Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Daymanmb]

Once again, math can be prove to be correct. The math will be correct independent of our opinions about it.

Youve already made up your mind and there is no objective way to concretely say one way or the other. Simply because we're inept at proving it now doesnt make it so, you understand that right? You understand that we barely even understand the full capabilities of our brain right?

[Sevyvia]

Morals can't be subjective. It doesn't make any sense for something to be morally wrong in one culture but morally okay in another culture. Of course, that is a different issue than whether or not any given idea is morally wrong or right, but whatever the answer, it's not subjective.

Makes no sense because... what? You have absolutely zero backing for that statement. Not even the flimsiest "because god." Literally nothing.

In any case, this discussion might be interesting, but it always, ALWAYS ends up being an incredibly poor cover for someone wanting to push religion on others because "how can we be moral without God"? Seems to be going pretty well for the enormous amount of atheists out there. But we'll ignore that, so you can keep pretending you have an imaginary friend.

[Deleted]

Only if you put value on an individuals right to freedom.

So i am right then.

The only people who don't put values on Freedom from incarceration are illogical sociopaths.

[Sliske]

You don't think it's a fact that rape is bad? wtf? When did I say facts are the same as opinion or beliefs? I think you got hung up on the word "believe" when I said you believe something is a fact. Replace believe with assume. That's what I meant.

How do you get dressed in the morning

[Underverse]

To clarify, my disbelief in an objective morality certainly doesn't mean I don't believe in the importance of morals. I have a strong moral compass, I know what I believe to be right and wrong, and it boggles me how some people can disagree, but I understand that this code is the result of the experiences of my life and my society at large, and it would have turned out differently if I were born in another country or century. For that reason I do not call my morals "right" or "objective", because in my mind they are not to anyone but myself.

Experience is a good way to approximate objective morality. Basing one's morals on experience and emotion is a viable option, since we evolved with these traits.

[Daymanmb]

and others say it would not be.

What makes your assertion any more valid than anothers?

Reason and logic. Devoid of those and no problems may be found.

[zephid]

How about objectively morally wrong? torturing babies.

We only think it's wrong because we value life, especially the lives of our young. Doesn't mean that "the universe" cares about it.

[Deleted]

and others say it would not be.

What makes your assertion any more valid than anothers?

I knew someone would try and argue this by going "And others say"

Guess what, That's not what I posted.

I posted

IMPRISONING an INNOCENT man.

No matter what the mental gymnastics you try and pull, If you think Imprisoning an innocent person should be done, you are objectively in the wrong.

[Dreknar20]

The only people who don't put values on Freedom from incarceration are illogical sociopaths.

what does logic have to do with emotions?

[Underverse]

But there doesn't exist an objectively correct standard when it comes to morals.

There does. We just don't all agree on what it is.

[Dreknar20]

If you think Imprisoning an innocent person should be done, you are objectively in the wrong.

according to what?
A golden book sent down from the heavens?

[Daymanmb]

We only think it's wrong because we value life, especially the lives of our young. Doesn't mean that "the universe" cares about it.

Thats not the conversation at all. The conversation is that reasonable humans can identify with a natural law that is governed by logic and reason.

[Underverse]

according to what?
A golden book sent down from the heavens?

According to the propagative value you're squandering.

[Daymanmb]

according to what?
A golden book sent down from the heavens?

Reason and logic. Its simple.

[Deleted]

according to what?
A golden book sent down from the heavens?

So you just refuse to read words and want to be contradictory.

If a person is innocent, they have no reason to be incarcerated.

Ergo, by Law, Incarcerating someone who has committed no crime is objectively wrong.

[Sliske]

I knew someone would try and argue this by going "And others say"

Guess what, That's not what I posted.

I posted

IMPRISONING an INNOCENT man.

No matter what the mental gymnastics you try and pull, If you think Imprisoning an innocent person should be done, you are objectively in the wrong.

Innocent of what? I'm sure you could find a country that would put your innocent man in jail for their own moral views. Is he not a muslim for example in radical islamic country?

This also assumes imprisoning people is bad by itself. If you give him black skin and throw him into 1800s murica then you're golden. 100% subjectively morally golden ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Dreknar20]

Reason and logic. Its simple.

Morals are based off feelings/emotions, not reason and logic

People don't judge a morally act due to some math calculation, but cause it 'feels' wrong

[Daymanmb]

I'm sure you could find a country that would put your innocent man in jail for their own moral views. Is he not a muslim for example in radical islamic country?

This also assumes imprisoning people is bad by itself

That country's are then not governed by reason and logic. It also does not assume that at all. Enough with the mental gymnastics..

[Underverse]

Innocent of what? I'm sure you could find a country that would put your innocent man in jail for their own moral views. Is he not a muslim for example in radical islamic country?

This also assumes imprisoning people is bad by itself.

And that's why they would be immoral.

Similar to the baby-killers who thought that infant blood would bring the rain.

Also, as it turns out, immoral.

[Deleted]

Innocent of what? I'm sure you could find a country that would put your innocent man in jail for their own moral views. Is he not a muslim for example in radical islamic country?

This also assumes imprisoning people is bad by itself.

People wanted an Objective moral usage. I gave an Objective truth.

I did not give a SPECIFIC country, I did not give a SPECIFIC LAW.

I gave an Objective Moral truth.

Imprisoning an Innocent man is Objectively morally wrong.