[Victoribus Spolia]

My argument is much more simpler than that btw. It is quite simple actually. Morality is the principle of right or wrong. So is an opinion. For something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone. So for God's law to be objective, everyone must agree with it or it is opinion whether to it has any principle to it. The acceptance of God is not absolute. So his law has to be subjective.

Morality is obligation, and opinion cannot be obligating as its nothing more than preference.

Hence your definition of morality is guilty of the equivocation fallacy when attacking my position.

Lets break this down further.

Morality is the principle of right or wrong.

So is an opinion.

No, Morality is obligation, what one ought to do.

What is right is what one ought to do, what is wrong is what one ought-not to do.

This is the opposite of opinion, opinions have no authority of obligation and can't rationally make such a claim.

Unless you are willing to admit that "killing 6 million jews is wrong" is equally an opinion as "I like chocolate ice cream."

This definition of yours (besides being patently absurd) is neither my definition (equivocation), nor is it the historic definition used in moral philosophy (novel), indeed, the very claim that: Morals are Opinions, is something that needs to be argued and proven.

Once again though, you have been claiming to "critique my view", but I clearly reject your definition of morals (in fact most moral philosophers would), so to impute it to my argument is the fallacy of equivocation.

For something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone.

No, that is not the definition of objectivity, nor have I ever heard that definition used before. If that were the case you could not say that the earth being round was objectively true because it is not adhered/accepted by everyone.

Is that the case?

If you apply this to morality, you would have no rational basis to say that killing black people for being black was objectively wrong, only subjective opinion, because it is not adhered to/accepted by everyone.

So you don't think killing black people because they are black is objectively wrong, and is just a subjective opinion?

So for God's law to be objective, everyone must agree with it or it is opinion whether to it has any principle to it. The acceptance of God is not absolute. So his law has to be subjective.

So raping small children is not objectively wrong, just subjective opinion then?

According to your own criteria, this would be the conclusion.

In any event, it appears I gave you too much credit in my last post!

Your argument is actually much worse.

Be sure to answer those questions I asked, I want to watch you squirm while I crush you under the weight of your own shitty argument.

[B0ycey]

Del

[B0ycey]

You're making up definitions again VS.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You're making up definitions again VS.

Nope.

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

which is the basis of the naturalistic fallacy and issues in moral philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Hence, morals are not merely principles equivalent with opinions, they are ought-statements. Like I said.

Also, on Objectivity in regards to truth (and therefore the validity of moral statements):

A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Hence, your definition of objectivity is not consistent with the philosophical sense i used, which is NOT dependent on consensus (contra your claim).

Thus, my definitions are consistent with philosophy, and yours are not.

So I am clearly NOT making up definitions.

So let me ask you, where did you get yours?

HOWEVER,

I am willing to work with the definitions YOU GAVE, and we'll leave it up for everyone to see on POFO who exactly is being fair. Let me simply ask you questions based on your own terms as given.

So, given this statement of yours:

Morality is the principle of right or wrong. So is an opinion. For something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone.

1. If morality (principles of right and wrong) is opinion, Then how can you determine "having sex with children is good" is any less or more of an opinion than "I like chocolate cake"? How are they not the same thing and equally valid if they are both opinions (according to YOUR definitions)?

2. If for something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone, then wouldn't follow that the earth being round cannot be objectively true because that truth is not adhered to/accepted by everyone?

3. Wouldn't it be true that the statement: "exterminating black people is wrong" is merely a subjective (opinion) according to your position as the moral view is not accepted/adhered to by everyone (according to your own definitions)?

[Victoribus Spolia]

delete.

[B0ycey]

I will entertain you for a little longer VS - until I get bored of your ignorance of course. I am not here to educate you or convince you after all. Just highlight your errors to anyone who cares.

And where is Potemkin anyway? He was the one who gave a shit about your opinion enough to agree to debate you to begin with?

1. If morality (principles of right and wrong) is opinion, Then how can you determine "having sex with children is good" is any less or more of an opinion than "I like chocolate cake"? How are they not the same thing and equally valid if they are both opinions (according to YOUR definitions)?

Because many people share the same morality, so such things usually have a majority in opinion. Although as it is a principle, morality does not have a consensus even on this. Child brides are fair game to some cultures for example. Is that right or wrong? Depends on who you ask and where they are from. And that doesn't even highlight a divisive morality subject like abortions. Again, whether this is right or wrong depends on your principles on the subject.

2. If for something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone, then wouldn't follow that the earth being round cannot be objectively true because that truth is not adhered to/accepted by everyone?

Ask your wife on this one. Are you saying the world is round here?

Unless you can prove God exists, his existence is not accepted by everyone. As that is the case, not everyone adheres or accepts God law and it is opinion whether they accept it or not in regards to their faith.

3. Wouldn't it be true that the statement: "exterminating black people is wrong" is merely a subjective (opinion) according to your position as the moral view is not accepted/adhered to by everyone (according to your own definitions)?

Morality is just a concept VS. It is a human invention. Or it has no basis on nature anyway. To my morality it is wrong to exterminate black people. But to the KKK, their morality is opposite to mine as their principles are different to mine. So for them it is OK. And this proves once and for all that morality is indeed subjective.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Because many people share the same morality, so such things usually have a majority in opinion. Although as it is a principle, morality does not have a concesus even on this. Child brides are fair game to some cultures. Is that right or wrong? Depends on who you ask and where they are from. And that doesn't even highlight a divisive morality subject like abortions. Again, whether this is right or wrong depends on your principles on the subject.

That wasn't an answer to my question though, I want a simple answer to a simple question.

If morals are but opinions, than you would agree that the statement "having sex with children is good" is not actually wrong as an absolute, but its only an opinion.

Yes or No?

Ask your wife on this one. Are you saying the world is round here?

Unless you can prove God exists, his existence is not accepted by everyone. As that is the case, not everyone adheres or accepts God law and it is opinion whether they accept it or not in regards to their faith.

Red Herrings. That didn't answer my question and this has nothing to do with my wife's opinions or even my opinions on the questions of heliocentrism, we are discussing the implications of your claims regarding consensus.

I asked a simple question and would like a simple answer please.

If for something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone, then wouldn't it follow that the earth being round cannot be objectively true because that truth is not adhered to/accepted by everyone?

Yes or No?

Morality is just a concept VS. It is a human invention. Or has no basis in nature anyway. To my morality it is wrong to exterminate black people. But to the KKK, their morality is opposite to mine as their principle are different to mine. So for them it is OK. And this prove once and for all that morality is indeed subjective.

Yes, we are discussing YOUR ideas, and YOUR Definitions, which are not philosophical and have other problems (that I have addressed elsewhere), I am only indulging you because its demonstrating how silly and sad your position is and I will be sure to nail you to the wall with it every time I catch you condemning some moral acts as if any of us should care about your opinions any more than you telling us we should enjoy the same types of sweets as you do, because according to your system, they are no different.

I asked a simple questions and I would like a simple answer please.

If 100% consent is the grounds of morality being objective, then isn't it true according to your position that genociding the entire African race is not objectively wrong (because it just an opinion)?

Yes or No?

Let me add another.

If 100% of the world's population believed raping and murdering 3 year old children was moral, and if a 100% consensus makes an act objectively moral (according to your views), then wouldn't you have to say that raping and murdering 3 year old children is moral if everyone agrees that it is?

This is also a simple question, given YOUR views:

Yes or No?

Morality is just a concept VS. It is a human invention.

Not true, I already demonstrated this in my proof on this thread and we are seeing above what your position actually implies: insanity and evil.

Likewise, I have already show that your definitions are unphilosophical and that if followed lead to several serious fallacies, this exercise above is not because I accept you definitions (in fact I already refuted them), I am only showing everyone on PoFo what you views actually imply. I want this to be public record. It gives me pleasure to show what bad ideas leads to.

Feel free to challenge my first debate post which proves the existence of an objective morality.

Unless you can prove God exists

I have done so in the other thread, feel free to challenge it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am not here to educate you or convince you after all. Just highlight your errors to anyone who cares.

And where is Potemkin anyway? He was the one who gave a shit about your opinion enough to agree to debate you to begin with?

@SolarCross thinks he won't show because I out class him.

If that is what he thinks, I wonder what @SolarCross thinks of our match up?

Of course, I think @Potemkin is great match-up for me because I have seen his knowledge on display before. But whether he honors his acceptance of my challenge, is an entirely different matter.

[B0ycey]

Del

[B0ycey]

If morals are but opinions, than you would agree that the statement "having sex with children is good" is not actually wrong as an absolute, but its only an opinion.

Yes or No?

As an absolute. Yes. I have stated there are cultures who don't think child brides are morally wrong. Did you miss that?

If 100% consent is the grounds of morality being objective, then isn't it true according to your position that genociding the entire African race is not objectively wrong (because it just an opinion)?

Yes or No?

Depends on who you ask as morality is subjective. Did you miss that point before. I will repeat it shall I.

Although 100% consent is in regards to God's existence unless you can prove otherwise that isn't bullshit thinking in another thread btw.

If 100% of the world's population believed raping and murdering 3 year old children was moral, and if a 100% consensus makes an act objectively moral (according to your views), then wouldn't you have to say that raping and murdering 3 year old children is moral if everyone agrees that it is?

This is also a simple question, given YOUR views:

Yes or No?

No. As I have repeatedly said, morality is subjective. It doesn't matter whether everyone thinks raping three year olds was OK, I wouldn't. So for me it would be morally wrong to perform such an act.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Depends on who you ask as morality is subjective. Did you miss that point before. I will repeat it shall I.

Although 100% concent is in regards to God's existence unless you can prove otherwise that isn't a bullshit thinking in another thread.

Thats not what my question asked, I didn't asked what your individual subjective moral opinion was, I asked you based on your definitions if something was objectively moral.

For instance, If I said that "God commands all adulterers to be put to death" you would say that is just my subjective opinion, but if I said it was objectively true, you would say no because you define objectivity as 100% consensus. That is what I am asking, I am asking you about whether this point on black-genocide is OBJECTIVELY moral.

So let me ask again.

If 100% consent is the grounds of morality being objective, then isn't it true according to your position that genociding the entire African race is not objectively wrong (because it just an opinion)? [note in bold]

Is genocide of the african race OBJECTIVELY wrong? (remember, you claimed that for something to be objectively wrong requires 100% consent).

Yes or No?

You didn't answer this question either:

If for something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone, then wouldn't it follow that the earth being round cannot be objectively true because that truth is not adhered to/accepted by everyone?

Yes or No?

No. As I have repeatedly said, morality is subjective. It doesn't matter whether everyone thinks raping three year olds was OK, I wouldn't. So for me it would be morally wrong to perform such an act.

That is not what I asked, I did not ask what your personal subjective moral opinion was, I was asking you based on how you define consensus if something like raping and killing 3 years old was OBJECTIVELY wrong.

So, assuming you will be dead when this happens in the future;

If 100% of the world's population believed raping and murdering 3 year old children was moral, and if a 100% consensus makes an act objectively moral (according to your views), then wouldn't you have to say that raping and murdering 3 year old children is moral if everyone agrees that it is? [note the italicized and in bold].

Remember, you said that something would NO LONGER be opinion, but be OBJECTIVELY RIGHT OR WRONG, IF 100% agreed that it was.

SO if you had 100% consensus in support of raping and killing three years olds, would it be objectively moral, given your position?

Yes or No?

[Victoribus Spolia]

can prove otherwise that isn't bullshit thinking in another thread btw.

That proof I gave is solid, rational, plain, and you are free to refute it, if you can.

If not, it stands unchallenged as proof for the Trinitarian God's existence and Phenomenal Idealism.

Just as my moral proof does in this thread.

[B0ycey]

Is genocide of the african race OBJECTIVELY wrong? (remember, you claimed that for something to be objectively wrong requires 100% consent).

Yes or No?

100% consent was in regards to Gods existence VS. Perhaps you missed that everytime I have said it.

My answer remains the same as before.

If for something to be objective, it must be adhered/accepted by everyone, then wouldn't it follow that the earth being round cannot be objectively true because that truth is not adhered to/accepted by everyone?

Yes or No?

I thought I did answer it actually, no. Acceptance for everyone was in regards to a set of laws set by a sky fairy that cannot be proven. If there is no acceptance in God's existence, then his laws are subjective as they don't have a consensus.

That is not what I asked, I did not ask what your personal subjective moral opinion was, I was asking you based on how you define consensus if something like raping and killing 3 years old was OBJECTIVELY wrong.

So, assuming you will be dead when
If 100% of the world's population believed raping and murdering 3 year old children was moral, [i]and if a 100% consensus makes an act objectively moral (according to

SO if you had 100% consensus in support of raping and killing three years olds, would it be objectively moral, given your position?

Yes or No?

No. In this hypothetical world, their customs dictate their morality. In such a world, this practice would have no objection. But their feelings do not have any significance to what is objective. It is objectively wrong as to kill three year olds reduces their populous in such a world.

[Victoribus Spolia]

100% consent was in regards to Gods existence VS. Perhaps you missed that everytime I have said it.

Why does 100% consent only apply to God's existence? On what rational grounds do you make that claim?

Likewise, does this mean that there is no standard by which you can say that anything is objectively wrong?

I thought I did answer it actually, no. Acceptance for everyone was in regards to a set of laws set by a sky fairy that cannot be proven. If there is no acceptance in God's existence, then his laws are subjective as they don't have a consensus.

Well that criteria of objectivity for God can safely be dismissed as you do not apply it consistently to everything else.

Also, nice straw man caricature words, "sky fairy," what are we 6?

If there is no acceptance in God's existence, then his laws are subjective as they don't have a consensus.

Like I said, you conclusion does not follow, your arguments are fallacious, your definitions novel (and now we can see, also inconsistently applied without justification).

But their feelings do not have any significance to what is objective. It is objectively wrong as to kill three year olds reduces their populous in such a world.

Why? To what objective moral standard can you claim that such actions are objectively wrong?

[ingliz]

Yes or No?

There are no moral properties or facts or objective moral values. Moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist.

[B0ycey]

Why does 100% consent only apply to God's existence? On what rational grounds do you make that claim?

Likewise, does this mean that there is no standard by which you can say that anything is objectively wrong?

Because if there isn't 100% consent on his existence, his morality is subjective. Duh!

Although the second half of this quote is quite an interesting question by itself. I would say there can only be something that is objectively wrong within a social contract and no such thing can exist in the state of nature.

Why? To what objective moral standard can you claim that such actions are objectively wrong?

By the fact it reduces population. Although if that is the aim, it could be objectively right I guess.

[ingliz]

To what objective moral standard...

None.

There are no moral properties or facts or objective moral values. Moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist.

But there is nothing stopping you treating moral language as a useful fiction.

... the absurdity of the human predicament emerges from the tension between our realisation that we live in a purposeless and indifferent universe and our ceaseless propensity to continue as if our lives and decisions were meaningful.

[Sivad]

There are no moral properties or facts or objective moral values. Moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist.

There are definite facts about what is good and right for human beings, that's the is, rationality supplies the ought. That's all there is to objective morality.

... the absurdity of the human predicament emerges from the tension between our realisation that we live in a purposeless and indifferent universe and our ceaseless propensity to continue as if our lives and decisions were meaningful.

There is definitely at least one source of meaning and purpose in this universe, us. What makes life absurd isn't the lack of meaning and purpose, it's that we ignore meaning and purpose to revel in ignorance and obscenity.

[One Degree]

If there is an objective morality for humans, it can not be determined by humans. We have a subjective and humancentric view. It can only be determined from a nonhuman view. This also eliminates God, since we were made in his image. As the creator, his view is also compromised and can not be objective. You can not prove God’s perfection without using God’s creations.

[Sivad]

If there is an objective morality for humans, it can not be determined by humans. We have a subjective and humancentric view. It can only be determined from a nonhuman view. This also eliminates God, since we were made in his image. As the creator, his view is also compromised and can not be objective. You can not prove God’s perfection without using God’s creations.

filosofee.