What's the value of human life? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What's the objective value of human life?

1. Human life is special and sacred
7
19%
2. Human life is just expendable meat like any other life
4
11%
3. Human life is meat but we must act as if it is sacred for society to work
12
33%
4. Other
13
36%
#14924478
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Define possessions.


Stuff that is owned by someone.

Otherwise, I am Patriarchal based on my biblical beliefs.

I don't believe in birth control and I affirm that men have absolute authority over their own lands and home so long as they do so in a manner consistent with the Law of God.

I don't believe women are to get an inheritance (except in extreme cases), their primarily role is to care for the home, bear children, and submit to the authority of their husbands. They cannot pursue the ministry and are never to have authority over men unless God intervenes to make it otherwise. I also affirm that women must wear a head covering in the public worship. Children are to obey their parents, the oldest son gets a double portion of the inheritance in return for caring for his parents in old age and will eventually replace his father as the family head or patriarch( i don't believe in social-security type retirements), men are also obligated to protect and provide for their families even if it means sacrificing their own lives and are responsible to God for ensuring that his family and all under his authority worship the One True God. I believe that marriages are to be arranged, and wealth and land are to be kept in the family inasmuch as possible.

Scripture teaches this and I believe it.

Does that answer your question? 8)


No. I was not asking about you, your opinion, your beliefs, your life, or anything about you. I was asking you about how the idea of possessing women and kids affects and influences society and morality.

The Bibilical idea that a child and wife is the possession of the father or husband is significant in the Bible and in the history of Abrahamic religious communities.

To this day, we still have conflicts between this Biblical morality and modern morality, such as honour killings. In the Bible, honour killings are moral because the women and children have ruined their own value snd so the oener has the right to get rid of them. In modern society, honor killings are not moral because we believe in not owning people.

This theme of possession also explains the issue of rape in Deuteronomy. Those verses we looked at were not about rape. Or to put it more correctly, the crime being discussed was not about sex without the woman’s consent. It was about sex without the father or husband’s consent.

This is why the last verse used the word that could mean rape or seduction: because it did not matter if the sex was consensual or not from the woman’s persepctive. The crime was that the possession of the father was ruined, and could no longer be sold, i.e. married off for a price.

To bring this back to the actual topic, we would have to conclude that owning women and children is part of god’s objective morality.

And we would also then conclude that this morality is no longer followed and we are all following some other morlaity that is subjective and changing.

Red Herring. Not relevant to the conversation.

Besides, if you knew so much about the story you wouldn't being such a piss poor job in analyzing the text. You don't even seem to know the order of events or any of the relevant details other than "God destroyed, Lot offered daughters, Lot was saved from city." :lol:


Yes, it is a red herring, which makes me wonder why you keep bringing this up.

I am not going to argue about the fact that this story is often brought up by Christian moralists intent on condemning homosexuality, where Lot is described as a paragon of virtue.

And the reason he is seen as such, despite the fact that he has no problem having his daughters gang raped, is because it is completely fine to give your daughters away as sex objects if you own them.

He was the only "Christian" in town is a better expression. "Good" is poor expression in Christian theology. Scripture teaches that none are righteous and that all are sinners. Those who are believers are no exceptions and though they are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit (albeit progressively) in this life, they still struggle with their own sin nature. Lot was no exception.

Lot was righteous in terms of his beliefs and his overall morality, but he was still a flawed sinner whose errors were only propounded by his bad decision to leave the plains with Abraham and move to Sodom to begin with.


Again, Lot did nothing wrong according to Biblical morality. Offering your possessions to be used (instead of real human beings, i.e. men) is a good thing.

We just do not see it that way because we do not see women and children as possessions.

Ancient Jews back in the day felt it was part of God’s objective morality that we be allowed to dispose of people we owned as we saw fit.

Now, modern Christians and Jews feel it is part of God’s objective morality to defend our spouses and children from gang rape.

Obviously, only one of those can be correct. Or we can agree that morality changes over time.

Scripture does not teach that his actions were just (nor have you given textual or rational support to this absurd claim) or that all of his actions were just, the fact that his incestuous offspring would become enemies of the people of God is itself telling as a narrative description.

Your failure to understand narrative is extreme, when Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent do flawed things in narratives regarding them, no one says what are clearly bad decisions on their part were not bad decisions, but at the same no one would say they can't be the heroes anymore either. Narratives are meant to give realistic descriptions of events from a third-person perspective (primarily) and typically assume moral presuppositions. Genesis was penned by Moses and his audience presumed the authority of the Ten Commandments and the Law as revealed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, thus they knew what parts of the story regarding Lot revealed flaws in Lot's character and justness in Lot's character.

Once again, your attempt to find a contradiction between moral prescript and narrative is grounded in a failure to understand genre, reveals a failure in understanding biblical languages, an ignorance of theology, and an ignorance of historical context, and a basic ignorance of apologetics in general.

Repeating yourself will not make it otherwise. You are just trolling at this point and embarrassing yourself.


Exactly! Jewish audiences at the time would have also seen women and children as posessions, which is why they would have seen Lot as the good guy. Not despite his behaviour towards his daughters, but because of it.

Red Herring.

Likewise, interpretation is not relative, its based on rules regarding language.

Indeed, literary analysis, historical studies, exegesis, etymology, and hermeneutics are all sciences with specific rules.

Thus, when I make an argument, my arguments is to be judged by those standards and the laws of logic.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Literary analysis is an objective science that is not influenced by culture?

Just, no.

Your claim here is as absurd as if I said that your explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity can be dismissed because "that is just your interpretation."

No, thats not how it works. If your explanation is accurate it will comport to the details of the theory in an honest and accurate way given the rules governing the sciences. Its not different with textual analysis. Scripture is no exception in that regard.


While I agree that some people’s interpretations will be better and more accurate than another person’s (because of knowledge and other factors), this idea that interpretation follows clear, objective rules with a level of verifiability and certainty like science is ridiculous.

Sure, because he wanted to destroy the city for their wickedness and their oppression of others.

When God gave his reasons for wanting to destroy the cities to Abraham, Lot was not mentioned, rather he only mentioned their evil ways as his reasoning for doing so.

Your attempt at a silly critique ignores the literary context and shows an ignorance of the actual story.

Here are the facts, from the text, that you are refusing to analyze that utterly refutes your claim:

1. God declared, without consideration of Lot, to destroy those cities because He would not tolerate their evil any longer.

2. God warned Lot's family (which were relatives of Abraham, the chosen one) to get out prior to the sins of Lot you mentioned.

3. Lot sinned in offering his daughters to the vagrants, but did not follow through with it because of the intervention of the angels in blinding the vagrants.

4. Lot's family was punished for their sins in going to Sodom (and his own offering of his daughters) in the following ways:

First, he lost his homes and wealth in the city, none was spared.

Second, he lost his son-in-laws which were his de-facto heirs because they lingered in the city (they didn't believe the warning of God and thought Lot was joking).

Third, his daughters faithlessly slept with him when he was intoxicated which not only was a grievous sin (on his daughters part as well since it was the equivalent of drugging and raping their own dad), but it also shamed his reputation and resulted in an accursed offspring that would live in conflict against the heirs of Abraham.

Fourth, Lot lost his own wife who, due to her longing for that cursed city, was turned to a pillar of salt.

(these aren't in order of events per se)

The man was punished for his sins and he suffered for them; however, unlike his wife, he did not turn back to the city when the messengers of the Lord told him to leave and thus he, by faith, obeyed the Word of Lord and trusted that the city would in fact be destroyed (a pretty remarkable claim by the messengers who came to his home that fateful night).

Lot was punished, he lost any real heirs, his wife, his possessions, etc., and for two main sins: faithlessly moving towards Sodom to begin with, and offering his daughters to vagrants.

He didn't murder anyone, nor were his daughters actually violated by the mob, and yet Lot suffered dearly for his errors nonetheless. I really don't see what your complaint is given the facts in the matter, Lot was punished for what he deserved and his being spared was nothing short of the grace of God.

This is the whole point of the Gospel my friend, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Lot did not deserve to be saved, neither do we.

It seems to be a bit of salty bitterness against religion on your part that is quite uninformed. Too much Bill Mahrer, South Park, and Christopher Hitchens no doubt.


I do not watch any of these people. I know the middle one is a TV show, and the last one is some outspoken atheist, but whatever. I find it amusing that you are so certain about me, and then you end up being wrong. Like the time you thought I was pro gun control.

Except people don't believe everything their parents believe, thus the transmission is not absolute (the decline in Christianity in the west is a case-in-point), and furthermore, this is just descriptive and not prescriptive.

I see no reason why people ought to follow the morality of their parents or be bound to what they learned from them, especially if morality is relative and subjective as you claim.


You are confusing “ought” with “is” here.

No one is claiming that people ought to follow their parents’ morality. I am simply pointing out that they do.

Ah, but that doesn't matter. It does not matter if you "invoked" your presuppositions or not, the issue is whether you have any rational right to make any moral condemnations at all GIVEN the presuppositions you in fact have.

I am asking how you, as a moral relativist, can have any rational basis for critiquing child sex abuse if your operative presupposition (As stated) is that of a relative and subjective morality?

How does moral relativity justify a moral condemnation of someone else's practices? That seems to be a contradiction.


That is because you keep incorrectly assuming that moral relativists are trying to justify their moral condemnation with their moral relativity.

We are not.

We look to other things, such as verifiable harm. Child abuse hurts kids and we know this and can act on it regardless if morality is objective and universal or not.

This is a contradiction.

Rational justification is an objective criteria for evaluation and is thus antithetical to the subjective.

If you morality is "rationally justified" then it is not subjective.

You can't have it both ways.


No, it is not a contradiction.

Moral decisions can be based on verifiable objective facts and subjective beliefs.

I have given examples of this already.

Egoism (self-interest) is not a subjective ethic, it holds that self-interest is an objective criteria for morality. It argues such on the basis that because people act on the basis of their own interest (the objective-observed criteria), therefore people ought to do so (an empirical ethic much like utilitarianism, except egoism emphasizes the individual (and is usually libertarian politically); whereas, utilitarianism emphasizes pleasure-and-pain experience based on the greatest good for the greatest number and in emphasizing the collective (unlike egoism) utilitarians tend to be socialists politically. Both are empirical ethics however, not subjective-relative ethics.

Your ignorance of moral philosophy is also showing.


Self-interest may or may not be objective, but that does not change the fact that it is a reason why many people decide to follow moral rules, and it does not change the fact that these moral rules are subjective.

If you do that then morality is not relative, but based on the belief that harming or causing suffering is wrong.

First, if you claim that because you can empirically observe that sexual abuse causes harm that people ought not to engage in sexual abuse, you have committed a fallacy.

For in that case you have inferred obligation (your moral condemnation) from observation (the empirical analysis of harm). This is the is-ought or naturalistic fallacy.

Second, you have yet to explain why harming or suffering is morally wrong and thus worthy of condemnation. On what basis do you make this claim?

Even if it can be seen by analysis that sexual abuses causes harm that does not mean its wrong. You are assuming that.

Not only is this inconsistent with your claim that morality is relative and subjective (besides being fallacious), it also fails to explain why "harm" is wrong. You must defend this claim and not merely assume it.

If you cannot prove to me that harm is morally wrong, you have no rational justification (right) to make moral condemnations against such activity based on your own presuppositions.

That is, you moral condemnations contradict your own worldview presuppositions every time you make them as far as what you have expressed.


The belief that harming others and causing suffering is wrong is a subjective belief.

Observing how behaviour impacts other people and then modifying that behaviour in order to reflect said impacts is not an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

If I could prove that harming kids by raping them is wrong, then that would require that there is some objective morality that states that. You are asking me to prove my argument by proving yours.

I do not know what that fallacy is called, but it is one.

And I do not have to prove that harm is bad if I want to avoid it or ask others to avoid causing harm to others. I can, instead, assume that since I do not like to be harmed and because we all have instincts to avoid harm, that it would be good to avoid causing harm to others.
#14924512
Pants-of-dog wrote:Stuff that is owned by someone.


How precise. :lol:

The relationship between parents and children and husbands and wives in Scripture is Covenantal (contractual), not Possessive.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was asking you about how the idea of possessing women and kids affects and influences society and morality.


That is not the biblical position, so it is irrelevant, I already stated the biblical position and it is my position.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This theme of possession also explains the issue of rape in Deuteronomy. Those verses we looked at were not about rape. Or to put it more correctly, the crime being discussed was not about sex without the woman’s consent. It was about sex without the father or husband’s consent.

This is why the last verse used the word that could mean rape or seduction: because it did not matter if the sex was consensual or not from the woman’s persepctive. The crime was that the possession of the father was ruined, and could no longer be sold, i.e. married off for a price.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:To bring this back to the actual topic, we would have to conclude that owning women and children is part of god’s objective morality.


If it is, it would be the correct morality by definition.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And we would also then conclude that this morality is no longer followed and we are all following some other morlaity that is subjective and changing.


Obviously.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not watch any of these people. I know the middle one is a TV show, and the last one is some outspoken atheist, but whatever. I find it amusing that you are so certain about me, and then you end up being wrong. Like the time you thought I was pro gun control.


This is not answer to my arguments. Dismissed.

Also, how is arguing that only Leftist women should own guns not a pro gun control position? :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am simply pointing out that they do.


Which has nothing to do with morality as morality is about obligation (the ought), what we observe people doing is quite irrelevant to the question of subjective v objective morality.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Literary analysis is an objective science that is not influenced by culture?

Just, no.


I think you have ACTUAL literary analysis confused post-structuralist literary deconstruction, in which case you would be correct.

Pants-of-dog wrote:While I agree that some people’s interpretations will be better and more accurate than another person’s (because of knowledge and other factors), this idea that interpretation follows clear, objective rules with a level of verifiability and certainty like science is ridiculous.


Hermeneutics as the methodology of interpretation is concerned with problems that arise when dealing with meaningful human actions and the products of such actions, most importantly texts. As a methodological discipline, it offers a toolbox for efficiently treating problems of the interpretation of human actions, texts and other meaningful material.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

Biblical exegesis is a systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage. Ideally, an understanding of the original texts (Greek and Hebrew) is required. In the process of exegesis, a passage must be viewed in its historical and grammatical context with its time/purpose of writing taken into account. This is often accomodated by asking:

Who wrote the text, and who is the intended readership?
What is the context of the text, i.e. how does it fit in the author's larger thought process, purpose, or argument in the chapter and book where it resides?
Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
Why was the text written (e.g. to correct, encourage, or explain, etc.)?
When was the text written?
Distinct from hermeneutics
Sometimes the terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably. However, there is a distinction to be made. Bernard Ramm describes the difference as follows:

"Hermeneutics . . . stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game. . . . The rules are not the game, and the game is meaningless without the rules. Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis, but exegesis is applied hermeneutics."^ [1]^ In this sense, hermeneutics may also be seen as the "method of exegesis."

Further reading
Michael J. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Guide for Students and Ministers. Hendrickson, 2001; rev. and exp. ed., 2009.
Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3rd edition. Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Douglas K. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 4th edition. Westminster John Knox, 2009.
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. Baker Academic, 1996.


https://www.theopedia.com/exegesis

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is because you keep incorrectly assuming that moral relativists are trying to justify their moral condemnation with their moral relativity.


I already explained this.

I am asking you to justify your moral condemnations in light of your presuppositions, it doesn't matter if that it what you do or not, I am analyzing whether you have the rational right to make moral condemnations at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Moral decisions can be based on verifiable objective facts and subjective beliefs.


Then the morality is objective not subjective, and if the objective morality matches what was "thought" to be a subjective belief, then the belief is no longer subjective, but objectively grounded, supported, or proven.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Child abuse hurts kids and we know this and can act on it regardless if morality is objective and universal or not.


But, harm being something bad still needs to be proven, objectively.

Please do so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Self-interest may or may not be objective, but that does not change the fact that it is a reason why many people decide to follow moral rules, and it does not change the fact that these moral rules are subjective.


Actually its entirely relevant, you are failing to distinguish between morality being objective and your "desire" to follow it or not (which is indeed subjective).

You are erroneously conflating the two.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The belief that harming others and causing suffering is wrong is a subjective belief.


Then it is inadmissible as having any substance and is only mere preference, like you enjoying chocolate or the sound of rain.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Observing how behaviour impacts other people and then modifying that behaviour in order to reflect said impacts is not an example of the naturalistic fallacy.


If you say that people ought to do so, or even that you ought to do so (based on such an observing) that would be the fallacy actually.

But if you do so just because you desire to do so without telling others (even yourself) that you ought to do so, then in that case you would be right and no fallacy obtains.

That applies to every moral topic you ever bring up and I will never cease to remind you of it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If I could prove that harming kids by raping them is wrong


So according to your position, you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it? :|

That seems to be the only conclusion your position offers. Please show otherwise, or else concede.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I do not have to prove that harm is bad if I want to avoid it or ask others to avoid causing harm to others. I can, instead, assume that since I do not like to be harmed and because we all have instincts to avoid harm, that it would be good to avoid causing harm to others.


No, this would be the naturalistic fallacy, because if you tell people that they ought not to rape children based merely on your own preferences, the "ought" has no rational justification other than your own preference and has no more "obligating-weight" than if you told someone that they "OUGHT" to eat sushi because you happen to enjoy it.

There is no moral force, you can only suggest to people that they eat like you, and in this case, not rape children like you do. To use the word ought with any seriousness would be fallacious in this case (performative contradiction).

However, if you tell someone that they ought not to harm children because you don't like it and they have instincts like you, your belief that they have instincts like you comes from what source? :eh:

Your observation? ;)

Well then, if you conclude that they ought to do what you do because you observe that they are like you (which is still an assumption regarding their subjective states), you would then be guilty of the naturalistic fallacy all over again.

Thing is Pants, there is no way out of this for you.

If morality is subjective you have no rational right to tell anyone that they "ought" to do anything and your moral opinions have no more weight than your suggestions regarding what color carpet should be or how your car should smell.

If morality is based on observation, its a fallacy, because the inference of obligation cannot be made from observation.

Thus, any time you EVER tell me or anyone on PoFo what they ought to do, the best thing that your opponent could do would be to remind you that you have no rational justification for your ethical claims.

Indeed, if you say that anything "ought" to be the case, EVER, it is automatically a fallacy, for if you stand by morality being subjective and relative that means you are guilty of a performative contradiction in trying to bind others to your own preference (which is de facto non-obligatory outside of yourself), and if you say that someone ought to do something because of "harm" or anything else observed (whether in yourself or others), you are automatically guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.

Thus, you have no rational basis for any moral condemnations or "ought" statements whatsoever for your claims are fallacious not matter what you do.

The most you can say without fallacy is that "I do not suggest you do X, because I personally do not prefer to do X."

Great morality there.

Actually, its no morality at all.
#14924533
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How precise. :lol:

The relationship between parents and children and husbands and wives in Scripture is Covenantal (contractual), not Possessive.

That is not the biblical position, so it is irrelevant, I already stated the biblical position and it is my position.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

If it is, it would be the correct morality by definition.


    Wifebeating in Rabbinic Literature
    In biblical times, acts of sexual assault and abuse against women were of concern to the degree that they violated male property rights. The Bible delineated the marriage relationship by calling the husband ba’al which implies both ownership and lordship (Ex. 21:28). Thus, for example,if a wife is physically harmed by someone, compensation is paid to her husband. The husband is not only the owner of his wife, he is also the owner of her pregnancy (Ex. 21:22). If a man’s “property rights” are violated, he is entitled to compensation

    In Mishnaic and Talmudic literature there is no reference to battered women as a class, and the Talmud does not discuss wifebeating as a distinct category of corporeal damage. The one major allusion to wife beating in the Talmud is couched in a discussion about the unlearned lower class, the am ha-aretz (lit. “people of the land”). “It was taught, R. Meir used to say: Whoever marries his daughter to an am ha-aretzis as though he bound and laid her before a lion: just as a lion tears [his prey] and devours it and has no shame, so an am ha-aretz strikes [hits/beats] and cohabits and has no shame”(B. Pesahim 49b).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ewish-law/

It is, however, obvious to anyone who reads the Bible.

Obviously.


Yes, history does show us that morality changes through time, and reflects things like marerial conditions and technology.

This would be evidence for morality being subjective.

And we still have no evidence for an objective morality.

This is not answer to my arguments. Dismissed.

Also, how is arguing that only Leftist women should own guns not a pro gun control position? :lol:


I am not interested in your interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

That whole thing you wrote did not address the arguments I made.

I just found your habit of incorrectly assuming my position to be amusing.

Which has nothing to do with morality as morality is about obligation (the ought), what we observe people doing is quite irrelevant to the question of subjective v objective morality.


No, we do not dismiss actual facts about morality just because you are scared to discuss anything other than your personal theology and its supporting logic.

It is an actual fact that morality is passed onto children from parents.

I think you have ACTUAL literary analysis confused post-structuralist literary deconstruction, in which case you would be correct.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

https://www.theopedia.com/exegesis


This thing where you ignore the argument and accuse the other person of being uneducated or stupid is not an argument.

It is a way of ducking out of an argument.

I already explained this.

I am asking you to justify your moral condemnations in light of your presuppositions, it doesn't matter if that it what you do or not, I am analyzing whether you have the rational right to make moral condemnations at all.


Why do I have to make moral condemnations from a given set of presuppositions in order for me to have a rational right?

If someone was assaulting your child and I stooped them, would it be wrong if I did it out of instinct and not because of presuppositions?

Then the morality is objective not subjective, and if the objective morality matches what was "thought" to be a subjective belief, then the belief is no longer subjective, but objectively grounded, supported, or proven.

But, harm being something bad still needs to be proven, objectively.

Please do so.

Actually its entirely relevant, you are failing to distinguish between morality being objective and your "desire" to follow it or not (which is indeed subjective).

You are erroneously conflating the two.

Then it is inadmissible as having any substance and is only mere preference, like you enjoying chocolate or the sound of rain.

If you say that people ought to do so, or even that you ought to do so (based on such an observing) that would be the fallacy actually.

But if you do so just because you desire to do so without telling others (even yourself) that you ought to do so, then in that case you would be right and no fallacy obtains.

That applies to every moral topic you ever bring up and I will never cease to remind you of it.


So according to your position, you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it? :|

That seems to be the only conclusion your position offers. Please show otherwise, or else concede.

No, this would be the naturalistic fallacy, because if you tell people that they ought not to rape children based merely on your own preferences, the "ought" has no rational justification other than your own preference and has no more "obligating-weight" than if you told someone that they "OUGHT" to eat sushi because you happen to enjoy it.

There is no moral force, you can only suggest to people that they eat like you, and in this case, not rape children like you do. To use the word ought with any seriousness would be fallacious in this case (performative contradiction).

However, if you tell someone that they ought not to harm children because you don't like it and they have instincts like you, your belief that they have instincts like you comes from what source? :eh:

Your observation? ;)

Well then, if you conclude that they ought to do what you do because you observe that they are like you (which is still an assumption regarding their subjective states), you would then be guilty of the naturalistic fallacy all over again.

Thing is Pants, there is no way out of this for you.

If morality is subjective you have no rational right to tell anyone that they "ought" to do anything and your moral opinions have no more weight than your suggestions regarding what color carpet should be or how your car should smell.

If morality is based on observation, its a fallacy, because the inference of obligation cannot be made from observation.

Thus, any time you EVER tell me or anyone on PoFo what they ought to do, the best thing that your opponent could do would be to remind you that you have no rational justification for your ethical claims.

Indeed, if you say that anything "ought" to be the case, EVER, it is automatically a fallacy, for if you stand by morality being subjective and relative that means you are guilty of a performative contradiction in trying to bind others to your own preference (which is de facto non-obligatory outside of yourself), and if you say that someone ought to do something because of "harm" or anything else observed (whether in yourself or others), you are automatically guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.

Thus, you have no rational basis for any moral condemnations or "ought" statements whatsoever for your claims are fallacious not matter what you do.

The most you can say without fallacy is that "I do not suggest you do X, because I personally do not prefer to do X."

Great morality there.

Actually, its no morality at all.


You make a lot of incorrect assumptions.

Let us start with the first one I already asked:

If someone was assaulting your child and I stooped them, would it be wrong if I did it out of instinct and not because of presuppositions?
#14924543
Pants-of-dog wrote:Wifebeating in Rabbinic Literature
In biblical times, acts of sexual assault and abuse against women were of concern to the degree that they violated male property rights. The Bible delineated the marriage relationship by calling the husband ba’al which implies both ownership and lordship (Ex. 21:28). Thus, for example,if a wife is physically harmed by someone, compensation is paid to her husband. The husband is not only the owner of his wife, he is also the owner of her pregnancy (Ex. 21:22). If a man’s “property rights” are violated, he is entitled to compensation

In Mishnaic and Talmudic literature there is no reference to battered women as a class, and the Talmud does not discuss wifebeating as a distinct category of corporeal damage. The one major allusion to wife beating in the Talmud is couched in a discussion about the unlearned lower class, the am ha-aretz (lit. “people of the land”). “It was taught, R. Meir used to say: Whoever marries his daughter to an am ha-aretzis as though he bound and laid her before a lion: just as a lion tears [his prey] and devours it and has no shame, so an am ha-aretz strikes [hits/beats] and cohabits and has no shame”(B. Pesahim 49b).


There is no law supporting wife-beating in Holy Scripture and you citing Jewish extra-biblical literature as your only evidence amounts to a concession.

There is no evidence that women and children are merely possessions in Scripture. They belong to men inasmuch as they are bound to his authority via a covenant obligation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, history does show us that morality changes through time, and reflects things like marerial conditions and technology.

This would be evidence for morality being subjective.


Non-Sequitur.

People choosing to follow different systems of morality over time is not evidence that morality is subjective.

It only shows that people choose to follow different systems over time. :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I just found your habit of incorrectly assuming my position to be amusing.


I find you ignorance of Scripture to be amusing.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, we do not dismiss actual facts about morality just because you are scared to discuss anything other than your personal theology and its supporting logic.


Except what you wrote has nothing to do with morality, just an observation about parents teaching their kids stuff.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This thing where you ignore the argument and accuse the other person of being uneducated or stupid is not an argument.


I didn't accuse you of being uneducated and stupid, I demonstrated that you were. There is a difference.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do I have to make moral condemnations from a given set of presuppositions in order for me to have a rational right?

If someone was assaulting your child and I stooped them, would it be wrong if I did it out of instinct and not because of presuppositions?


What you do has nothing to do with morality or your presuppositions. People act inconsistently with their own worldview all of the time.

For instance, you say things are wrong all the time (like the oppression of minorities), but you believe that morality is relative and subjective.

Hence, you have no rational right or justification to say anything is wrong or that anybody ought to do anything.

Every time you do you are committing a performative contradiction. It is irrational behavior.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If someone was assaulting your child and I stooped them, would it be wrong if I did it out of instinct and not because of presuppositions?


We are not talking about my morality, we are talking about yours.

If you acted merely on instinct (your claim) you did nothing right or wrong anymore than if a spider tried to protect its egg sack from the bottom of my boot.

1. This does not give you a rational justification to say that anything is right or wrong.

2. This does not give you a rational justification to tell anyone else what they ought or ought not to do.

3. This does not even give you rational justification to obligate yourself to any action.

4. What this proves is that you do involuntary actions no more significant than an amoeba.

Once again:

you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it.

To claim otherwise is one of two fallacies (performative contradiction or the naturalistic fallacy).

Prove me wrong.
#14924664
Victoribus Spolia wrote:There is no law supporting wife-beating in Holy Scripture and you citing Jewish extra-biblical literature as your only evidence amounts to a concession.

There is no evidence that women and children are merely possessions in Scripture. They belong to men inasmuch as they are bound to his authority via a covenant obligation.

Non-Sequitur.

People choosing to follow different systems of morality over time is not evidence that morality is subjective.

It only shows that people choose to follow different systems over time. :eh:

I find you ignorance of Scripture to be amusing.

Except what you wrote has nothing to do with morality, just an observation about parents teaching their kids stuff.

I didn't accuse you of being uneducated and stupid, I demonstrated that you were. There is a difference.

What you do has nothing to do with morality or your presuppositions. People act inconsistently with their own worldview all of the time.

For instance, you say things are wrong all the time (like the oppression of minorities), but you believe that morality is relative and subjective.

Hence, you have no rational right or justification to say anything is wrong or that anybody ought to do anything.

Every time you do you are committing a performative contradiction. It is irrational behavior.

We are not talking about my morality, we are talking about yours.

If you acted merely on instinct (your claim) you did nothing right or wrong anymore than if a spider tried to protect its egg sack from the bottom of my boot.

1. This does not give you a rational justification to say that anything is right or wrong.

2. This does not give you a rational justification to tell anyone else what they ought or ought not to do.

3. This does not even give you rational justification to obligate yourself to any action.

4. What this proves is that you do involuntary actions no more significant than an amoeba.

Once again:

you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it.

To claim otherwise is one of two fallacies (performative contradiction or the naturalistic fallacy).

Prove me wrong.


The laws we already discussed clearly show that women and children are considered possessions. Now, they are not.

This is an example of morality changing over time. And this is a classic example of descriptive moral relativism, which is the simple fact that different people have different moralities.

And people have had different moralities over time because of differing cultural and material conditions. The fact that people react to these societal changes and then change their morality to address these changes indicates that morality is created by humans as we change and society changes. And if morality changes because we change, it is subjective.

Even people who grow up in the same community can have different moralities, and this is because they have different parents. A recent study showed that parents who have more developed sense of justice and fairness have kids who are better at appraising and appreciating positive social behaviours. This difference in reaction for certain kids happens so early in life that the researchers are not sure if it is genetic and they inherit this stronger sense of justice and fairness or if it is something we learn at a very early age. If it is genetic, then morality requires a human brain in order to exist; the very definition of subjective. If it is learnt, then we each learn different things.

I get the feeling that it is both genetic and learnt. Since morality is evolved, there is obviously some genetic component to it. The existence of moral behaviour is seen in social mammals, and it would be impossible to argue that this morality comes from primate or canine culture. I guess you could argue that this animal morality comes from God, but I doubt it would be considered orthodox. So it must be at least partly instinctive. It is not as if dogs and apes are sitting there thinking about and discussing moral issues.

Now, as animals get more complex, their morality does as well.

There have been several instances of children falling into ape enclosures at zoos and being protected and cared for by one of the apes.

Now, none of the ape species have instincts to protect and care for human children. Nor, presumably, do they get this behaviour from god. Something more complex is happening. And we only see this complex moral behaviour in social mammals who have self-reflection and consciousness.

We only see morality in beings with minds.

Morality is apparently dependent on minds.

Which makes it subjective.
#14924732
Pants-of-dog wrote:The laws we already discussed clearly show that women and children are considered possessions.


Please provide evidence for this claim, thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is an example of morality changing over time. And this is a classic example of descriptive moral relativism, which is the simple fact that different people have different moralities.


Non-Sequitur (again), people changing their views as to what they believe is right and wrong is not a proof that their changing views ARE right or wrong, that conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Furthermore, under that argument, if people changed their position to support raping children, then that would prove that they were right simply in virtue of them believing it. Is that what you are implying? :eh:

Likewise, everyone agrees that people have changed their views over time, but to assume your position in the analysis of that data is also a fallacy (begging the question), for the debate is whether or not these people are the source of their own morality (relativism/subjectivism) or whether or not morality is distinct from them (objective).

That people have increasingly departed from a biblical (objective) morality, only shows that people are increasingly degenerate but posting that trend as proof of my position assumes that which has to be proven (this works both ways, which is why you are guilty of that fallacy).

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that people react to these societal changes and then change their morality to address these changes indicates that morality is created by humans as we change and society changes. And if morality changes because we change, it is subjective.


No, it could just mean they refuse to follow what is actually right because they have become increasingly degenerate and wicked. You are assuming that which has to be proven and your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

Likewise you are committing the fallacy of equivocation for you are conflating moral imperative (what we ought to do), with what we will do or are doing.

You cannot infer from an imperative the power to abide by it. You are arguing that if morality were objective people would be doing it, but nothing about obligation implies that people WILL DO IT.

Hence, that people have changed their beliefs and practices has no bearing on the question of whether that morality is objective or not.

Please use logic. :knife:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Even people who grow up in the same community can have different moralities, and this is because they have different parents. A recent study showed that parents who have more developed sense of justice and fairness have kids who are better at appraising and appreciating positive social behaviours. This difference in reaction for certain kids happens so early in life that the researchers are not sure if it is genetic and they inherit this stronger sense of justice and fairness or if it is something we learn at a very early age. If it is genetic, then morality requires a human brain in order to exist; the very definition of subjective. If it is learnt, then we each learn different things.

I get the feeling that it is both genetic and learnt. Since morality is evolved, there is obviously some genetic component to it. The existence of moral behaviour is seen in social mammals, and it would be impossible to argue that this morality comes from primate or canine culture. I guess you could argue that this animal morality comes from God, but I doubt it would be considered orthodox. So it must be at least partly instinctive. It is not as if dogs and apes are sitting there thinking about and discussing moral issues.

Now, as animals get more complex, their morality does as well.

There have been several instances of children falling into ape enclosures at zoos and being protected and cared for by one of the apes.

Now, none of the ape species have instincts to protect and care for human children. Nor, presumably, do they get this behaviour from god. Something more complex is happening. And we only see this complex moral behaviour in social mammals who have self-reflection and consciousness.


Your silly opinions are irrelevant. Also, there is nothing in man caused by genetics or brains. Brains, DNA, and all other such are merely percepts, they have nothing to do with thought or morality. To assume a causal relationship between them and actual thought and morality is also fallacious (cum hoc ergo propter hoc/ post hoc ergo propter hoc).

Likewise, this would all be a mere description of biological behavior anyway, it has nothing to do with morality which is about obligation (the ought).

Remember, we are discussing what one ought to do, and for the rational justification behind this.

if you insist on your instinct line, we are back to the same place which is what you are currently refusing to address, which is, if your "moral" actions are merely instinct then the conclusion is still that:

1. This does not give you a rational justification to say that anything is right or wrong.

2. This does not give you a rational justification to tell anyone else what they ought or ought not to do.

3. This does not even give you rational justification to obligate yourself to any action.

4. Any "instinctive acts" you do as involuntary actions are no more morally significant than the machinations of an amoeba.

Thus,

you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it.

To claim otherwise is one of two fallacies (performative contradiction or the naturalistic fallacy).

Prove me wrong. (Please actually try to do so and quit evading).

Pants-of-dog wrote:We only see morality in beings with minds.

Morality is apparently dependent on minds.

Which makes it subjective.


You equated brains and minds, which is a fallacy (cum hoc).

You claim to know that there are other minds other than yourself (please provide evidence for this claim).

Technically, God is a Mind and His existence as such serves as the basis of an objective morality in theism and moral philosophy; thus, it does not follow that morality being noetic has anything to do with morality being relativist or subjective (mere preference for yourself only). That does not follow (non-sequitur).

I must admit, these are a lot of fallacies, even for you.

Its some of the worst reasoning I have ever seen.

But that is the point, as Nietszche pointed out, there is no foundation for morality without Theism. In a world where "God is Dead," man needs to make his own morality, but lacking any authority for an objective morality, obligation can only come from the force (albeit fallacious force, ad baculum) to compel action, from the Übermensch (@Potemkin, and @SolarCross, have already pointed this out).

The issue of moral philosophy remains this: There is NO rational basis for morality without the existence of God.

This proposition has yet to be refuted.
#14924736
@Victoribus Spolia
What is the logical reasoning behind creating ‘objective morality’ from ‘God’s subjective morality’. He is one entity therefore by definition can only be subjective.

Also, is it not simply an assumption ‘objective’ is superior to ‘subjective’? We obviously know one individual often proves the facts wrong.
Last edited by One Degree on 15 Jun 2018 15:25, edited 1 time in total.
#14924739
One Degree wrote:What is the logical reasoning behind creating ‘objective morality’ from ‘God’s subjective morality’. He is one entity therefore by your own definition can only be subjective.


It would only remain subjective if His morality were kept to Himself.

The difference is, in traditional Theism, the morality He determined was imposed upon other minds with the real threat of force for disobedience and reward for obedience.

His attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence make his ability to both impose and obligate both universal and absolute (hence objective).

My point in bringing this up against POD was only to demonstrate the non-sequitur involved in claiming that in a "universe" where only minds and mental content exist, morality must necessarily be subjective; however this is not true either rationally (the conclusion simply doesn't follow), or in regards to how philosophers have historically understood this issue including those who were opposed to Theism (like David Hume and Frederick Nietzsche).

Now, if ONLY your own mind exists (solipsism) then morality would have to be subjective, but that is not true of Idealism (the positions that only minds exists, but there are multiple minds).

But like I said in earlier posts, if morality is subjective, it is misnomer to call it morality at all, as morality is the force of obligation and preference does not meet that criteria which is what a subjective morality actually is.
#14924751
@Victoribus Spolia

You seem to have forgotten my request for evidence of an objective morality.

So far, you have produced none.

There might be an objective morality, but in actual fact, we are all following subjective ones.

So, at best, we see that there are several moralities, and all but one of them is subjective. If the objetcive one even exists.
#14924756
@Pants-of-dog,

You seem to have forgotten my requests to justify your moral views and actions.

My presupposing of an objective morality rationally justifies my moral condemnations.

You have no such justification without fallacy.

thus the following is true and you have refused to (because you cannot) show otherwise,

you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it.

Sad.

This is what a secular morality looks like when it is consistent. Otherwise it just stealing ideas from objective moralities, especially Christianity, which it has no right to do.
#14924758
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Pants-of-dog,

You seem to have forgotten my requests to justify your moral views and actions.

My presupposing of an objective morality rationally justifies my moral condemnations.

You have no such justification without fallacy.

thus the following is true and you have refused to (because you cannot) show otherwise,

you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it.

Sad.

This is what a secular morality looks like when it is consistent. Otherwise it just stealing ideas from objective moralities, especially Christianity, which it has no right to do.


I asked you for that evidence long before you akse for this,

You often refuse to provide information until I have answered a question. Now it is your turn.

Thank you for the forthcoming evidence.
#14924760
Pants-of-dog wrote:I asked you for that evidence long before you akse for this,

You often refuse to provide information until I have answered a question. Now it is your turn.

Thank you for the forthcoming evidence.


No, I asked you to justify you moral system long before you specifically asked for an objective morality.

IT is actually your turn.

Thank you for the forthcoming evidence.
#14924773
Actually I asked you WAY back here:

08 Jun 2018 13:45


Victoribus Spolia wrote:If value is subjective, as you claim to believe, why should anyone care?

After all, if the value of human life is arbitrary individual opinion, then your opinion over this event is dismissible as mere sentiment.

By what standard do you make this critique?


viewtopic.php?f=44&t=173760&start=80#p14922608

However, if you want an example of an Objective Morality, my contraception argument that you have failed to refute or reengage on by my challenge is one such example of many, for it is a logical argument (universal-objective) not a subjective appeal, and since it is not based on observation, it does not fall under the naturalistic fallacy.
#14924779
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually I asked you WAY back here:

08 Jun 2018 13:45


No, there you are asking about God’s genocide of innocents.

This is different from your demand for an objective morality or other rationale to support my moral condemnations.

However, if you want an example of an Objective Morality, my contraception argument that you have failed to refute or reengage on by my challenge is one such example of many, for it is a logical argument (universal-objective) not a subjective appeal, and since it is not based on observation, it does not fall under the naturalistic fallacy.


No, that is not evidence. It is just another exercise in logic with no empirical basis. In fact, it requires you to ignore basic biology.

Evidence is some sort of empirical verification of an objective morality.

Please present said evidence, and then I will answer your question again.
#14924780
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, there you are asking about God’s genocide of innocents.

This is different from your demand for an objective morality or other rationale to support my moral condemnations.


I quoted what I asked you, I asked you to justify your moral critiques in light of your presuppositions. EVERY question I asked you has been a reiteration of that same question and you have refused every time because you have no answer because you have no rational morality.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, that is not evidence. It is just another exercise in logic with no empirical basis. In fact, it requires you to ignore basic biology.


Any morality that is "empirically-based" is fallacious by definition (that is what the naturalistic fallacy is ABOUT), so of course not.

An objective morality CAN ONLY be established by logic.

You ignorance of ethics and moral philosophy is showing again.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Evidence is some sort of empirical verification of an objective morality.


That is a contradiction. Empirical verification cannot be morality, which was the point of Hume's critique of ethical systems derived from observation or science, they are no moralities at all as they rely on a fallacious inference.

You are asking for me to commit an error by definition.

If you want me to prove that morality is objective, it can only be done by logic.

That you are incompetent and ill-equipped to have such a debate, is not my concern.
#14924784
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. That was my point.


Your point was that it's rational for us to pretend we're more than just meat sacks even if that's really all we are. Did you forget your point?

It's not irrational in the sense that it is purposeful activity directed towards a defined end - acquiring wealth, power and status. It only looks irrational if you recognise that these ends will not bring true happiness.


It's irrational if we have good reason to think those ends won't result in happiness, and we do have very good reason to think that.

Though people who seek out and acquire wealth, power or status will claim that these things do make them happy. Maybe they're right. Lol.


They're not. I don't doubt that it does give them some form of gratification, but they would be much better off as people if they dedicated their lives to a noble purpose and worked to develop a virtuous character.


Our essence as human beings is not objectively real. It is the way in which we experience our own humanity, which is not reducible to material objects, wealth, fame, power or status and the like. As I said, objectively speaking we are just lumps of meat that walk around and talk. Everything else, more or less, is just make-believe.


So you claim, but subjective awareness is an objective fact of reality. Self-aware beings do exist and they do experience meaning/significance/value. Claiming those experiences aren't "real" because they can't be physically measured, or because inanimate stuff like water molecules and pocket lint don't share them, is just dumb. Those mental states are just as much a part of reality as the ground we stand on, they're as real as anything. They're not fictions or "make-believe", they're what make life worth living. If all you've ever experienced is make-believe friendship, make-believe beauty, and make-believe truth, then you're one sad, sorry son of a bitch.


Is the 'meaning' of a sunset objectively real? Can you measure it? Can you describe the physical attributes of this 'meaning'? :eh:

Meaning exists inside our minds and nowhere else. Imagine a world without any human beings in it. The sun would continue to rise every morning. Would that sunrise have any meaning? Would it have any beauty? Clearly not. Then how is 'meaning' or 'beauty' objectively real?


It's not mind independent but it is an objective fact of reality that it exists. Somehow you got it in your mind that only the physical is "real", that's extreme philosophical naivete to say the least.


It can't. But human beings can be alienated from themselves, and can suffer as a consequence.


So human beings are just meat with a make-believe essence but 'just meat' can be alienated from its make-believe humanity if it doesn't pretend it's more than just meat. Yeah, that's real coherent. :knife:


Define 'best'.


We actually do have a pretty good idea of what is objectively best for us as human beings. The social sciences, philosophy, religion have all been studying well-being and human flourishing for ages and we now know quite a bit about what is and isn't beneficial to our psychological and social health.

Is it accumulating as many material possessions as possible? Is it acquiring as much power over others as possible? Or is it something else, something which cannot be measured and which has no objective material value? :eh:


There is no value of any kind without consciousness, objective or otherwise. There are definite facts about what is best for us as human beings and if we're rational we value what's best for us.

That one-sided rationality alienates us from our own humanity? To me, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. :)


Except that's not even close to what you said. Walking back your ridiculous nonsense is fine but don't pretend you weren't talking a whole pile of incoherent shit and I'm the one that's confused.

mikema63 wrote:Just want to weigh in on the @Potemkin and @Sivad part of the thread to say I'm pretty attracted to potes position.


Great minds think alike. :lol:
#14924788
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I quoted what I asked you, I asked you to justify your moral critiques in light of your presuppositions. EVERY question I asked you has been a reiteration of that same question and you have refused every time because you have no answer because you have no rational morality.


If you look at the context of my previous post and the next one, it is clear we are discussing god’s immorality.

The fact that your other question is similar does not change the fact tht theynare two separate questions.

Any morality that is "empirically-based" is fallacious by definition (that is what the naturalistic fallacy is ABOUT), so of course not.

An objective morality CAN ONLY be established by logic.

You ignorance of ethics and moral philosophy is showing again.


No, it is not a naturalistic fallacy if there is evidence. It is only a naturalistic fallacy if we assume we ought to do what is. Since this assumption is not being made, it is not a naturalistic fallacy.

That is a contradiction. Empirical verification cannot be morality, which was the point of Hume's critique of ethical systems derived from observation or science, they are no moralities at all as they rely on a fallacious inference.

You are asking for me to commit an error by definition.

If you want me to prove that morality is objective, it can only be done by logic.

That you are incompetent and ill-equipped to have such a debate, is not my concern.


It is perfectly correct to say “there is no evidence for an objective morality”.

Please note that I am not saying that empirical verification is morality. I have no idea where you got that, but since I am so eqsily misunderstood by you, I guess I heed to clarify these things from now on.

I am instead saying that there is no empirical verification for an objective morality.

And I agree with Hume that science deals,with facts and morality deals with values and that they are two separate things. You seem to be saying that objective morality is a fact. If it were a fact, we could actually expect some manner of empirical verification.

There is evidence, however, of subjective moralities. Even a cursory glance at history or the modern world shows that there are many moral systems, and all of them differ according to culture, custom, history, religion, etc.
#14924819
Pants-of-dog wrote:
It is perfectly correct to say “there is no evidence for an objective morality”.


No it isn't, not if we ground morality in rationality. Morality isn't subjective in the sense that it's something we invent, it is mind dependent but it's not a matter of opinion. Morality is something we discover through rational inquiry and empirical investigation.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 18

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]