Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[humblesmurph]

Poop maybe you are a bad communicator.  Could explain why you have chosen to change the accepted meaning of the word 'objective'?  Not one single individual moral rule is objective:

Do you think that it is wrong to give children IQ tests at the age of 6 and kill every one that scores below a certain number?  If not, why?

Do you think that every person over the age of 80 should be taken out back and shot?  If not, why?

Do you think that it should be illegal for retarded people to procreate?  If not, why?

I could go on, but you get the point.

[PoopShoot]

Could explain why you have chosen to change the accepted meaning of the word 'objective'?  

Can you explain HOW I've done so?

Not one single individual moral rule is objective:

So murder is only detrimental on a subjective level?

Do you think that it is wrong to give children IQ tests at the age of 6 and kill every one that scores below a certain number?  If not, why?

Do you think that every person over the age of 80 should be taken out back and shot?  If not, why?

Do you think that it should be illegal for retarded people to procreate?  If not, why?

Society has set the norms on these.  Biology itself makes the first and third ones invalid in that artificial selection is rarely beneficial for the species.  The second one doesn't bother me, but is against social values of our society.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Yeah.  You're equating objective morality with absolute morality.  The former exists, the latter doesn't.

[humblesmurph]

Could explain why you have chosen to change the accepted meaning of the word 'objective'?  

Can you explain HOW I've done so?

Not one single individual moral rule is objective:

So murder is only detrimental on a subjective level?

Do you think that it is wrong to give children IQ tests at the age of 6 and kill every one that scores below a certain number?  If not, why?

Do you think that every person over the age of 80 should be taken out back and shot?  If not, why?

Do you think that it should be illegal for retarded people to procreate?  If not, why?

Society has set the norms on these.  Biology itself makes the first and third ones invalid in that artificial selection is rarely beneficial for the species.  The second one doesn't bother me, but is against social values of our society.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Yeah.  You're equating objective morality with absolute morality.  The former exists, the latter doesn't.

How does biology make the first and third ones invalid?  How are our social values determined?  Do they change?  Can they be wrong?  Does consensus equal objectivity?   What is the difference between absolute morality and objective morality?

Objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

This is what I assume when one usually speaks of 'objective' as we are here.   It seems to me that you think of morality as a fluid thing.  That fluidity comes from personal feelings, interpretations and or prejudices.  Therefore, morality isn't objective.

[Sophus]

And an individual who subjectively goes against that is removed from society.

I don't think that's always the case. Look at all the recent war crimes that have gone unpunished.

Not necessarily.  The subject merely needs to look at the situation objectively.

There's no way a moral judgement can be free of bias or emotion. Objectively is merely looking at the reality of the situation. Any moral conclusions  drawn from whether or not it's immoral for the Aztec's to sacrifice a child so the sun can rise because it's based on a provably false belief would also rely on the opinion that human life is sacred or has value.  Objective science cannot prove that human life has any value or significance because it is completely cerebral and never argues for the value of anything. It is purely a human affair for humans to work out for themselves.

So what?  The universe is indifferent to the fact that our galaxy and andromeda will collide, killing all life in both.  By that logic, nothing below the level of "universal" is objective.

The above better clarifies what is meant by that.

[PoopShoot]

How does biology make the first and third ones invalid?  

I already stated: artificial selection is almost always detrimental to the species being artificially selected.

How are our social values determined?  

In a variety of ways.

Do they change?  

Sometimes.  Hence absolute morality not existing.

Can they be wrong?  

Wrong in what frame of reference?

Does consensus equal objectivity?  

That depends on frame of reference.  I don't consider a look to be sexual harassment, but I can still be fired for it under those criteria.  I can subjectively deny that, but I am objectively held to it.

What is the difference between absolute morality and objective morality?

Absolute includes unchangeability.

Objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Yep.  Regardless of my feelings about it, society has standards.

It seems to me that you think of morality as a fluid thing.  That fluidity comes from personal feelings, interpretations and or prejudices.  Therefore, morality isn't objective.

Not necessarily.  Often times morality is refined to reflect society's new, more objective perspective on an issue.

[humblesmurph]

Poopshoot, do you think slavery is wrong now?  Do you think it was wrong in the 18th century?

[PoopShoot]

Poopshoot, do you think slavery is wrong now?  Do you think it was wrong in the 18th century?

What does my subjective opinion have to do with it?

[humblesmurph]

Poopshoot, do you think slavery is wrong now?  Do you think it was wrong in the 18th century?

What does my subjective opinion have to do with it?

 Are you only willing to answer a question if you feel it is pertinent to an argument?  Just answer the questions.  

Follow up question:  Coke or Pepsi?

[PoopShoot]

I don't have the data to make an appropriate judgment of slavery.  I think the cotton plantations of the American south held their slaves in deplorable conditions, but in older cultures slaves were treated pretty well.  The context of the time is necessary.  That said, when the view of people change to include the fact that members of other races are also human, slavery was soon abolished.

[humblesmurph]

Your objective morality is a fiction.  It's just a consistent adherence to society's laws that have been dictated to you. That's not morality, that's obedience.  You don't care how these laws came to be.  There is no independent check for these laws.  For you, a law is just the way we do things until they tell us to do something different.   That's not morality, that's arbitrariness.  

You treat morality like a yard stick.  An inch or a foot or a yard is just an arbitrary unit of length.  It has usefulness because of it's consistency.  We know what 3 feet is because it's always the same.  If we convened and decided that an inch was slightly longer, then a yard would be slightly longer.  It would still be a yard, but the word yard would represent a different length.   Regardless, when we say something is a yard in length, we'd be making an objective statement.  When you say morality is objective, you are saying that it is the consistent application of accepted morality.  Shenanigans.  Your objective morality is different for different cultures around the world.  Fairness in Saudi Arabia is not the same as fairness in Qatar.  Fairness in Qatar is not the same as fairness in the UK.  A foot is a foot everywhere on the planet, that's what makes it objective.  

You didn't answer the yes or no question.  I think slavery was wrong.  It was wrong then.  It's wrong now.  That is easy for me to see when applying Sophus' method of morality.  Is it objective, no, but it is consistent enough for me.  You think morality is objective but you have no opinion on slavery?  Interesting.  What information would you have to have for slavery to be OK in your book?  What data do you need before you come to the conclusion that the idea of a slave  being treated "pretty well" is an oxymoron?

The fact that society defines morality shows that it is subjective.  We all more or less voted and decided to treat women like equals in the West.  There are societies that exist today where that is not the case.  They make a reasonable argument.  Women aren't measurably equal to men.  Men are bigger, stronger, faster, and just as intelligent.  This reasonable argument is wrong.  Why do I think that?  I apply Sophus' method (obviously he's not the inventor of it) and empathize with a woman as a human being.  Would I want to have less rights because I was weaker or slower. No.  Therefore, a woman should be treated equally.  Can I point to some yardstick to prove this case? No.  But that's fine, my empathetic approximation is good enough for me.

Pepsi rocks.

[PoopShoot]

Wait, so It's not objective because it incorporates new information and it's not objective because it's only objective on the level I said it was objective to within the context of the time period?

Science incorporates new data and interpretation is subjective to the realm of study and current data, is science not objective?

I gave the parameters that you're now trying to use against me: time period and society.  I already said it would change depending on these two things, and that was why it was objective while not absolute.  You are still equating the terms.  You're doing so because you're butthurt that I didn't fall into your trap of answering your question with a subjective opinion that you could then use to say "see, you are putting YOUR subjective opinion on it".  I suppose it can't be helped that you won't separate objective from absolute at this point.

[humblesmurph]

Wait, so It's not objective because it incorporates new information and it's not objective because it's only objective on the level I said it was objective to within the context of the time period?

Science incorporates new data and interpretation is subjective to the realm of study and current data, is science not objective?

I gave the parameters that you're now trying to use against me: time period and society.  I already said it would change depending on these two things, and that was why it was objective while not absolute.  You are still equating the terms.  You're doing so because you're butthurt that I didn't fall into your trap of answering your question with a subjective opinion that you could then use to say "see, you are putting YOUR subjective opinion on it".  I suppose it can't be helped that you won't separate objective from absolute at this point.

   No not butt hurt.  I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to understand your definition of objective reality through argumentation.  At first it seemed like some Ayn Rand type of thing.  I was mistaken.  This certainly isn't that.  As Asmodean stated, when people generally speak of objective, they mean that it is applicable to everybody everywhere.  Science is objective.  Gravity exists in Sudan just as it does in Queensland.  Any repeatable results we can get in Chile we can get in Canada if we are using a controlled setting.  By the accepted meaning of the word objective, if morality changes from society to society it isn't objective.  I really did think that you meant that it just changed from time to time, not from place to place at the exact same time.  If societies get a say, then it seems subjugation of women is OK in Saudi Arabia but not in the US.  This seems quite subjective to me. You haven't really given the parameters of your analysis.  Your answers regarding your method of determining and verifying morality are vague.  Sophus' subjective method is quite simple, repeatable, and gives me the "correct" answer on what I thought to be obvious questions like the subjugation of women and slavery.

It's not your job to explain it if you don't want to.  However, you were the one who brought objective morality into the discussion.  This was shocking to me.  I don't care what your subjective opinion is regarding slavery because you implied that an objective answer to the slavery question existed.  I wanted the objective answer.  You couldn't provide one because you didn't have enough evidence to say whether slavery was right or wrong objectively.  I seriously want to know what evidence would be required or what kind of experimentation could possibly lead to slavery being justified morally.  Objective morality isn't something I can just go look up like Humanism or Calvinism.  If you made this up, cool.  If you feel like explaining it in a way that I can repeat it to others so we can discuss the merits of it, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll give you my email address.  If you got this idea from elsewhere, that's cool too, if you feel like posting a link or suggesting a book I'd greatly appreciate that as well.

[PoopShoot]

Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

[humblesmurph]

Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

like which moral behaviors are demonstrably better for survival of a species?

[PoopShoot]

Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

like which moral behaviors are demonstrably better for survival of a species?

It's a hair more complicated than that, but in a nutshell, yes.