trees exist. I mean..so what that we all agree they do....
But as we pointed out not everyone necessarily does agree. Those that torture and kill infants (a nonzero number) may not agree. So you have less than universal agreement. On top of that you have the also nonzero component of people who would argue that God can torture infants morally, further weakening your premise.
Beyond that you have the problem of perception. For example, the human eye cannot perceive ultraviolet light. Simply because we can all look at a UV source and agree that we see nothing does not mean it is not there. Likewise, even if we all subjectively agree that something is moral or immoral, we have no way to objectively measure that. There is no way to examine morality that doesn't involve human perception.
As far as trees, technically we cannot be sure, that is the power of solipsism. But I am willing to agree that our observable, shared reality either exists objectively, or is close enough that it makes no difference. It is an assumption, but it is one that is very well supported by multiple observations and repeatable experimentation.
So it's not wrong to torture babies for personal pleasure? Funny...I thought we agreed it was.
Nothing is objectively wrong or right in every possible context and I think we have already established THAT. You think torturing babies is wrong and I think its wrong and most everyone else thinks its wrong but those are still all opinions.
I've told you before that any given action does not have a true / false attribute called "morally right". There are just actions in particular situations and the consensus opinion about rightness or wrongness in that context. Where the consensus is strong and the benefits and harms clear, we have moral clarity; where consensus is weak or the benefits and harms hard to quantify, we have moral ambiguity. You have cherry picked a contrived example where the moral clarity is great in virtually any conceivable context to virtually everyone, but this is no indication of universal objective morality encoded in our brains by god or whatever your point is. In fact the very fact that you have to reach for such a contrived example actually goes against such conclusions.
To drive home my point, taking the life of another human being for example has no inherent wrongness, it is generally considered wrong but in the context of war or of protecting your family members from an outsider it could well be virtuous and if done by accident it might be morally neutral -- unfortunate and undesirable but you aren't culpable except perhaps to the extent you can be demonstrated to have been careless.
Discourse over, remember Mystic? You had a chance in this thread to stand up and show someone who looks up to you that their actions are part of the problem. You didn't and THAT was an epic fail.
My pedantry and academic detachment from the issue caused me to lose sight of what is most important. It is not some abstract truth. It is human impact. My good friend Wood, in another post reminded me of that simple truth. I DO know of instances of harm created by the very existence of porn alone (but I still would not support secular laws to eliminate it). Laws are useless against certain human appetites (ex. prohibition) which is why I do not support the drug laws. I do support the normal and natural use of informal societal sanctions (shunning, etc.) and education to reduce its deleterious impact on the female population. There are far too many stimuli in the environment to ever focus on them as the source of immorality. Everything "contributes" to it. But externalities are NOT the cause of immoral behavior. Sorry to disappoint you, Pleroo. It saddens me more than you would probably believe.
Nothing is objectively wrong or right in every possible context and I think we have already established THAT. You think torturing babies is wrong and I think its wrong and most everyone else thinks its wrong but those are still all opinions.
When would it be "good"? In order to counter my argument, you really need to make that case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I am willing to agree that our observable, shared reality either exists objectively, or is close enough that it makes no difference. It is an assumption, but it is one that is very well supported by multiple observations and repeatable experimentation.
