Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell, why don't you provide an example of a moral question and its objective answer, and explain how that answer is objective and how it is not subjective.
I was trying to ascertain what objective standard you use to differentiate between right and wrong. I would say it was more of an analysis than a comparison.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt certainly has a correct answer to me, sitting here in my London castle. (That answer being that such an offence is always wrong). There could however be someone on the other side of the planet who disagrees with me. I can certainly judge his moral standard, but would only be doing so by my own moral standard. He could likewise judge my moral standard by his own sense of morality.
I will quit once you explain to me why the moral question, "Is rape always wrong?", has no single correct answer.
Why is this? Because there is no universal moral standard. Why is this? Because there is no divine moral law giver. Why is this? Because man created both God and human morality.
Please print off this answer and pin to your fridge for future reference.
Originally posted by JS357To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference. The statement, "murder is evil," expresses a subjective preference similar to the statements, "curry is tasty," or, "bluegrass is the best musical genre." If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true. If objective moral values exist, then this statement would be true even if the Nazis had won World War II and had convinced every human being in the entire world that the Holocaust was good. In contrast, the position of moral relativism commits one to the proposition that moral statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," are subjective. If some person or some society, like Nazi Germany, believes that the Holocaust was good, then the Holocaust would indeed be good "for them". There would be no objective moral standard to which their assessment could be compared.
Well, why don't you provide an example of a moral question and its objective answer, and explain how that answer is objective and how it is not subjective.
http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAnd that is exactly my point. "With the presuppositions that you have made you cannot say that the holocaust was objectively evil."
It certainly has a correct answer to me, sitting here in my London castle. (That answer being that such an offence is always wrong). There could however be someone on the other side of the planet who disagrees with me. I can certainly judge his moral standard, but would only be doing so by my own moral standard. He could likewise judge my moral stand ...[text shortened]... and human morality.
Please print off this answer and pin to your fridge for future reference.
Print that out and pin it to your fridge.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes I can, and do!!!
And that is exactly my point. "With the presuppositions that you have made you cannot say that the holocaust was objectively evil."
Print that out and pin it to your fridge.
What I can't do, is speak for every person on the planet. Although people tend to agree on the big issues (murder is wrong and the like) there is no guarantee such a moral standard will be held by everyone.
Why is this? Because there is no universal moral standard, and even within one society, moral standards can change over time.
Apologies for telling you to stick these posts on your fridge. (I was forgetting 'they' won't allow you to have a fridge).
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAh now I get it. You think that something can only be a universal truth if everyone on the planet agrees to it. You are mistaken. "Im an sitting at my computer right now and I am typing you this message" is a universal truth. And guess what? Everyone in the universe did not have to agree with it for it to be a universal truth. Likewise the statement, "The holocaust was evil" is a universal moral truth regardless of who agrees with it.
Yes I can, and do!!!
What I can't do, is speak for every person on the planet. Although people tend to agree on the big issues (murder is wrong and the like) there is no guarantee such a moral standard will be held by everyone.
Why is this? Because there is no universal moral standard, and even within one society, moral standards can change ov ...[text shortened]... to stick these posts on your fridge. (I was forgetting 'they' won't allow you to have a fridge).
By the way, I do have a fridge now since I left the cult.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkUnfortunately you don't get it and are just going round in circles like a demented hamster in its wheel.
Ah now I get it. You think that something can only be a universal truth if everyone on the planet agrees to it. You are mistaken. "Im an sitting at my computer right now and I am typing you this message" is a universal truth. And guess what? Everyone in the universe did not have to agree with it for it to be a universal truth. Likewise the statement, "The holocaust was evil" is a universal moral truth regardless of who agrees with it.
It is 'not' that everyone has to agree to a moral standard to make it universal, but rather that different societies may have developed different moral standards. This doesn't mean that I view these moral standards as equally valid. Obviously I will believe my own developed morality is correct and will speak out against heinous acts. I may even judge the morality of others, but can't be surprised when others reciprocate the moral judgement.
Edit: You may have left the cult, but have you left the asylum? (The 'they' I referred to was the men in white coats).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you don't view the different moral standards of different societies to be equal, how do you decide which is better?
Unfortunately you don't get it and are just going round in circles like a demented hamster in its wheel.
It is 'not' that everyone has to agree to a moral standard to make it universal, but rather that different societies may have developed different moral standards. This doesn't mean that I view these moral standards as equally valid. Obviously I ...[text shortened]... t the cult, but have you left the asylum? (The 'they' I referred to was the men in white coats).
How do you know that your own developed morality is correct and someone else's morality which they developed on their own is not correct?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou evaluate, compare and contrast. And accept that not everybody sees the world in the same way that you do.
If you don't view the different moral standards of different societies to be equal, how do you decide which is better?
How do you know that your own developed morality is correct and someone else's morality which they developed on their own is not correct?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkRe-read my post from the word 'obviously'. (And then ask yourself why your question comes after the answer).
If you don't view the different moral standards of different societies to be equal, how do you decide which is better?
How do you know that your own developed morality is correct and someone else's morality which they developed on their own is not correct?
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFFrom your point of view yes indeed since from your perspective all morality boils down to a matter of personal preference since you believe there are no moral absolutes that have been revealed to us by God.
And it is an exercise of your personal preference to characterize your own views as "the only correct morality".
But we both know that doesn't coincide with reality since we both can agree that certain actions are always wrong regardless of our personal preference.