Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Daymanmb]

Assumes punishing is objectively wrong

Holy fuck, no it doesnt! It only assumes that the action was devoid of reason and logic... how dont you see this?

[Sliske]

You lost me at god. Are you trying to suggest that religion is governed by logic and reason?

At the beginning of every set of facts there is an assumption - that these 'facts' are true. Do I know the world exists? I do not, I assume it to be so. Yet I masquerade that assumption as fact for ease of reasoning, logic, etc.

Someone born in a religious household is given another set of these assumptions he has to make - He doesn't know for certain a god exists, yet assume it does for ease of reasoning, logic, etc.

You probably aren't going to find objective morality by asking the same questions people have been asking for millennia

[Daymanmb]

At the beginning of every set of facts there is an assumption - that these 'facts' are true. Do I know the world exists? I do not, I assume it to be so. Yet I masquerade that assumption as fact for ease of reasoning, logic, etc.

Someone born in a religious household is given another set of these assumptions he has to make - He doesn't know for certain a god exists, yet assume it does for ease of reasoning, logic, etc.

You probably aren't going to find objective morality by asking the same questions people have been asking for millennia

Nor are you going to disprove it by suggesting religion is governed by logic and reason. Thourgh out my posting in this thread, I have stated concretely, that this discussion is not going to be settled in this thread.. Youre light years behind if youre just realizing that now. The problem lies in the fact that you believe wholly one way or the other, when either can be a possibility.

You probably wont read it, but smarter men that you or I have had some tremendous input on the conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And smarter men than you or I are not so dead set on it being one way or the other because theyre aware of the possibilities.

[zephid]

Yes it does. Because show me a single country on earth, a single creed a single culture, that as a blanket statement thought people commiting no crimes deserved incarceration.

Even the most racist xenophobic people like ISIS or Pol Pot, in their minds, their enemies they are punishing had commited crimes and that is why they were punishing them.

The only people who apply punishment for no crime are sociopaths. legit Sociopaths.

You do know that even if everyone who are alive on this planet right now all thought that imprisoning an innocent person was wrong it could still only be subjectively morally wrong. For it to be objectively wrong it would have to be wrong no matter what we humans thought about it. But that's not the case.

When it comes to your example of imprisoning an innocent person there have been cultures in the past that more or less imprisoned parts of they population even though they hadn't commit a crime. It was quite common for women to be confined to the house, not allowed to leave without male escort etc. They were innocent, they just happened to be female.

Or you could point to all the cultures that used to imprison and sacrifice people to their gods. They didn't think those people had done anything wrong, they just thought it was right to sacrifice people to their god.

[Deleted]

You probably aren't going to find objective morality by asking the same questions people have been asking for millennia

Actually, you can find objective Morality everywhere.

It's that people need to stop assuming Objective does not always mean "The Objective truth"

things can be wrong and Objective.

[Sliske]

Holy fuck, no it doesnt! It only assumes that the action was devoid of reason and logic... how dont you see this?

How was the innocent man chosen? Was he mistakenly accused? Was he just picked at random?

If he was mistakenly accused, there was reason and logic, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If he was picked at random, then you have a different answer of course.

Oh and in case it isn't obvious, obviously i think punishing innocent people is wrong, etc.

[Deleted]

You do know that even if everyone who are alive on this planet right now all thought that imprisoning an innocent person was wrong it could still only be subjectively morally wrong. For it to be objectively wrong it would have to be wrong no matter what we humans thought about it. But that's not the case.

When it comes to your example of imprisoning an innocent person there have been cultures in the past that more or less imprisoned parts of they population even though they hadn't commit a crime. It was quite common for women to be confined to the house, not allowed to leave without male escort etc. They were innocent, they just happened to be female.

Or you could point to all the cultures that used to imprison and sacrifice people to their gods. They didn't think those people had done anything wrong, they just thought it was right to sacrifice people to their god.

Now you're just not understanding the point at all and merely using a subjective glance. Talk about Irony.

[zephid]

This is simply your opinion once again. An opinion you cant objectively support.

That's because it's practically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and that's why the burden of proof always lies on the people claiming the existence of something. The same way the burden of proof lies on the religious to prove the existence of God.

[Daymanmb]

You do know that even if everyone who are alive on this planet right now all thought that imprisoning an innocent person was wrong it could still only be subjectively morally wrong.

Stop presenting your opinion as fact. Thats simply not proven to be true.

[Sliske]

Nor are you going to disprove it by suggesting religion is governed by logic and reason. Thourgh out my posting in this thread, I have stated concretely, that this discussion is not going to be settled in this thread.. Youre light years behind if youre just realizing that now. The problem lies in the fact that you believe wholly one way or the other, when either can be a possibility.

said all of that in this thread too. Though I don't expect anyone to read this nonsense for 22 pages or whatever its at now

my thoughts:

- Either can be true
- As of right now morality is subjective, based on our upbringing, thoughts and emotions at the time, religion, etc
- If there is objective morality, it would fall on deaf ears. As does concepts like "perhaps women are equal" when told to countries of the middle east

[Daymanmb]

That's because it's practically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and that's why the burden of proof always lies on the people claiming the existence of something. The same way the burden of proof lies on the religious to prove the existence of God.

We're talking in circles. I cant say the same stuff over to you when you just ignore it.

[zephid]

And those people who did such imprisonment were morally wrong. Different beliefs of morality does not disprove objective moral truths.

I don't have to disprove objective morality, it's up to you to prove it exists in the first place. Burden of proof lies on the people making the claim.

[Deleted]

That's because it's practically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and that's why the burden of proof always lies on the people claiming the existence of something. The same way the burden of proof lies on the religious to prove the existence of God.

here Schrodinger, prove your cat is dead.

[Daymanmb]

- As of right now morality is subjective, based on our upbringing, thoughts and emotions at the time, religion, etc

How can you make this assertion? You dont know that with any certainty!

- - - Updated - - -

here Schrodinger, prove your cat is dead.

God damn... right?

[Soeroah]

Yes. And it would be a scientific process right now if we had ways of dealing with the massive amount of information our emotions proxy for.

Using emotions and experience are simply more efficient for the time being. But I totally expect moral quantification in the future.

I think an important distinction should be made though. It's not maximizing moral value for the majority; rather, it's maximizing moral value for each individual.

That's interesting. Sounds like we agree on a set of facts, but disagree on a conclusion.

Figures that happens in a thread about objectivity versus subjectivity =P

[Deleted]

I don't have to disprove objective morality, it's up to you to prove it exists in the first place. Burden of proof lies on the people making the claim.

I have literally proven it to you, the most fundamental and base truth in each human.

Punishment for innocent people is bad.

[Daymanmb]

I don't have to disprove objective morality, it's up to you to prove it exists in the first place. Burden of proof lies on the people making the claim.

Youre being ridiculous and it only serves to reveal your lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Deleted]

Here comes down to the nitty gritty.

Meta-physics is proving many things time and again that observation is the only real result of things we can see. Things we thought were objective are not subjective.

Light being a wave is objective right? Wrong, it's also a particle.

In reality, the term Objective is entirely subjective.

[Sliske]

How can you make this assertion? You dont know that with any certainty!

I don't know anything with certainty , thats a given, but we can make some assumptions for ease of conversation, such as, I exist, the fact that there are dozens of different answers to the question "is rape bad?" probably means subjectivity and nuance reigns supreme in morality

[zephid]

I have literally proven it to you, the most fundamental and base truth in each human.

Punishment for innocent people is bad.

And you have still not shown that it is an objective moral truth.