This guy......

[Euronymous]

Man, what a creep.

Ewww...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We've had a few threads recently arguing about whether such a thing as moral truth or objective moral values exist. My answer was no to each. Slavery and rape were given as examples of areas where objective moral truth exist, but the answer was that these values have no objective reality, as in existing outside of the heads of moral agents and continuing to exist even if all moral agents cease existing.

It was also argued that there is no moral truth. Asking or telling if/that something is wrong is always an opinion, and subjective. All that is objectively true is the consequences of slavery or rape, which might be acceptable to some moral agents. For them, it is not true that theses theijngs are wrong.

This guy is a nice illustration of all of that once again. If pedophilia is not morally reprehensible to him, then saying that pedophilia is wrong constitutes a moral truth or objective moral value is pretty meaningless.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well that was 15 minutes wasted. I've not come across anyone so stupid in a long time, but then I don't go out of my way to find them. What an idiot. More intelligent paedophiles often are harder to argue with - lots of rather questionable evidence that some use - like Kinsey, for example. A bit dumb of him to put this out there though. Many just know that nothing will change in their favour but they carry on regardless with this stuff.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

We've had a few threads recently arguing about whether such a thing as moral truth or objective moral values exist. My answer was no to each. Slavery and rape were given as examples of areas where objective moral truth exist, but the answer was that these values have no objective reality, as in existing outside of the heads of moral agents and continuing to exist even if all moral agents cease existing.

It was also argued that there is no moral truth. Asking or telling if/that something is wrong is always an opinion, and subjective. All that is objectively true is the consequences of slavery or rape, which might be acceptable to some moral agents. For them, it is not true that theses theijngs are wrong.

This guy is a nice illustration of all of that once again. If pedophilia is not morally reprehensible to him, then saying that pedophilia is wrong constitutes a moral truth or objective moral value is pretty meaningless.

Doesn't this argue for having an understanding of morality grounded outside of human preference? That is- a moral standard in which it doesn't really matter if an individual says: "I disagree".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doesn't this argue for having an understanding of morality grounded outside of human preference? That is- a moral standard in which it doesn't really matter if an individual says: "I disagree".

I don't see that argument in my words. My argument is that there are no moral truths - just individual subjective judgments that usually don't all agree - and no evidence for objective moral values as defined above.

Also, that as far as we know, moral values only exist in minds. The one who disagrees cannot be called wrong. We can only say that we disagree.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I don't see that argument in my words. My argument is that there are no moral truths - just individual subjective judgments that usually don't all agree - and no evidence for objective moral values as defined above.

And that as far as we know, moral values only exist in minds

Yes I gathered that, I just wanted to know if you went any further with your conclusions. Thanks

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Doesn't this argue for having an understanding of morality grounded outside of human preference? That is- a moral standard in which it doesn't really matter if an individual says: "I disagree".

Perhaps...as long as that morality made sense to me...ahem.

If objective morals suggested that men should hold dominion over women, whites over blacks, or that Laker fans are more correct in their leanings than Celtic fans, then leave me with my subjectivity, please.

It's worth noting, we could almost universally agree pedophilia is disgusting and my view in this wouldn't change. I don't see 'subjective' as equating to 'permissive'.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There can be an objective understanding not grounded in authority per se @lewisnotmiller. Like the universal understanding of the Dharmic religions. IMO, the Dharmic religions could teach the world a lot in that regard.

Everyone deserves just treatment because they carry the oneness that everything does. For example...

By virtue that you exist, you are sacred.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There can be an objective understanding not grounded in authority per se @lewisnotmiller. Like the universal understanding of the Dharmic religions. IMO, the Dharmic religions could teach the world a lot in that regard.

Everyone deserves just treatment because they carry the oneness that everything does. For example...

By virtue that you exist, you are sacred.

I've heard some define objectively differently to an absolute in the way I do, and I can see some value in that.

I still think many, and maybe all morals are subjective, though. History is a favourite topic, and a source for that belief.

Happy to be corrected, or informed, and further develop my world view, though.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We've had a few threads recently arguing about whether such a thing as moral truth or objective moral values exist. My answer was no to each. Slavery and rape were given as examples of areas where objective moral truth exist, but the answer was that these values have no objective reality, as in existing outside of the heads of moral agents and continuing to exist even if all moral agents cease existing.

It was also argued that there is no moral truth. Asking or telling if/that something is wrong is always an opinion, and subjective. All that is objectively true is the consequences of slavery or rape, which might be acceptable to some moral agents. For them, it is not true that theses theijngs are wrong.

This guy is a nice illustration of all of that once again. If pedophilia is not morally reprehensible to him, then saying that pedophilia is wrong constitutes a moral truth or objective moral value is pretty meaningless.

Of course, “moral objective values” exist.

That’s like saying, “Since Hitler and the Nazis thought it was ok to kill Jews, then it’s not objectively wrong”.

Is that right? Of course not.

If it were right, then the Nuremberg war trials wouldn’t have taken place.

Some actions, and the people promoting them, need to go!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I just wanted to know if you went any further with your conclusions.

No, I haven't.

My conclusions remain that all moral judgments are subjective, and therefore, none are objective or objectively real, even if all of the subjective opinions are in accord.

Edit:

Without derailing the thread into a philosophical tallywhacker contest I'll simply ask: can you live with the consequences of a world where morals are subjective judgments?

Yes. What choice do I have?

Of course, “moral objective values” exist. That’s like saying, “Since Hitler and the Nazis thought it was ok to kill Jews, then it’s not objectively wrong”. Is that right? Of course not.

Once again, no number of subjective judgements add up to those opinions having objective existence outside of conscious minds.

If you want to rebut that, please go ahead and do so.

But merely contradicting the conclusions of an argument without addressing the elements in the chain connecting its premises to its conclusions is not a rebuttal.

You have not made an argument that there is any objectively true moral value that condemns Hitler. You are just claiming it. Where is this value to be found? In the ocean? In the sky?

Perhaps you are using a different definition of an objective moral value or a moral truth. If so, explain why you think my definition is inadequate and yours better, then show that such things exist.

That's not what you did. Until you do, my argument stands unaddressed and therefore unchanged.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

My conclusions remain that all moral judgments are subjective, and therefore, none are objective or objectively real, even if all of the subjective opinions are in accord.

Without derailing the thread into a philosophical tallywhacker contest I'll simply ask: can you live with the societal ramifications and consequences of a world where morals are subjective judgments?

 

[Euronymous]

And what happened to this thread?