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

    Originally posted by Cid View Post
    So if morality were objective, Wade and Morpheus wouldn't be able to disagre-
    Morality being objective in the context of the human experience =/= all humans being smart or not gullible enough to know what’s moral or not at all times or that all moral issues are easy yes/no answers with no degree of flexibility.
    Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 30th, 2019, 02:14 PM.

    Comment


      Wade

      Science and morality aren’t the same thing.

      They don’t have 1-1 translations across each other, not even getting into your flip-floppy nonsense about “The True Creator.”

      So shut up, lol.

      Comment


        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
        or that all moral issues are easy yes/no answers with no degree of flexibility.
        So morality definitely isn't objective?

        Holy shit. I think he's got it! He's finally fucking got it!

        Comment


          Originally posted by Cid View Post

          So morality definitely isn't objective?

          Holy shit. I think he's got it! He's finally fucking got it!
          I said not all moral issues are easy yes/no answers...not that none of them were.

          Killing Joe across the street because he looked at you funny is definitely objectively wrong.
          Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 30th, 2019, 02:45 PM.

          Comment


            RussianCoffeeAddict
            Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

            But where do you think morality gets its objectivity? Is it hard-coded into our DNA? Did God write it into our souls? Did you just decide one day that it works out like that?
            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


              Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

              I said not all moral issues are easy yes/no answers...not that none of them were.

              Killing Joe across the street because he looked at you funny is definitely objectively wrong.
              Why is it objectively wrong? Describe it without alluding or appealing to Joe's subjective experience or anyone else's subjective experience.

              Comment


                Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                I said not all moral issues are easy yes/no answers...not that none of them were.
                So you're still saying that morality isn't objective. Gotcha.

                I would say this was a nice discussion, but you basically give me a headache every time you attempt to "debate" me, so...

                Good job eventually coming to the right answer (with my help) though.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Wade View Post

                  "Murder" is the unlawful killing of an innocent person.

                  "Capital Punishment" is the lawful, Just killing of a convicted murderer, who deserves to die.

                  In the Context of Objective Morality, Murder is an unforgivable sin. No Objectively Moral God could forgive Murder just because the Murderer asks to be forgiven.

                  IN the Bible, in the story of the two thieves on the Cross, one thief is forgiven because he had done nothing worthy of physical death, much less Hell. The Other thief is NOT forgiven, because he was guilty of "Sedition", which was most likely rape or murder, which are unforgivable sins which come with a Death Penalty.

                  This concept is not new. There are forgivable sins which do not deserve a Death Penalty, and there are unforgivable sins which deserve a death penalty, and by implication Hell Fire.
                  If you're going to burn in the pit for eternity anyway, capital punishment on this earthly realm is kinda extraneous, no?

                  Moreover, God Himself isn't objectively moral. He killed all of the firstborn sons in Egypt, which is infinitely worse than what (the damned) Cain did.
                  Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; November 30th, 2019, 07:39 PM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                    Killing Joe across the street because he looked at you funny is definitely objectively wrong.
                    Funny how none of them seem to have a rebuttal to this, despite muh subjective morality. Hell, even in the Wild Wild West when "frontier justice" was the law of the land, deputies attempted to provide some sort of stability so gunslingers couldn't kill whomever for whichever reason.
                    Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; November 30th, 2019, 07:49 PM.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                      Funny how none of them seem to have a rebuttal to this, despite muh subjective morality. Hell, even in the Wild Wild West when "frontier justice" was the law of the land, deputies attempted to provide some sort of stability so gunslingers couldn't kill whomever for whichever reason.
                      No, I definitely have a rebuttal. I'm just hoping RCA doesn't dodge this, too.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                        Funny how none of them seem to have a rebuttal to this, despite muh subjective morality. Hell, even in the Wild Wild West when "frontier justice" was the law of the land, deputies attempted to provide some sort of stability so gunslingers couldn't kill whomever for whichever reason.
                        Mostly because it didn't need to be addressed. Nobody in this topic ever said that murder wasn't objectively wrong. In fact, I said it was definitely wrong on at least two occasions. But I also acknowledged that the culture I grew up in is what shaped my moral compass. You autists are the ones trying to tell me that ancient civilizations knew that ritualistic sacrifice was evil but still did it anyway.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Cid View Post
                          Nobody in this topic ever said that murder wasn't objectively wrong.
                          Of course not, because there's an objective baseline for what is or isn't immoral (i.e., murder vs. self-defense). Ergo, morality itself is objective and where we teeter on that line is what's based on subjectivity.

                          Thanks for playing.

                          You autists are the ones trying to tell me that ancient civilizations knew that ritualistic sacrifice was evil but still did it anyway.
                          Ignoring the fact that you're amalgamating sacrifice with murder to bolster your effete argument, go ahead and define "evil" for me. Is sacrificing one for the good of many in order to appease a dark god, especially when you don't know any better, truly evil behavior (as opposed to doing it for shits and giggles, like a murderer might)? Is it still "evil" if the sacrifice were willing?

                          -EDIT- Red herrings aside, even ancient civilizations that engaged in human sacrifice weren't cool with wanton killing. Pagans around the world at whichever point in time didn't suddenly just undergo a paradigm shift after coming into contact with the Book of Genesis, rofl.
                          Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; December 1st, 2019, 03:23 AM.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                            Funny how none of them seem to have a rebuttal to this, despite muh subjective morality. Hell, even in the Wild Wild West when "frontier justice" was the law of the land, deputies attempted to provide some sort of stability so gunslingers couldn't kill whomever for whichever reason.
                            The rebuttal is that it's on you to explain what makes it objectively evil. Everyone agrees it's bad, but you haven't given any indication why it's not just most people's opinion.
                            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


                              Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                              The rebuttal is that it's on you to explain what makes it objectively evil. Everyone agrees it's bad, but you haven't given any indication why it's not just most people's opinion.
                              I already addressed this balderdash previously. Stop dodging like Cod. If objectivity were truly the be-all, end-all that you downies seem to think it is, opposing viewpoints would be completely nonexistent. But alas, they're... not.
                              • Creationists are a thing.
                              • Flat-earthers are a thing.
                              • Anti-vaxxers are a thing.
                              • Climate change deniers are a thing.
                              Despite there being empirical evidence against all of the above, people continue to believe what they do because what is "objective" doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does if others consider it to be subjective. Similarly, there will always be psychos, socios, and other such weirdos who don't adhere to any objective moral standard (i.e., murder is bad). Doesn't mean it's not objective. lol

                              P.S. In spite of Cid's best efforts to paint our forefathers as these immoral murderfiends, even the ones who did ritualistically sacrifice human hearts weren't down with murder. Amazing, innit? It's almost as though murder is an objectively immoral act.
                              Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; December 1st, 2019, 04:22 AM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                                I already addressed this balderdash previously. Stop dodging like Cod. If objectivity were truly the be-all, end-all that you downies seem to think it is, opposing viewpoints would be completely nonexistent. But alas, they're... not.
                                • Creationists are a thing.
                                • Flat-earthers are a thing.
                                • Anti-vaxxers are a thing.
                                • Climate change deniers are a thing.
                                Despite there being empirical evidence against all of the above, people continue to believe what they do because what is "objective" doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does if others consider it to be subjective. Similarly, there will always be psychos, socios, and other such weirdos who don't adhere to any objective moral standard (i.e., murder is bad). Doesn't mean it's not objective. lol

                                P.S. In spite of Cid's best efforts to paint our forefathers as these immoral murderfiends, even the ones who did ritualistically sacrifice human hearts weren't down with murder. Amazing, innit? It's almost as though murder is an objectively immoral act.
                                But where's your emperical evidence that it's objective? You completely missed the point, and the fact that both you and RCA have spent pages dodging this is hilarious.

                                If morality is an objective fact, then show us the testable, provable science that confirms it. By what mechanism is it objective? Where is the line between moral and immoral gray areas, and what set it there to begin with? If you can't answer those questions, then you have a subjective viewpoint that you're lying to yourself about.
                                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


                                  Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                                  Is sacrificing one for the good of many in order to appease a dark god, especially when you don't know any better, truly evil behavior (as opposed to doing it for shits and giggles, like a murderer might)? Is it still "evil" if the sacrifice were willing?
                                  So you're saying that morality is based entirely on culture and in no way is objective?

                                  Glad you finally understand.
                                  ​​​
                                  Furthermore, the reason why nobody is giving your "lul climate change deniers exist" argument the light of day is because science is objective and can be proven with clear, observable evidence. Morality is not science and is not subject to the physical laws of the universe. You're making the same argument Wade is and it's utterly ridiculous.
                                  Last edited by Cid; December 1st, 2019, 09:54 AM.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                                    But where's your emperical evidence that it's objective? You completely missed the point, and the fact that both you and RCA have spent pages dodging this is hilarious.

                                    If morality is an objective fact, then show us the testable, provable science that confirms it. By what mechanism is it objective? Where is the line between moral and immoral gray areas, and what set it there to begin with? If you can't answer those questions, then you have a subjective viewpoint that you're lying to yourself about.


                                    Whether you're a true believer and consider the revelation of these tenets to be an act of divine providence, or a blasphemous nonbeliever and consider this to be the greatest scam in history; that line (namely, "Thou shalt not kill") had to have come from somewhere. If not from God Himself, then from a particularly clever human being. And the fact that this then-infantile religion struck a chord in so many and went on to become the biggest religion the world has ever known by a wide margin to this very day kinda proves that moral relativism is bullshit. It proves that certain things, such as murder being bad, fall under moral absolutism. Mystery guy, if it was indeed a mystery guy, didn't magically cause a universal paradigm shift. Murder being immoral was something virtually everyone found agreeable already.

                                    Of course, if you're insistent that moral relativism applies here, I guess it's fair to say Hitler was a pretty cool guy. So what that he killed millions of people in the largest systemic ethnic cleansing in history? Murder isn't objectively bad, right? So, then why is genocide? Only difference is scale.
                                    Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; December 2nd, 2019, 04:16 AM.

                                    Comment


                                      Cid:

                                      Moral wrongs are always wrong.

                                      Lying is wrong at the Metaphysical, Logical level, not just the physical level, because reality is inherently Truthful, therefore lying is inherently against the fundamental Moral nature of Reality itself Therefore lying could not be a subjective form of wrong-doing, and all lying must be Objectively Wrong. this is probably the easiest wrong to prove as being objectively wrong, because falsehoods are against the moral nature of fundamental reality: The Universe does not lie, but individual Free Moral Agents contained inside the Universe do lie, because Free Moral Agency over-rides the physical laws of the Universe, Free Moral Agency can lie even though the physical laws of the Universe do not allow falsehoods to exist inside the Universe. This explains the paradox of how the Truthfulness of Reality itself could nevertheless encapsulate the lies of Free Moral Agency.

                                      Now if all lying is Objectively wrong, then the crime of Perjury is Objectively Wrong, and therefore physical death (and Hell Fire) as a penalty of Perjury is Objectively Morally correct, since Perjury is indistinguishable from attempted murder. If you falsely accuse someone of a Capital Crime that is indistinguishable from Attempted Murder.

                                      I have now defined a Capital Crime, Perjury, through Objective Reason, without consulting Subjective Opinions. Therefore Goodness and Evil are Objective Moral Constructions which exist at the Metaphysical, Logical level. Good and Evil are not Subjective constructions, as the definitions of Good and Evil would be the same even if Free Moral Agency did not exist, so they could not possibly be Subjective Constructions.

                                      For example, Lying would still be a sin even if Free Will did not exist, however, if Free Will did not exist, sin would not be Morally Punishable by God, because Guilt could not exist without Free Moral Agency, which Stephen Hawking CORRECTLY argued in this case that guilt could not actually exist without Free Will, however Hawking incorrectly claimed that the offender should be punished anyway, even though guilt could not actually exist without free will....and Paul of Tarsus in the Bible also incorrectly claimed that the offender should be punished (with hell fire) even though guilt could not exist without Free Moral Agency. Paul of Tarsus did not believe in Free Moral Agency. The Law of Moses definitely teaches Free Moral Agency in the Book of Deuteronomy, where it says "CHOOSE LIFE" when given the choice between life and death, which Paul was supposed to be a Doctor of the Law, but he regularly misquoted and contradicted the Law of Moses.

                                      Also for the record, Moses and Joshua did NOT write the Torah. the actual author of the Torah is unknown. Moses and Joshua did dictate most of the contents of the Torah, but they authored little or none of the Torah. In fact, the Torah we have today is not even the original Torah. for example, the Book of Kings claims that the original book of Deuteronomy was lost for several decades, and later "discovered" in the Temple and read to the 6 years old king Josiah. It is unclear whether an authentic copy of Deuteronomy was actually rediscovered, or whether one of the Priests claimed to have re-written it from memory, as the Priests and Doctors of the Law were supposed to have the Torah committed to memory verbatim in order to hold office. So while it is possible someone re-wrote the Book of Deuteronomy from memory after the apostacy, it is unlikely they perfectly rewrote the book from memory.

                                      On the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy and the other books of the Torah we have today could in fact be a fraud not co-authored by the real Moses or the real Joshua at all. the Priests and the King could have made up the story and just wrote a book of their own, and claimed it was authored by Moses and Joshua as an "appeal to authority fallacy".

                                      Nevertheless, whoever actually authored the Book of Deuteronomy believed in Fee Moral Agency, because they gave the reader a CHOICE between Life and Death, and then gave the hint, "CHOOSE LIFE".
                                      Last edited by Wade; December 2nd, 2019, 07:35 AM.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post



                                        Whether you're a true believer and consider the revelation of these tenets to be an act of divine providence, or a blasphemous nonbeliever and consider this to be the greatest scam in history; that line (namely, "Thou shalt not kill") had to have come from somewhere. If not from God Himself, then from a particularly clever human being. And the fact that this then-infantile religion struck a chord in so many and went on to become the biggest religion the world has ever known by a wide margin to this very day kinda proves that moral relativism is bullshit. It proves that certain things, such as murder being bad, fall under moral absolutism. Mystery guy, if it was indeed a mystery guy, didn't magically cause a universal paradigm shift. Murder being immoral was something virtually everyone found agreeable already.

                                        Of course, if you're insistent that moral relativism applies here, I guess it's fair to say Hitler was a pretty cool guy. So what that he killed millions of people in the largest systemic ethnic cleansing in history? Murder isn't objectively bad, right? So, then why is genocide? Only difference is scale.
                                        If you're using the ten commandments as proof that murder is objectively wrong, then it would be comparably immoral to not have any gods before Yahweh, or to say his name in vain.

                                        Also, I still don't think you really know what you're arguing against. No one's saying "Well, Hitler sucked but I respect his opinions". I'm saying that everyone has their own individual moral compass (probably modelled on several factors, including religion, family, friends, and their own past actions, among other things), and Cid was saying it was mainly influenced by culture (Like... y'know, the Jews you mentioned. Their religion is so ingrained in their people that it's not only cultural, it's ethnic.).

                                        If 95% of people think "thou shalt not kill" is valid, then fine. It'a a great rule of thumb. But that doesn't mean that there's a gradient from black to white, and you can point to the specific shade of gray that passes between moral and immoral.
                                        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


                                          Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                                          If you're using the ten commandments as proof that murder is objectively wrong, then it would be comparably immoral to not have any gods before Yahweh, or to say his name in vain.

                                          Also, I still don't think you really know what you're arguing against. No one's saying "Well, Hitler sucked but I respect his opinions". I'm saying that everyone has their own individual moral compass (probably modelled on several factors, including religion, family, friends, and their own past actions, among other things), and Cid was saying it was mainly influenced by culture (Like... y'know, the Jews you mentioned. Their religion is so ingrained in their people that it's not only cultural, it's ethnic.).

                                          If 95% of people think "thou shalt not kill" is valid, then fine. It'a a great rule of thumb. But that doesn't mean that there's a gradient from black to white, and you can point to the specific shade of gray that passes between moral and immoral.
                                          That just reinforces my point. God and Jesus consider the First Commandment and "Love God; and love thine neighbor" respectively to be of chief importance, because "Thou shalt not kill" is that obvious.

                                          It's also pretty confounding that you have the gall to insinuate that I'm the befuddled one here when you're the one acting like black-and-white morality doesn't exist. If it didn't exist, Sunday morning villains (and heroes) wouldn't be a thing. And yet, these cardboard cut-outs that try to pass themselves off as characters do exist. The vast majority of the people with "black" morals kill people, whereas the ones with "white" save people. It's almost like one is objectively good and one is objectively bad and no arbitrary deflection to "shades of gray" (which nobody was even talking about) changes that. Which would probably entail something like killing someone in self-defense in the heat of the moment, but that's what's actually subjective; more so moral relativism than an absolutism like cold-blooded murder.
                                          Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; December 2nd, 2019, 02:45 PM.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X