Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disproving Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality via the Copernican Principle and Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

    Since there is a common baseline that underlines our attitudes seemingly at any given point (someone trying to kill me = bad seems oddly universal), it seems like there's some sort of objective morality in the context of the human experience specifically, even if we have not quite pinpointed it and still have grey areas to deal with.

    So, I'd like to ask you something...

    You believe morality is entirely subjective and completely up to our whims.

    Alright. Let us say that we have only 1,000 people on the planet. It will make the math easier. Here are six cases:
    1. Half of these people want to kill a person from the other half of the people on the planet. And the other half thinks that that is some dipshit noise and wants to be left alone. Are the people trying to kill another person on the other side "morally right"? Why or why not?

    2. Just like the last case, but it's 501 people in the "kill a guy on the other side" camp, and 499 in the other.

    3. 750 to 250 people this time.

    4. 900/100.

    5. 998/2.

    6. 999/1.

    In which of these cases are the "kill a guy" people correct? If the morality of the kill a guy group changes, in any of these cases...why?
    I would say it's immoral to kill a guy for no reason regardless of what the earth's population is. But my morality only extends to myself. I can judge people under my standards, but ultimately that's meaningless by itself. Those who believe it's moral to kill may have to deal with my interference (unlikely, because I'm a lil bitch, but maybe), but they aren't forced to live by my moral code. They won't lose sleep because I think they're assholes, and tbey're not going to hell because I don't like them.
    Originally posted by Wade
    Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
      I would say it's immoral to kill a guy for no reason regardless of what the earth's population is. But my morality only extends to myself. I can judge people under my standards, but ultimately that's meaningless by itself. Those who believe it's moral to kill may have to deal with my interference (unlikely, because I'm a lil bitch, but maybe), but they aren't forced to live by my moral code. They won't lose sleep because I think they're assholes, and tbey're not going to hell because I don't like them.
      I'm not emphasizing the size of the population, I'm emphasizing the proportions of the population according to what they think.

      Okay, so your standards are technically meaningless.

      Cool.

      The standards of these want-to-be-killers (in all of the cases described) are meaningless too, I suppose?

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

        I'm not emphasizing the size of the population, I'm emphasizing the proportions of the population according to what they think.

        Okay, so your standards are technically meaningless.

        Cool.

        The standards of these want-to-be-killers (in all of the cases described) are meaningless too, I suppose?
        Meaningless as far as whether they can enforce their ideals on other people. It has purpose with how they conduct themselves, though.

        again, what do you think makes it objective? And if it is objective, what consequences are there for these would-be murderers without any kind of social contract involved?
        Originally posted by Wade
        Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

          Meaningless as far as whether they can enforce their ideals on other people. It has purpose with how they conduct themselves, though.
          But no inherent moral value, right? Nobody, not you, not anyone in the hypothetical situations described can say "This is morally [right/wrong]" with any sort of distinct authority or validity to what they say?

          again, what do you think makes it objective?
          I've already stated my position on what I think gives morality a certain baseline of objectivity to it. It hasn't changed.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

            But no inherent moral value, right? Nobody, not you, not anyone in the hypothetical situations described can say "This is morally [right/wrong]" with any sort of distinct authority or validity to what they say?
            No more so than any other people.
            I've already stated my position on what I think gives morality a certain baseline of objectivity to it. It hasn't changed.
            Yeah, but it's vague, unsatisfying, and is contradictory.

            If there was something about the human experience that made something objectively immoral, then your population of murderers wouldn't exist, or at least they wouldn't believe that murder was moral.
            Originally posted by Wade
            Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

              No.

              Next.
              And yet tens of millions of Americans think otherwise and in some countries it's straight up illegal.

              Wade thinks homosexuals are deserving of death.

              Hmmm. It's almost as if morality is completely subjective or something.
              Last edited by Cid; November 27th, 2019, 05:33 PM.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                Let me guess, you're also in the "it's all subjective" camp?
                It's undeniably the case that it's subjective. I'll post a tl;dr in a bit going in depth over all of it and why it's not necessarily a bad thing.


                Originally posted by Pocket Rocket View Post
                I wonder who could be behind this post

                lets be real here some kids need to be sacrificed

                Comment


                  #68
                  Objective morality carries with it the necessary implication that there is some moral standard codified within the universe itself. Often times, dissenters will point to nature itself and how animals of our same planet have completely different behaviors from us. They kill and eat not only each other for food and territory, but sometimes even their own offspring. Yet I do think most would look at these behaviors and not assign any type of moral good or evil to them. Is a dog 'evil' for killing a field mouse for sport? Is a male shark 'evil' for forcefully copulating with a female shark? Even within a non-secular framework, most people would not consider any of these animals to be acting out some form of evil, even though they would readily say otherwise if such actions were enacted by a human onto another human. Would this not, then, be a direct contradiction to the idea of a universally binding moral code?

                  Suppose that there were no humans in this universe. Suppose that other animals were the only things roaming the earth, and they were carrying on as they do now. Everything is exactly the same, except that humans never existed. Would there exist objective moral standards in that reality? To say "yes", you would need to demonstrate the existence of an objectively good or evil action, and yet you would find no such instance within such a universe where the only possible agents are creatures we don't scrutinize with our same standards. It would seem, then, that morality is most certainly something existing solely within the human mind.



                  Now, but what of the existence of a God?

                  Personally, I have a disbelief towards such things, but let us entertain such a question. Would the existence of a God change anything? I would say no, most definitely not. People will revise what the Bible means to them all the time. Even when it states homosexuality to be immoral, even when it is blatantly misogynistic, they will choose parts to ignore and others to highlit in accordance to their own personal beliefs.

                  Let us use you, Wade, as an example. You have professed to us in the past that you believe you once heard the voice of some supernatural entity trying to convince you to commit something you believe to be immoral. At the time, you refused and attributed these voices to some evil force trying to corrupt you. But what if it could have been demonstrated to you that this was God commanding you to carry this out? Let's suppose that you knew, beyond any doubt, that God wanted you to kill someone important to you. Would such a command be immoral even when it comes from the supreme authority of the universe? Is God, then, not the supreme authority after all, and is merely another agent to some standard beyond his ability to change?

                  As I have already demonstrated, no such standard would exist in a universe without humans. If no such standard exists in that universe, then objective morality does not necessarily exist in this universe. So, then, by which moral standard are we judging God? That would be our moral standard. Our standard, by way of which we in the west try to avoid causing undue harm to each other and allow each other to live our lives as we see it best, and avoid intervention unless one of us is unduly inhibiting the lives and freedoms of others.

                  That last line is very important, because it is the basis on which we make most of our choices. Ultimately, our desire is to live out our lives in a fulfilling and enjoyable way. In order to do so, in order to ensure that we can maximize such a state, we follow what is commonly known as The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. That is why, Wade, you didn't kill your parents or brother or whoever those voices were telling you to murder in the name of God. Not because you 'knew' it wasn't God. You have no idea whether it was or wasn't. You have no way of even proving that such a command is implausible from God. You simply followed your own moral compass, and thankfully refused the voices. And people in your sitation will always attribute it to God's programming at the end of the day.....But that's just an illuskry belief. That's you projecting your values onto your subjective interpretation of what God is, the same as any Christian who accepts gays or refuses to stone their unruly kids. The truth is that the only moral authority you will listen to, is yourself.


                  ------------------------------------------------


                  Now...it is at this point that I will tag on an addendum to all this for anyone who may try to leverage my vegan philosophy against me. After all, if it's all subjective, who am I to say that eating meat is immoral and why should anyone care?

                  Well, this all goes back to the Golden Rule. For what purpose does this exist? A simplified way of putting it would be that it attempts to maximize everyone's ability to live out their lives freely, without undue violence or exploitation. If someone adheres to this standard, they have a duty to uphold it unilaterally, across all situations for all beings who value their subjective experience the same as we do. If we do not, if we instead engage in speciesism and exploit other beings based on an arbitrary distinction, then we have lost the ability to call out anyone engaging in racism, sexism, etc, and we become no better than them by our own moral standards. Thus, our moral code ceases to be coherent and everything falls apart; we no longer have the ability to make any value statement of the world, because our values cease to have meaning even by the standards set for ourselves.

                  In summation, anyone believing in personal freedoms, believing in the value of having a life experience, believing that humans possess these things and that they should be protected - they have no reason to deny these things to animals. Like us, they can think. They can feel. They can make value judgments. Of course, it's not on the same level as us, but do we value the life of a child less than an adult on the basis of their intellectual complexity? And at what point did we decide that failing to meet some arbitrary threshold of intelligence meant it was morally acceptable to kill another person? Any secularist abiding by these tenets - love your neighbor, murder is wrong, etc - has declared that in spite of the meaninglessness of the universe, they have chosen to value a person's subjective experience. I will agree, we value our own experiences and so we should ensure that we can each live our brief time in a manner that maximizes everyone's ability to do so - but in order to do so, we ascribe value to your experience. We ascribe value to my experience. We ascribe value to Wade's experience. We even ascribe it to people we've never met before and who share almost none of our experiences. And what I say is simply this: If we are to make such commitments in the face of a purposeless universe, our meaning is only meaningful if it is consistent. If it is not, if we fail to be consistent, then we become the Nazis. We become the Quakers. We become the child traffickers. We become the organ harvesters who will have Wade's kidneys shortly. Every horrible sin those people have committed, we cimmit it a hundredfold every year that we fund the industries that slaughter animals, exploit their labor, forcefully inseminate them and steal away their young so their mother's milk can be consumed by us. As horrible as you think Hitler was, as messed up as you think the border situation is right now under Trump, there is something going on right at this very moment that is far, far worse than any genocide, any mass enslavement, any horrible act that humanith has done to itself. All I ask - all I call on people to do....is for them to be consistent. Put yourself in that situation right now, strung up with a dead-eyed killer getting ready to slit your throat open while your companions lie in a pool of their blood, far away from this hell where you are alone with no company or comfort. Would you not want to be saved?

                  Comment


                  • Max
                    Max commented
                    Editing a comment
                    there he goes again

                  #69
                  Originally posted by Cid View Post

                  Well, it doesn't matter what you personally think because you're objectively a moron.

                  I didn't defend or justify human sacrifice. I said that ancient cultures did. And that is a fact. Therefore objective morality is demonstrably false. If morals can change then it means there's nothing objective about them. It's that simple. And any reasoning to the contrary is, simply put, wrong.
                  Morals don't change just because the majority view changes.

                  the Declaration of Independence, Primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson, is based on the notion of Objective Moral Rights given by the True Creator.. Morals and rights do not change just because the majority view may change. That's the point.

                  Comment


                    #70
                    Originally posted by Wade View Post

                    Morals don't change just because the majority view changes.

                    the Declaration of Independence, Primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson, is based on the notion of Objective Moral Rights given by the True Creator.. Morals and rights do not change just because the majority view may change. That's the point.
                    Here comes the fun part. Prove God exists, and that He backs up whatever you happen to believe. Honestly, even if both of those were true, your God would have to be a universally known quantity before He can make an objective moral code.
                    Last edited by OrganizationXV; November 27th, 2019, 06:59 PM.
                    Originally posted by Wade
                    Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                    Comment


                      #71
                      Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                      Here comes the fun part. Prove God exists, and that He backs up whatever you happen to believe. Honestly, even if both of those were true, your God would have to be a universally known quantity before He can make an objective moral code.
                      I think the real kicker is that even if we grant him all these things, none of it will prove that God's morality is objective. It would just be yet another opinion. This is an impossible argument for Wade to make, lol

                      Comment


                        #72
                        Originally posted by Wade View Post
                        Morals don't change just because the majority view changes.
                        I'm pretty sure I already proved, without a doubt, that they do.

                        But hey, don't let me tell you that.

                        You think being homosexual is immoral.

                        RussianCoffeeAddict thinks that it isn't immoral.

                        You both seem to believe in objective morality.

                        So you two morons fight it out and let me know which one of you are morally correct.

                        Comment


                          #73
                          Originally posted by Cid View Post

                          And yet tens of millions of Americans think otherwise and in some countries it's straight up illegal.
                          Well then elucidate why you’re gonna be a little rebel about this specific moral issue and why you’re correct about it, because I’m pretty sure you’re part of the “It’s not immoral you asshole” camp.

                          Or did you pick the position of “it’s not immoral” for the same reason some guy likes a particular chocolate brand? Lol.

                          Comment


                            #74
                            Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                            No more so than any other people.
                            Alright then.

                            Good to know.

                            If someone ever does what you think is a dipshit move...keep that in mind if you ever they say they’re not, lol.

                            Yeah, but it's vague, unsatisfying, and is contradictory.

                            If there was something about the human experience that made something objectively immoral, then your population of murderers wouldn't exist, or at least they wouldn't believe that murder was moral.
                            People are also inclined into terrible positions under the presumption that they’re part of the “good guys.” Everyone seems to be care about being “good”...whether they are, or not.

                            Which seems to imply a collective striving for some correct moral position...almost like the whole “I should be good” thing matters in the human context beyond just being the equivalent some sort of little “Hey, I like this candy” kind of preference?

                            People can come to crappy moral positions, but unless they’re part of the sociopath/psychopath breed of human, they don’t tend to do it for no reason, and in fact always tend to reason themselves into being “the good guy.”

                            You might think the population of murderers hypothetical is ridiculous and never happens...

                            But remember, we have stuff like Nazi Germany to show that a people can turn to a bunch of evil shit.

                            ...And they’re gonna do it ”because it’s right”...

                            And going by what you’re saying, “eh” is the only truly appropriate response, lol.
                            Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 28th, 2019, 12:14 AM.

                            Comment


                              #75
                              Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                              Well then elucidate why you’re gonna be a little rebel about this specific moral issue and why you’re correct about it, because I’m pretty sure you’re part of the “It’s not immoral you asshole” camp.

                              Or did you pick the position of “it’s not immoral” for the same reason some guy likes a particular chocolate brand? Lol.
                              A rebel?

                              I think morals are entirely subjective, friend. My opinion on gay marriage isn't relevant so I've no reason to explain it.

                              You and Wade are the two who both think morals are objective yet disagree on this topic. One of you is wrong and that means one of you has an "objective mortality" that is also wrong. So who is it? And more importantly, why is YOUR moral code objective and his isn't?

                              Comment


                                #76
                                Originally posted by Cid View Post
                                My opinion on gay marriage isn't relevant so I've no reason to explain it.
                                But my opinion is?

                                That's not convenient at all...

                                Comment


                                  #77
                                  Originally posted by Helly View Post
                                  Objective morality carries with it the necessary implication that there is some moral standard codified within the universe itself. Often times, dissenters will point to nature itself and how animals of our same planet have completely different behaviors from us. They kill and eat not only each other for food and territory, but sometimes even their own offspring. Yet I do think most would look at these behaviors and not assign any type of moral good or evil to them. Is a dog 'evil' for killing a field mouse for sport? Is a male shark 'evil' for forcefully copulating with a female shark? Even within a non-secular framework, most people would not consider any of these animals to be acting out some form of evil, even though they would readily say otherwise if such actions were enacted by a human onto another human. Would this not, then, be a direct contradiction to the idea of a universally binding moral code?

                                  Suppose that there were no humans in this universe. Suppose that other animals were the only things roaming the earth, and they were carrying on as they do now. Everything is exactly the same, except that humans never existed. Would there exist objective moral standards in that reality? To say "yes", you would need to demonstrate the existence of an objectively good or evil action, and yet you would find no such instance within such a universe where the only possible agents are creatures we don't scrutinize with our same standards. It would seem, then, that morality is most certainly something existing solely within the human mind.
                                  Okay coo-

                                  Now...it is at this point that I will tag on an addendum to all this for anyone who may try to leverage my vegan philosophy against me. After all, if it's all subjective, who am I to say that eating meat is immoral and why should anyone care?

                                  Well, this all goes back to the Golden Rule. For what purpose does this exist? A simplified way of putting it would be that it attempts to maximize everyone's ability to live out their lives freely, without undue violence or exploitation. If someone adheres to this standard, they have a duty to uphold it unilaterally, across all situations for all beings who value their subjective experience the same as we do. If we do not, if we instead engage in speciesism and exploit other beings based on an arbitrary distinction, then we have lost the ability to call out anyone engaging in racism, sexism, etc, and we become no better than them by our own moral standards. Thus, our moral code ceases to be coherent and everything falls apart; we no longer have the ability to make any value statement of the world, because our values cease to have meaning even by the standards set for ourselves.

                                  In summation, anyone believing in personal freedoms, believing in the value of having a life experience, believing that humans possess these things and that they should be protected - they have no reason to deny these things to animals. Like us, they can think. They can feel. They can make value judgments. Of course, it's not on the same level as us, but do we value the life of a child less than an adult on the basis of their intellectual complexity? And at what point did we decide that failing to meet some arbitrary threshold of intelligence meant it was morally acceptable to kill another person? Any secularist abiding by these tenets - love your neighbor, murder is wrong, etc - has declared that in spite of the meaninglessness of the universe, they have chosen to value a person's subjective experience. I will agree, we value our own experiences and so we should ensure that we can each live our brief time in a manner that maximizes everyone's ability to do so - but in order to do so, we ascribe value to your experience. We ascribe value to my experience. We ascribe value to Wade's experience. We even ascribe it to people we've never met before and who share almost none of our experiences. And what I say is simply this: If we are to make such commitments in the face of a purposeless universe, our meaning is only meaningful if it is consistent. If it is not, if we fail to be consistent, then we become the Nazis. We become the Quakers. We become the child traffickers. We become the organ harvesters who will have Wade's kidneys shortly. Every horrible sin those people have committed, we cimmit it a hundredfold every year that we fund the industries that slaughter animals, exploit their labor, forcefully inseminate them and steal away their young so their mother's milk can be consumed by us. As horrible as you think Hitler was, as messed up as you think the border situation is right now under Trump, there is something going on right at this very moment that is far, far worse than any genocide, any mass enslavement, any horrible act that humanith has done to itself. All I ask - all I call on people to do....is for them to be consistent. Put yourself in that situation right now, strung up with a dead-eyed killer getting ready to slit your throat open while your companions lie in a pool of their blood, far away from this hell where you are alone with no company or comfort. Would you not want to be saved?
                                  ...lol...

                                  Comment


                                    #78
                                    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                                    But my opinion is?

                                    That's not convenient at all...
                                    It's because I'm willing to admit that my opinion is entirely based on my personal feelings and my personal politics, not because I think homosexuality is objectively moral.

                                    ​​​​​You, however, do think it's objective and that's why you think your opinion is right. So yeah, your opinion is very relevant to the conversation here.

                                    Unless of course, you want to go ahead and admit that I'm right, as usual. In which case, feel free.

                                    Comment


                                      #79
                                      Originally posted by Cid View Post

                                      It's because I'm willing to admit that my opinion is entirely based on my personal feelings and my personal politics,
                                      Kid-in-a-candy-store morality, gotcha.

                                      Yeah, sorry, but if I ever find myself in a situation where I’m face to face with people like, say, the SS, “I think you guys are dicks, but you’re not REALLY dicks because it’s just my opinion” is not gonna be the thing running through my mind, lol.

                                      Comment


                                        #80
                                        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                                        Okay coo-



                                        ...lol...
                                        You called on me to defend veganism. If you aren't able to form a response, you shouldn't have challenged me on it.

                                        But yes, there is absolutely no moral basis from which you can bootstrap moral value to humans and yet refuse to extend that value to animals. Trying to argue otherwise has led you all down some frankly ridiculous roads.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X