Originally posted by @fmf We discussed the moral actions of Hitler and Pol Pot. As you well know, I have never said that I agree to disagree about the moral soundness of their actions.
However, if they asserted here on this message board that their moral code complied with an "objective" standard and therefore provided "a single correct answer to a moral question", as you do your wi ...[text shortened]... iefs over and over and over again while ignoring everything I said in reply to their assertions.
If morality is subjective, neither you nor Hitler or Pol pot are objectively right. So you would not be able to convince them they are wrong or that you are right, because from your perspective there is no universally correct answer to a moral question so they would be just as justified in believing their morals are correct as you are in believing yours are correct.
Originally posted by @dj2becker If morality is subjective, neither you nor Hitler or Pol pot are objectively right. So you would not be able to convince them they are wrong or that you are right, because from your perspective there is no universally correct answer to a moral question so they would be just as justified in believing their morals are correct as you are in believing yours are correct.
If you believe that you could have convinced Hitler or Pol pot that you were "objectively" right ~ and that what they were doing was wrong ~ using the same reasoning that you have been using on this web site these last 2 years ~ and therefore stopped what happened in Europe and in Indochina, then good for you.
Originally posted by @fmf If you believe that you could have convinced Hitler or Pol pot that you were "objectively" right ~ and that what they were doing was wrong ~ using the same reasoning that you have been using on this web site these last 2 years ~ and therefore stopped what happened in Europe and in Indochina, then good for you.
Why would it be good to stop something that wasn't objectively wrong? 🙄
Originally posted by @fmf Because of the personal imperatives created by my moral compass and principles same as it is for you and your subjective moral code.
Why then try to deny someone the right to exercise their own subjective morals if you cannot say their morals are objectively wrong?
Originally posted by @dj2becker Why then try to deny someone the right to exercise their own subjective morals if you cannot say their morals are objectively wrong?
We have discussed thus before. I am not interested in being trolled. If you cannot discern and oppose and condemn the "evil" of, say, the Holocaust, without reading the words 'love thy neighbour' etc. in an ancient, then so be it.
Originally posted by @fmf We have discussed thus before. I am not interested in being trolled. If you cannot discern and oppose and condemn the "evil" of, say, the Holocaust, without reading the words 'love thy neighbour' etc. in an ancient, then so be it.
It just makes no logical sense to condemn someone else's subjective morals using your own subjective morals. It's like hating on someone for liking blue because you like pink. It makes absolutely no sense.
Originally posted by @dj2becker It just makes no logical sense to condemn someone else's subjective morals using your own subjective morals. It's like hating on someone for liking blue because you like pink. It makes absolutely no sense.
You condemn homoexual sex, for instance, based on your subjective opinions and your subjective moral prism. It doesn't seem to stop you.
Originally posted by @fmf You condemn homoexual sex, for instance, based on your subjective opinions and your subjective moral prism. It doesn't seem to stop you.
I only condemn things that I believe are objectively wrong. Why would you condemn something if you didn't think it was objectively wrong?
Originally posted by @dj2becker I only condemn things that I believe are objectively wrong. Why would you condemn something if you didn't think it was objectively wrong?
I don't give two hoots if you call the things you disapprove of "objectively wrong". I condemn things for the same reason (albeit maybe not the same things) as you do: because of our subjective morals.
Originally posted by @fmf Because of the personal imperatives created by my moral compass and principles same as it is for you and your subjective moral code.
A subjective moral code assumes that everyone is welcome to do what is right in their own eyes. So you can’t judge other people when they are just doing what is right in their own eyes because you would then be imposing your own morals upon them. It makes no logical sense to make moral judgments upon anyone other than yourself. Yet you do make moral judgments upon other people because you actually believe that what is wrong for you is also wrong for them.
Originally posted by @dj2becker I only condemn things that I believe are objectively wrong. Why would you condemn something if you didn't think it was objectively wrong?
There are 10 people in a room all with different morals.
Nine of those agree that their morality is subjective.
One a$$hole says that his morality is objective.
Are we to deduce that only the a$$holes morality applies to the whole group?
Originally posted by @dj2becker 1. A subjective moral code assumes that everyone is welcome to do what is right in their own eyes.
2. So you can’t judge other people when they are just doing what is right in their own eyes because you would then be imposing your own morals upon them.
3.It makes no logical sense to make moral judgments upon anyone other than yourself. 4.Yet you do ma ...[text shortened]... pon other people because you actually believe that what is wrong for you is also wrong for them.
1. Demonstrably false. Everyone is not welcome to do what is right in their eyes and my morality is subjective.
2. Demonstrably false because I do judge people and know my morality is subjective.
Originally posted by @dj2becker A subjective moral code assumes that everyone is welcome to do what is right in their own eyes. So you can’t judge other people when they are just doing what is right in their own eyes because you would then be imposing your own morals upon them. It makes no logical sense to make moral judgments upon anyone other than yourself. Yet you do make moral judgm ...[text shortened]... pon other people because you actually believe that what is wrong for you is also wrong for them.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 There are 10 people in a room all with different morals.
Nine of those agree that their morality is subjective.
One a$$hole says that his morality is objective.
Are we to deduce that only the a$$holes morality applies to the whole group?
Yet all ten of them (assuming they are all sane) agree that certain actions are always wrong.
Do your religious beliefs 'liberate' you?
13 Nov '17 07:31
Back to Top