Rapists doing god's work according to Santorum?

[shnozzola]

Is it possible that we may one day progress so much that we begin to recognize the intrinsic canine rights of German Shepherds?

I hate to take away Santorum's thunder, but this quote reminds me that the man who would be king of the US, Mitt Romney, has strapped the family dog on top of the car to go on vacation.  Ahhh.  There's common sense.

[Lorax]

Your view is moral subjectivity.

How do you get more egocentric than that?

Moral subjectivity:
Each individual decides what he/she thinks is right or wrong.
Truly, my view is egocentric. People thinking for themselves? We can't have that. What would happen to religion?

You're the one who said egocentricity was a bad thing to base morality on

Then you proposed that your morality is that whatever you think is moral at the time becomes moral by virtue of you thinking so.

Now you say there's nothing wrong with egocentricity. Make up your mind.

So the problem with woo is the egocentricity of it?

I posted a bunch of things wrong with it. Egocentrism is just a small part of it.

The other things you posted don't apply.

I don't see any rational logical physical evidence for any morality. including yours.

You must not have looked hard enough. I recommend you read a bit about neurology and morality.

you are the one who made the claim. You are the one who must provide the evidence to support it.

[Lorax]

Your view is moral subjectivity.

How do you get more egocentric than that?

The idea that one's moral values are objective truths of the universe, and that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively wrong, is far more egocentric and arrogant.

Far more arrogant maybe. Significantly less egocentric than assuming the source fo those values is actually found within yourself.

Perhaps we are no longer meaning to use the word "egocentric" for it's definition any longer, but more as a generalized disapprobation. such as "Look at that egocentric sonuvabitch over there"

Regardless That is not what I believe. I believe objective moral truths exist, and it is my job as an individual to attempt to learn them as best as I can and conform my understanding or morality to those truths.

I do not have objective knowledge of objective moral truths

As for whether yours are objective or subjective:  If, as you say, you have no way of making observations on the universe's objective moral standard, then there is no reason to assume that that standard has anything whatsoever to do with the concept that we humans call "morality".

No again, I said I have two ways. Coherence, and the sniff test.

What ways do you have?

[One Above All]

Then you proposed that your morality is that whatever you think is moral at the time becomes moral by virtue of you thinking so.

Wrong. What is moral to you is whatever you consider moral at the time. That's what moral subjectivity is and that would be what I referred to when I said "People thinking for themselves".

The other things you posted don't apply.

Is woo rational? Is woo logical? Is woo based on evidence? Is woo true?
The answer to all of those is no.

you are the one who made the claim. You are the one who must provide the evidence to support it.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/bending-morality-magnetism
Morality is based in the brain.

[Lorax]

Then you proposed that your morality is that whatever you think is moral at the time becomes moral by virtue of you thinking so.

Wrong. What is moral to you is whatever you consider moral at the time. That's what moral subjectivity is and that would be what I referred to when I said "People thinking for themselves".

That's what I said.

So if you decide that you masturbating to stingrays is a moral imperative, then that immediately becomes true and you should do it

Do you see the incredible egocentricity of that?

The other things you posted don't apply.

Is woo rational? Is woo logical? Is woo based on evidence? Is woo true?
The answer to all of those is no.

Is woo melodic?
Is woo benedictine?
Is woo yellow?

The answer to all of those is also "no" but the conscientious observer would ask "why should it be? and What alternative might I use to "woo" that would be? because those adjectives simply don't seem to apply in the field of philosophy in which we find ourselfs."

you are the one who made the claim. You are the one who must provide the evidence to support it.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/bending-morality-magnetism
Morality is based in the brain.

That article deals with our opinions of morality. To say that our opinions dictate morality itself is to beg the question

Try again.

[Azdgari]

Far more arrogant maybe. Significantly less egocentric than assuming the source fo those values is actually found within yourself.

Subjective values would be held by all individuals.  There is no room to view one's own as special, except relative to one's self.  And we're all small.  So no, not egocentric.  The view that one has access to the One True set of values, and that others do not - that is egocentric.  It holds that the one is special, and better than those who disagree.

Perhaps we are no longer meaning to use the word "egocentric" for it's definition any longer, but more as a generalized disapprobation. such as "Look at that egocentric sonuvabitch over there"

That connotation did seem to be implied by your usage.  Otherwise why point its supposed presence out as a negative thing?

Regardless That is not what I believe. I believe objective moral truths exist, and it is my job as an individual to attempt to learn them as best as I can and conform my understanding or morality to those truths.

I do not have objective knowledge of objective moral truths

Apparently you have objective knowledge of the moral truth that you're supposed to appeal to this supposed source of objective moral truth.  Where did you learn that you needed to do this?  Who or what was it that had the authority to point you toward a particular source of morality?

No again, I said I have two ways. Coherence, and the sniff test.

Those are ways to determine whether the morals appeal to and are useful to us.  They don't do the task I outlined.

What ways do you have?

The same as yours.  I just take more responsibility for my role in using them.

[One Above All]

That's what I said.

So if you decide that you masturbating to stingrays is a moral imperative, then that immediately becomes true and you should do it

Do you see the incredible egocentricity of that?

It only becomes moral to you. That's the part you're missing. It's the same as saying that a person is attractive or not. It's true to you.

Is woo Melodic?
Is woo benedictine?
Is woo yellow?

The answer to all of those is also "no" but the conscientious observer would ask "why should it be? and What alternative might I use to "woo" that would be? because those adjectives simply don't seem to apply in the field of philosophy in which we find ourselfs."

If woo is false and something is based on woo, it becomes relevant.

Ihat article deals with our opinions of morality. So say that our opinions dictate morality itself is to beg the question

Try again.

They dictate our morality. What you call "our opinions of morality" is subjective morality itself. "Is this right? Is that wrong?" are questions we ask ourselves and the answers are our opinions.

[Lorax]

That's what I said.

So if you decide that you masturbating to stingrays is a moral imperative, then that immediately becomes true and you should do it

Do you see the incredible egocentricity of that?

It only becomes moral to you. That's the part you're missing. It's the same as saying that a person is attractive or not. It's true to you.

Yes and my sexual preferences are extremely egocentric.

Incidentally they are also based on woo


Maybe you should define those two words for me (don't copypaste dictionary.com i know what they mean, i want to know how you're using them)

Is woo Melodic?
Is woo benedictine?
Is woo yellow?

The answer to all of those is also "no" but the conscientious observer would ask "why should it be? and What alternative might I use to "woo" that would be? because those adjectives simply don't seem to apply in the field of philosophy in which we find ourselfs."

If woo is false and something is based on woo, it becomes relevant.

Woo is based on woo?

How do you post images? I really want to stick Nic Cage with his "you don't say?" face here

Ihat article deals with our opinions of morality. So say that our opinions dictate morality itself is to beg the question

Try again.

They dictate our morality. What you call "our opinions of morality" is subjective morality itself. "Is this right? Is that wrong?" are questions we ask ourselves and the answers are our opinions.

That's what we call begging the question. it's when we say that out opinion is true because it's true, and the evidence of it being true is the very truth of it.

In your case, our morality an our opinions of morality are the same thing because moral subjectivism is true.

mmkay prove it!

[One Above All]

Maybe you should define those two words for me (don't copypaste dictionary.com i know what they mean, i want to know how you're using them)

I will define them, but ignore your arguments, since you clearly still don't get it and probably never will. It has already been established (below) that your reading skills leave much to be desired.
Woo - "Magical thinking"; supernaturality.
Egocentrism - The belief that one has something that makes one special. It could be a belief, access to "special knowledge" or just plain genetics. Whether it has a basis on reality is irrelevant.

If woo is false and something is based on woo, it becomes relevant.

Woo is based on woo?

Re-read the bold part.

How do you post images? I really want to stick Nic Cage with his "you don't say?" face here

Code: [Select]

[img width=XXX]IMAGE LINK GOES HERE[/img]Width is optional; only if you want to control the size of the image. Without it the image will appear in full size.

Ihat article deals with our opinions of morality. So say that our opinions dictate morality itself is to beg the question

Try again.

What question is it begging?

That's what we call begging the question. it's when we say that out opinion is true because it's true, and the evidence of it being true is the very truth of it.

In your case, our morality an our opinions of morality are the same thing because moral subjectivism is true.

mmkay prove it!

Re-read my post. Your reading skills suck, apparently.

[12 Monkeys]

some people think pre-marital sex is morally wrong others don't. Some people think masturbating is morally wrong others don't. Some priest think sex with children is morally wrong,but somehow still can justify their actions,not on a moral basis but they still do it.

[Mr. Blackwell]

We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly. - Bohr

There is no such thing as objective morality. The sun and moon are objective because they exist whether we do or not. They exist with or without our approval. I know you can say the same thing about morals, but that doesn't make it true.

Morality does not exist outside of the species which chooses to define it. 

[Lorax]

Lucifer, thank you from ignoring me. It gives me the license to ignore you and not be reprimanded for it. And frankly you seem just as thick skulled to me as I do to you, let's be on with it!

Jayb: Did you intend to offer an argument for your statement there or ar eyou just letting us all know where you stand?

[One Above All]

Lucifer, thank you from ignoring me. It gives me the license to ignore you and not be reprimanded for it. And frankly you seem just as thick skulled to me as I do to you, let's be on with it!

I ignored your arguments because your reading skills suck. If you actually read the parts you replied to, you will find that your questions are irrelevant.

[Lorax]

sure thing bro

[Mr. Blackwell]

Jayb: Did you intend to offer an argument for your statement there or ar eyou just letting us all know where you stand?

It's mostly a statement of where I stand but If you wish to argue against it be my guest. I will say that your first few posts were very concise and compelling. However, your argument has become so garbled I can't tell what you are trying to say anymore. 

[Lorax]

Jayb: Did you intend to offer an argument for your statement there or ar eyou just letting us all know where you stand?

It's mostly a statement of where I stand but If you wish to argue against it be my guest. I will say that your first few posts were very concise and compelling. However, your argument has become so garbled I can't tell what you are trying to say anymore.

I'm sorry about that. It got very deeply recursive and caught up inside itself. I don't want to say any more about it because I really don't want to resurrect the discussion, but Yes, I agree.

No I don't particularly want to argue with you about morality. As I said it doesn't seem to be a realm where evidence really applies.

I think there are coherent systems of objective morality, and i also see ways in which subjective morality can be internally consistent. For me, though it just doesn't pass the sniff test, that is, it doesn't feel right.

And that is literally the best and only argument I have against it. But it still beats the 0 reasonable arguments I have seen in favor of it.

[Azdgari]

Lucifer, thank you from ignoring me. It gives me the license to ignore you and not be reprimanded for it.

Does the same apply to your ignoring of me?

[Lorax]

Lucifer, thank you from ignoring me. It gives me the license to ignore you and not be reprimanded for it.

Does the same apply to your ignoring of me?

Nope, Sorry I just didn't see you

[Lorax]

Perhaps we are no longer meaning to use the word "egocentric" for it's definition any longer, but more as a generalized disapprobation. such as "Look at that egocentric sonuvabitch over there"

That connotation did seem to be implied by your usage.  Otherwise why point its supposed presence out as a negative thing?

I actually didn't. I was accused of it and said I had no way to defend myself of that claim, but expressed I was open to a less egocentric option if one was presented.

It does seem clear now that we have been working with different definitions of "egocentric". I had been using it, more or less as a synonym for "self important" or "self centered" going along with the first dictionary definition "having regard for the self or the individual as the center of all things"

There is a more precise definition is psychology that (among other things) is characterized  by "a incomplete differentiation of the self from the world" and so I can see, how perhaps this argument has formed after many encounters with Christians who are guilty of "SPAG" to say "Hey now, what you've done is you've taken yourself, and you've projected it out into the universe. That's a psychological disorder called egocentrism"

It seems like I walked in late to the party and received the accusation without the linking argument.

Far more arrogant maybe. Significantly less egocentric than assuming the source fo those values is actually found within yourself.

Subjective values would be held by all individuals.  There is no room to view one's own as special, except relative to one's self.  And we're all small.  So no, not egocentric.  The view that one has access to the One True set of values, and that others do not - that is egocentric.  It holds that the one is special, and better than those who disagree.

No you're right. Nobody is thinking of themselves as special or magical under subjectivism. and additionally, If i professed to you that I alone (or My compatriots and I) was the source of true morality. that would be of a higher order of egocentricity entirely.

However that is not my view. I reject subjectivism outright, and thus hold to the presence of some objective value out there. but it is not my own self projected God that is the source of those values. Instead conceptions of the divine are just one more tool we all use to take stabs at this central truth. they are hypothesis, guesses

And mine is not the one final true and authoritative guess. It's just mine. The one I think is closest to the truth. But my own inability to know with surety does not mean that no final truth exists.

Contrary to that, If I insisted that my own ignorance was proof that reality itself was equally ignorant, or empty it would be very self important indeed. and if i proceeded to declare myself on those grounds to be my own highest moral authority I might even call it egocentric (but in a general sense not the sense you used)

Regardless That is not what I believe. I believe objective moral truths exist, and it is my job as an individual to attempt to learn them as best as I can and conform my understanding or morality to those truths.

I do not have objective knowledge of objective moral truths

Apparently you have objective knowledge of the moral truth that you're supposed to appeal to this supposed source of objective moral truth.  Where did you learn that you needed to do this?  Who or what was it that had the authority to point you toward a particular source of morality?

When I get into discussions like the one that began on this board about things like raping women for money, I see that the possibility is immediately rejected that that might ever be morally right.

We can conceive of it being thought of as morally right, but not of it actually being virtuous.

For me, the best way i can describe what's going on there is my own internal bullshit detector is going off, and it will not allow me to shoehorn into my brain that that action might be "true for you but not for me" or "right for you but wrong for me"

No no, that action is wrong for everyone. You think it's right, and your thought that it is right is false, because in actual point of fact it is wrong

(Understand here that Im using "you" hypothetical, not accusing you, Azgardi of this)

As such then I am left believing in objective morals somewhere. But that alone doesn't tell me where, so i have to keep looking.

No again, I said I have two ways. Coherence, and the sniff test.

Those are ways to determine whether the morals appeal to and are useful to us.  They don't do the task I outlined.

perhaps i misunderstood you

What ways do you have?

The same as yours.  I just take more responsibility for my role in using them.

How is that?

[Azdgari]

I think there are coherent systems of objective morality,

Could you cite one?  I've yet to encounter such a beast.  Most attempts to describe one end up unintentionally describing a system of subjective[1] morality.  Further, I've yet to see "objective morality" defined coherently, aside from the sense of "this person's (or god's) morality exists objectively".

and i also see ways in which subjective morality can be internally consistent. For me, though it just doesn't pass the sniff test, that is, it doesn't feel right.

So your means of determining whether there is an objective morality is...subjective?  Interesting.

And that is literally the best and only argument I have against it. But it still beats the 0 reasonable arguments I have seen in favor of it.

We both agree on the existence of subjective morality.  Subjective moral opinions abound.  So no argument is needed there.  You are positing something else on top of that - an objective morality.  Without an argument for it, or a need to posit it, the default position is non-belief in its existence.

1.	By "subjective" I mean "true relative to a point of view.  By "objective" I mean true relative to no point of view.  If this is not the general sense in which you are using the words, then we may not have any disagreement.  So if that's not what you mean, then please say what you do mean by them/

[Azdgari]

It does seem clear now that we have been working with different definitions of "egocentric". I had been using it, more or less as a synonym for "self important" or "self centered" going along with the first dictionary definition "having regard for the self or the individual as the center of all things"

There is a more precise definition is psychology that (among other things) is characterized  by "a incomplete differentiation of the self from the world" and so I can see, how perhaps this argument has formed after many encounters with Christians who are guilty of "SPAG" to say "Hey now, what you've done is you've taken yourself, and you've projected it out into the universe. That's a psychological disorder called egocentrism"

It seems like I walked in late to the party and received the accusation without the linking argument.

This makes sense.  You're right about the background experience on this site.  Typically, when someone argues for "objective morality" and specifically, for their god's moral views as being that objective morality, it does not - as you would put it - pass the "sniff test".  The usual response is, "oh, so there's this god, whose values are all objectively correct[1]...and coincidentally, those values are all the same as yours!"

No you're right. Nobody is thinking of themselves as special or magical under subjectivism. and additionally, If i professed to you that I alone (or My compatriots and I) was the source of true morality. that would be of a higher order of egocentricity entirely.

However that is not my view. I reject subjectivism outright, and thus hold to the presence of some objective value out there. but it is not my own self projected God that is the source of those values. Instead conceptions of the divine are just one more tool we all use to take stabs at this central truth. they are hypothesis, guesses

The trouble with this is that morals are not assertions of truth.  They are not "is" statements.  They are "ought" statements.  Those don't assert anything about reality; instead they are valuations.

And mine is not the one final true and authoritative guess. It's just mine. The one I think is closest to the truth. But my own inability to know with surety does not mean that no final truth exists.

Your inability to employ an objective testing methodology to verify your guess as true or not, demonstrates that your moral guess is indistinguishable from subjective morality.  Instead of everyone with their own variations of morality, we have everyone with their own variations of the "guess at" morality.  Which amounts to much the same thing.

Contrary to that, If I insisted that my own ignorance was proof that reality itself was equally ignorant, or empty it would be very self important indeed. and if i proceeded to declare myself on those grounds to be my own highest moral authority I might even call it egocentric (but in a general sense not the sense you used)

I get what you mean with the latter part here, and concede the point.  Subjective morality does require us to act from our own values, and is egocentric in that sense.

But the position of moral subjectivism does not declare that reality is ignorant.  It declares that our moral opinions are only relevant to us, and not to reality.  Reality cannot be knowledgeable or ignorant of anything; that would be a category error.

When I get into discussions like the one that began on this board about things like raping women for money, I see that the possibility is immediately rejected that that might ever be morally right.

Relative to any of us, that's definitely the case.

We can conceive of it being thought of as morally right, but not of it actually being virtuous.

In my experience, we can't coherently conceive of the latter being true of anything in any circumstance.  It is a nonsense statement, like "I tried to president my swimmin to".

For me, the best way i can describe what's going on there is my own internal bullshit detector is going off, and it will not allow me to shoehorn into my brain that that action might be "true for you but not for me" or "right for you but wrong for me"

So it's subjective.  Gotcha.

As such then I am left believing in objective morals somewhere. But that alone doesn't tell me where, so i have to keep looking.

Might we find them on Mars, or through a deep drilling operation?  Maybe in my closet?  I don't think you meant to say what you ended up saying here.  You aren't looking in places.  You're doing something else.  It does make a difference.

perhaps i misunderstood you

Coherence of your morals - any logically consistent argument can be created to say anything once likes, if one plugs in the right premises.  These can be subjective or objective.  Meanwhile, an incoherent argument from objectively true premises would still be working from objectivity.  So coherence doesn't work to do what you need it to do.

The "sniff test" as you've described it is little more than employing your own values and intuition.  That's blatantly subjective.

So, we both have those two methods, and they don't do what you need them to do.

How is that?

By acknowledging that I am fully responsible for my values.  That they are not forced on my by an objective standard.  You, on the other hand, can say (about your values) that you got them from another source than yourself, and can't be held responsible for them.  To which I would call BS.

1.	Whatever that means.  I've yet to see that explained coherently.

[Lorax]

No you're right. Nobody is thinking of themselves as special or magical under subjectivism. and additionally, If i professed to you that I alone (or My compatriots and I) was the source of true morality. that would be of a higher order of egocentricity entirely.

However that is not my view. I reject subjectivism outright, and thus hold to the presence of some objective value out there. but it is not my own self projected God that is the source of those values. Instead conceptions of the divine are just one more tool we all use to take stabs at this central truth. they are hypothesis, guesses

The trouble with this is that morals are not assertions of truth.  They are not "is" statements.  They are "ought" statements.  Those don't assert anything about reality; instead they are valuations.

Yes I'm not speaking precisley. I don't know of a word to talk about an experimental guess surrounding an "ought" statement so I'm drawing a metaphor to the familiar idea of hypothesis.

And mine is not the one final true and authoritative guess. It's just mine. The one I think is closest to the truth. But my own inability to know with surety does not mean that no final truth exists.

Your inability to employ an objective testing methodology to verify your guess as true or not, demonstrates that your moral guess is indistinguishable from subjective morality.  Instead of everyone with their own variations of morality, we have everyone with their own variations of the "guess at" morality.  Which amounts to much the same thing.

Quite right

I think with most of these sorts of arguments we will find that our various positions come down ultimately to the same description of the physical world. If that wasn't the case it would be very difficult to sustain the controversy.

So someone might believe God is imaginary and zebras are striped, Another might say God is real and he made zebras to be striped, and still another might say God is real but he is uninterested in zebras and they just happen to be striped. What we would not expect to see is someone who tells us that zebras are spotted.

Contrary to that, If I insisted that my own ignorance was proof that reality itself was equally ignorant, or empty it would be very self important indeed. and if i proceeded to declare myself on those grounds to be my own highest moral authority I might even call it egocentric (but in a general sense not the sense you used)

I get what you mean with the latter part here, and concede the point.  Subjective morality does require us to act from our own values, and is egocentric in that sense.

But the position of moral subjectivism does not declare that reality is ignorant.  It declares that our moral opinions are only relevant to us, and not to reality.  Reality cannot be knowledgeable or ignorant of anything; that would be a category error.

Again I'm using the word ignorant more metaphorically than literally. the condition of morality mirrors the condition of the self. there is probably a better word to use

When I get into discussions like the one that began on this board about things like raping women for money, I see that the possibility is immediately rejected that that might ever be morally right.

Relative to any of us, that's definitely the case.

We can conceive of it being thought of as morally right, but not of it actually being virtuous.

In my experience, we can't coherently conceive of the latter being true of anything in any circumstance.  It is a nonsense statement, like "I tried to president my swimmin to".

I'm sorry, What?

"The latter statement"?

You cannot conceive of anything ever being morally virtuous?

For me, the best way i can describe what's going on there is my own internal bullshit detector is going off, and it will not allow me to shoehorn into my brain that that action might be "true for you but not for me" or "right for you but wrong for me"

So it's subjective.  Gotcha.

Yes my own view is subjective.

I subjectivley believe it's objective

Just like I subjectively believe that my friend Jamal is black because he appears black to me when I look at him.

I do not think that implies that Jamal actually changes races if someone else looks at him and comes to a different conclusion. I think Jamal is objectively black even though I used subjective means to come to that conclusion.

As such then I am left believing in objective morals somewhere. But that alone doesn't tell me where, so i have to keep looking.

Might we find them on Mars, or through a deep drilling operation?  Maybe in my closet?  I don't think you meant to say what you ended up saying here.  You aren't looking in places.  You're doing something else.  It does make a difference.

Again metaphorically "where" not literally where.

What word would you use?

perhaps i misunderstood you

Coherence of your morals - any logically consistent argument can be created to say anything once likes, if one plugs in the right premises.  These can be subjective or objective.  Meanwhile, an incoherent argument from objectively true premises would still be working from objectivity.  So coherence doesn't work to do what you need it to do.

Indeed. Coherence can be used to throw out a lot of systems, but some systems remain from both the objective and subjective camps

I don't literally mean "camps" by the way. there will be no tests and bonfires passing through my coherence filters

The "sniff test" as you've described it is little more than employing your own values and intuition.  That's blatantly subjective.

Yes it is. But I'm okay with that.

So, we both have those two methods, and they don't do what you need them to do.

What I remembered "needing to do" was make observations about morality. They both do that.

What they don't do is obliterate the possibility that you might be right.

Indeed you may be. but you need to give me some reason to believe you are.

How is that?

By acknowledging that I am fully responsible for my values.  That they are not forced on my by an objective standard.  You, on the other hand, can say (about your values) that you got them from another source than yourself, and can't be held responsible for them.  To which I would call BS.

Oh allow me to be clear that I came to my own opinion about what is moral, and am responsible for that opinion. maybe some of the other folks you argue with want to say it's God's fault if they do the wrong thing or something, but I disagree with those people.

[Azdgari]

Yes I'm not speaking precisley. I don't know of a word to talk about an experimental guess surrounding an "ought" statement so I'm drawing a metaphor to the familiar idea of hypothesis.

I understand that, and I understand the temptation to do it.  But there's a reason why you can't find a word for an experimental guess to verify an "ought" statement.  And that's that the idea of verifying an "ought" statement is not coherent in the first place.  Look at what I'd written to you, and what you basically agreed with:  Ought statements are not assertions of truth.  If something is not an assertion of truth, then it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about verifying it.  That is the most basic reason why "objective value" is an incoherent concept.

I think with most of these sorts of arguments we will find that our various positions come down ultimately to the same description of the physical world. If that wasn't the case it would be very difficult to sustain the controversy.

If "objective morality"[1] has no discernable effect on reality, then it also necessarily has nothing important to do with humans, since humans are a part of reality.

Again I'm using the word ignorant more metaphorically than literally. the condition of morality mirrors the condition of the self. there is probably a better word to use

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Again, the trouble with using a metaphor is that the metaphor might make sense while the original concept does not - hence the need to use a metaphor in the first place.  Try to state what you mean.

You cannot conceive of anything ever being morally virtuous?

Of course I can.  But morally virtuous relative to no held values (which is what you're talking about)?  That's pure nonsense-talk.  As far as I know, anyway.  It's been nonsense as far as anyone's ever tried to explain it to me.

Just like I subjectively believe that my friend Jamal is black because he appears black to me when I look at him.

I do not think that implies that Jamal actually changes races if someone else looks at him and comes to a different conclusion. I think Jamal is objectively black even though I used subjective means to come to that conclusion.

I suppose the difference is that you are deliberately using an acknowledged-as-subjective measure (personal feelings) in the case of determining morality, but not in terms of your sight.

Again metaphorically "where" not literally where.

What word would you use?

I wouldn't.  Your inability to coherently and literally describe what you're supposedly doing is your problem, not mine.

Indeed. Coherence can be used to throw out a lot of systems, but some systems remain from both the objective and subjective camps

Glad you agree.  Coherence means nothing in terms of whether a system is based on objectivity or subjectivity.

I don't literally mean "camps" by the way. there will be no tests and bonfires passing through my coherence filters

I took you to mean "camps" as in "sides of a dispute".  That's still a literal meaning of "camps".  You did not employ a metaphor here.

Yes it is. But I'm okay with that.

Glad you're okay with it.  But you do see how it's a poor measure of objectivity then, right?

What I remembered "needing to do" was make observations about morality. They both do that.

What they don't do is obliterate the possibility that you might be right.

Indeed you may be. but you need to give me some reason to believe you are.

What I meant by "needing to do" was give you a way to tell whether your morals adhere to an objective standard.  They don't do that.  If such a standard somehow existed, you would have no reason at all to believe that your values have anything to do with it.

Oh allow me to be clear that I came to my own opinion about what is moral, and am responsible for that opinion. maybe some of the other folks you argue with want to say it's God's fault if they do the wrong thing or something, but I disagree with those people.

Makes sense, given how you've acknowledged not having any methodology for determining your values' adherence to some objective standard.

1.	Assuming the idea meant something coherent.

[12 Monkeys]

Lorax it seems your values are far better than your God. Actually it seems almost every Christian MAY have a better value and moral system than their God.

 Your God can't just give you a moral and value system ,establish it put it in place without KILLING things. You on the other hand establish your own morals and values,all without the need for killing,and all without really following your gods example. If your God wanted to have morals and values systems set out right,why did he need to kill in order to establish them? God could have easily led by example. The reason God did not lead by example is because he is MADE UP as a tool to control the ignorant with fear and intimidation.

 Surley you are smarter than a 2000 yr old sheep herder,as your morals and values are 1000X better than the original establishers of your religion. You have no slaves,they did,you have women that are free to expess ideas,they did not,you don't smash babies on rocks at your Gods command,they did.

 The qustion I have to ask is why has your religion "evovled" to abandon some of God's most important teaching,that YOU are better than the heathens and you must crush ALL who oppose your God?

[jsmacks]

"Santorum logic, rapists are doing Gods work."

What do the religious right wingers think of this?

Thank Jesus for being raped.

[Lorax]

Yes I'm not speaking precisley. I don't know of a word to talk about an experimental guess surrounding an "ought" statement so I'm drawing a metaphor to the familiar idea of hypothesis.

I understand that, and I understand the temptation to do it.  But there's a reason why you can't find a word for an experimental guess to verify an "ought" statement.  And that's that the idea of verifying an "ought" statement is not coherent in the first place.  Look at what I'd written to you, and what you basically agreed with:  Ought statements are not assertions of truth.  If something is not an assertion of truth, then it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about verifying it.  That is the most basic reason why "objective value" is an incoherent concept.

What a fascinating concept.

I had honestly never considered the possibility that metaphorical language might be an indicator of falsehood.

I an a deep lover of myth and poetry. I have taken many metaphors as central truths in my life. It's hard to conceive of doing anything else.

I'd also never considered "objective value" incoherent.

I think with most of these sorts of arguments we will find that our various positions come down ultimately to the same description of the physical world. If that wasn't the case it would be very difficult to sustain the controversy.

If "objective morality"[1] has no discernable effect on reality, then it also necessarily has nothing important to do with humans, since humans are a part of reality.

1.	Assuming the idea meant something coherent.

Perhaps, but that's equally true of subjective morality

Again I'm using the word ignorant more metaphorically than literally. the condition of morality mirrors the condition of the self. there is probably a better word to use

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Again, the trouble with using a metaphor is that the metaphor might make sense while the original concept does not - hence the need to use a metaphor in the first place.  Try to state what you mean.

the condition of morality mirrors (shows likeness to) the condition of the self.

 You and I are ignorant of final objective morals, so I assume that means something about me, while you assume that means something about all of morality

You cannot conceive of anything ever being morally virtuous?

Of course I can.  But morally virtuous relative to no held values (which is what you're talking about)?  That's pure nonsense-talk.  As far as I know, anyway.  It's been nonsense as far as anyone's ever tried to explain it to me.

So then what is the purpose of this argument against the bible that was being spun ont he early pages of this board?

If it's nonsense to make moral judgments relatave to n held values, than to what are you appealing when you tell a christian their Gos is immoral?

Just like I subjectively believe that my friend Jamal is black because he appears black to me when I look at him.

I do not think that implies that Jamal actually changes races if someone else looks at him and comes to a different conclusion. I think Jamal is objectively black even though I used subjective means to come to that conclusion.

I suppose the difference is that you are deliberately using an acknowledged-as-subjective measure (personal feelings) in the case of determining morality, but not in terms of your sight.

I would think my personal feelings are more analogous to my judgement of a persons race based on the sense data I receive from my eyes. Rather than that data itself

Again metaphorically "where" not literally where.

What word would you use?

I wouldn't.  Your inability to coherently and literally describe what you're supposedly doing is your problem, not mine.

I may be around this board for some time. Are you prepared to have this quoted back to you?

Indeed. Coherence can be used to throw out a lot of systems, but some systems remain from both the objective and subjective camps

Glad you agree.  Coherence means nothing in terms of whether a system is based on objectivity or subjectivity.

Aye.

Unless of course you are attempting to forward an argument that objectivity is incoherent. In which case I'm all ears

I don't literally mean "camps" by the way. there will be no tests and bonfires passing through my coherence filters

I took you to mean "camps" as in "sides of a dispute".  That's still a literal meaning of "camps".  You did not employ a metaphor here.

Yes it is. But I'm okay with that.

Glad you're okay with it.  But you do see how it's a poor measure of objectivity then, right?

I don't.

What I see is how it is a non-objective measure of objectivity

What I remembered "needing to do" was make observations about morality. They both do that.

What they don't do is obliterate the possibility that you might be right.

Indeed you may be. but you need to give me some reason to believe you are.

What I meant by "needing to do" was give you a way to tell whether your morals adhere to an objective standard.  They don't do that.  If such a standard somehow existed, you would have no reason at all to believe that your values have anything to do with it.

Ahh... yes that's true.

Granted

[Lorax]

What makes you say that 12 Monkees.

What makes you think killing is bad and why should we both want to reject a morality that says it's good?

[12 Monkeys]

What makes you say that 12 Monkees.

What makes you think killing is bad and why should we both want to reject a morality that says it's good?

I did not say it is bad or good,I said you abandon the orders of your God when you stopped,you stopped because it was wrong? Your God commands otherwise and you disobey,why?

[Lorax]

What makes you say that 12 Monkees.

What makes you think killing is bad and why should we both want to reject a morality that says it's good?

I did not say it is bad or good,I said you abandon the orders of your God when you stopped,you stopped because it was wrong? Your God commands otherwise and you disobey,why?

I stopped doing what? Killing?

Because I don't want to get the electric chair!