Originally posted by @fmf It would affect how we would vote on the matter given the opportunity to do so.
If morality is subjective and only applies to individuals, with everyone entitled to their own opinion, it wouldn’t really matter what anyone voted. It would only really matter if there were an objective standard and people were voting against this standard.
Originally posted by @dj2becker If morality is subjective and only applies to individuals, with everyone entitled to their own opinion, it wouldn’t really matter what anyone voted. It would only really matter if there were an objective standard and people were voting against this standard.
To me it does "matter" whether or not there are laws to tackle behaviours with a moral dimension and so it matters which legislators are voted into office. Many of your questions make you sound like a child.
Originally posted by @fmf To me it does "matter" whether or not there are laws to tackle behaviours with a moral dimension and so it matters which legislators are voted into office. Many of your questions make you sound like a child.
If as you say morality is purely subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions, it wouldn't really matter if the laws of the country reflected someone else's opinions that were contradictory to yours. If however you believed that your moral opinions were correct and the other opinions were wrong then it would really matter.
Originally posted by @dj2becker If as you say morality is purely subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions, it wouldn't really matter if the laws of the country reflected someone else's opinions that were contradictory to yours. If however you believed that your moral opinions were correct and the other opinions were wrong then it would really matter.
You sound like a teenager who has never thought about this topic and who has never thought about how and why adults vote according to their consciences in elections and referenda. If you want to talk to me, act your age. Otherwise, go and troll other people.
Originally posted by @fmf You sound like a teenager who has never thought about this topic and who has never thought about how and why adults vote according to their consciences in elections and referenda. If you want to talk to me, act your age. Otherwise, go and troll other people.
If morality is purely subjective as you say it would be equivalent to people voting about which color they like most. Totally meaningless.
Originally posted by @dj2becker If morality is purely subjective as you say it would be equivalent to people voting about which color they like most. Totally meaningless.
I have been talking about people voting about laws pertaining to moral issues not colours. I have been talking about conscience and morality. You have been trolling. No need to address me on these matters anymore. If I think you've grown up a bit, I will re-engage.
Originally posted by @fmf I have been talking about people voting about laws pertaining to moral issues not colours. I have been talking about conscience and morality. You have been trolling. No need to address me on these matters anymore. If I think you've grown up a bit, I will re-engage.
What you don't seem to get into your head is the fact that if morals are purely subjective there is no universally correct answer to a moral question. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Asking the question "Is abortion right or wrong? " would be equivalent to asking "Is the color pink better than the color blue?" There is no universally correct answer. Everyone is right no matter what they say. Ponder upon that, maybe it will sink in eventually.
Originally posted by @dj2becker What you don't seem to get into your head is the fact that if morals are purely subjective there is no universally correct answer to a moral question. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Asking the question "Is abortion right or wrong? " would be equivalent to asking "Is the color pink better than the color blue?" There is no universally correct an ...[text shortened]... . Everyone is right no matter what they say. Ponder upon that, maybe it will sink in eventually.
For my stance on what you tout as being "universally correct answers" to moral questions, I refer you to the discussions we had throughout 2016 and 2017 during which I wrote stuff that you appear to have either not read or simply did not have the capacity to understand. I get that you don't agree, but the constant pretending that you haven't read or understood anything just comes across trolling.
Originally posted by @fmf For my stance on what you tout as being "universally correct answers" to moral questions, I refer you to the discussions we had throughout 2016 and 2017 during which I wrote stuff that you appear to have either not read or simply did not have the capacity to understand. I get that you don't agree, but the constant pretending that you haven't read or understood anything just comes across trolling.
Revert to ad hominems when you can't handle an argument. Nothing new there.
Originally posted by @dj2becker Revert to ad hominems when you can't handle an argument. Nothing new there.
We can just agree to disagree about your intellectual behaviour. You are free to describe my complaint as an 'ad hominem' if you want. People can make what they will of it.
Originally posted by @fmf We can just agree to disagree about your intellectual behaviour. You are free to describe my complaint as an 'ad hominem' if you want. People can make what they will of it.
You are also obviously free to do as you please since morality is subjective as you say and your own moral preferences aren’t objectively better than anyone else’s just like the color blue isn’t objectively better than green. It’s all just one big subjective mess.
Originally posted by @dj2becker You are also obviously free to do as you please since morality is subjective as you say and your own moral preferences aren’t objectively better than anyone else’s just like the color blue isn’t objectively better than green. It’s all just one big subjective mess.
Like I said, we can just agree to disagree about your intellectual behaviour ~ like your tedious umpteenth mischaracterization of my views above, and your repetition of your colours-morals analogy. And we can also just agree to disagree about your views on the "subjectivity", "universality", "absolutism" as they apply to morality.
Originally posted by @fmf Like I said, we can just agree to disagree about your intellectual behaviour ~ like your tedious umpteenth mischaracterization of my views above, and your repetition of your colours-morals analogy. And we can also just agree to disagree about your views on the "subjectivity", "universality", "absolutism" as they apply to morality.
Indeed as you could agree to disagree with Hitler and Pol Pot about their moral actions. You could agree to disagree on every single moral issue for that matter since there is no single correct answer to a moral question. It's free for all.
Originally posted by @dj2becker Indeed as you could agree to disagree with Hitler and Pol Pot about their moral actions. You could agree to disagree on every single moral issue for that matter since there is no single correct answer to a moral question. It's free for all.
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 with your own subjective opinions and moral perspectives, I would have [eventually] agreed to disagree with them.
This would be more especially so if they were trolling me by asking me to recognize the "objective" nature of their beliefs over and over and over again while ignoring everything I said in reply to their assertions.
13 Nov '17 02:38
Do your religious beliefs 'liberate' you?
Back to Top