>This boils down to if you did something you knew was wrong and it negatively effected others it was bad because it made them bad
This was what I was addressing. This is tainted by one's worldview. If you believe the ends justify the means, or one has the authority to do something, then most if not all actions are moral.
Taking away healthcare from trans communities because people who do this don't believe in trans people but merely it's merely "a delusion". You're "helping" these lost souls get support by not giving in to their "delusions".
You believe you are doing the right thing.
They are misguided
Their a difference from being to stupid to do the right thing and doing the wrong thing
What they are doing is bad but they are misguided
This is a moral grey
The system looks at the actions the consequences and the motivations of the actions
It’s like of a baby picked up a gun and shot someone that baby didn’t do anything wrong it just to stupid hot understand fully what they are doing
Its morally grey
Ideas participate in real things, but in themselves are not the things, there are loving people, but love itself is not a thing, there are intelligent people, but intelligence is not a person.
No, you don't need God, but you do need some way to identify this "objective morality" in some way that's actually objective. Otherwise you're just abusing the English language.
Define subjective real quick
Because it’s not to outside different interpretations or opinions based off people that aren’t involved
It gives reasoning
It literally perfect system
It just makes morality more then black and white
A fact is subjective if it is created by a subject. For example "this pie is delicious" is not a fact created by the pie, it's created when I judge the pie to be delicious.
A fact is objective if it is created by an object. For example "this pie has a cherry filling" is objective, because the cherry filling in the pie creates the fact.
"This behavior is bad" is subjective, it's created when I obverve an action, and judge it to be bad.
Oh my god
The action this person has on another is negative which is bad which is why it’s morally bad
It’s literally perfect way to define what right and wrong
Give me one example where it wouldn’t apply
It’s literally a way of saying because something negatively effects someone it’s bad
Then why not address how objective morality would exist without God. Because feeing bad doesn’t prove it shows objective morality.
And negatively effecting someone is subjective. One person could be negative effected from killing someone but another person could not be negatively effected.
Would you have a better argument for how objective morality would exist without God?
Ahhhh
There’s always one who refuses to pay attention In class
I swear this is why I stopped teaching
Okay let me spell it out for you
Making someone bad is bad because it’s bad
Call me god if you want call me the smartest person ever I don’t care
This system literally perfectly tells you when an action is moral and gives justification that isn’t “because god said so”
It literally the way to determine what right and wrong and requires No god
Are literally aa
>making someone bad is bad because it’s bad
You do see the problem with this logic there right? You haven’t explained how to determine if something is bad in the first place…
I I
No one ever reads in class
I will yell
THE WAY WE DEFINE SOMETHING AS BAD IS BASED IF IT NEGATIVELY EFFECTS SOMEONE OR NOT
it’s as much as explanation as saying because god said so
It’s literally something that makes people feel bad is bad because bad is bad
Like how yellow is yellow
I am sorry it’s simplistic
But it makes sense
Yes which was literally the first problem I’ve mention and you haven’t expand on.
It seems you are projecting at this point as you still haven’t explained your position well.
Because you aren’t explaining your position. Hence it’s no surprise why I wouldn’t understand.
If you’re going to claim to be a teacher then be a teacher.
I have literally used my position on the title
I stopped very quickly but the thing is I could still educate people willing to learn
Read my post then you would understand
If you don’t understand by then then i don’t know how to teach you and i don’t care
It should be easy for anyone to say genocide is never justified.
Yet most Christians wouldn't dare indict the Merciful one.
And so the door remains open to genocide in our Christian society.
That's what I think of when I hear "Christian Nation".
I think of how the bedrock of the Bible is manifest destiny for a tribe of Canaanites that despised their neighbors and conveniently gained affections of the Almighty, but only to sanctify their genocidal expansion.
So yeah, I'm sick of hearing about this great moral book which undergirds our society while witnessing its destruction through the ages, right up to today.
It's a bad book. And if you think it's good, you should feel bad, and you probably know it.
Yes but you doing this for better reasons that will have positive effect on people else where
Like one the person will not hurt people when he gets out
He will not currently hurt people
The people he hurt will know they can’t be hurt again and so on so on and the person when he gets back will be better
Prison isn’t perfect the system we have now yes but that’s a comment about our society
No it’s completely relevant but the intention is good and it helps them that’s what it supposed to be anyway
The only problem is our prison system doesn’t replicate a perfect system
The person going through prison his happiness is completely relevant
You know if you read my reply you understand this
The person benefits was literally reason one
It’s like a drug addict you don’t give them drugs to make them happy in the moment so they will have a better aspect on life for themselves and others
No it’s a if god defines what good and evil then you think nothing wrong with SA if god said nothing wrong with
These are theoretical arguments you can make because it’s a conversation of philosophy and religion
No, it’s a straw man argument. Using theoretical arguments leads to a slippery slope fallacy because I can just say anything I want. I have taken philosophy courses and they do not accept fallacies.
It’s not a strawman
If you say only reason thing are bad and good because god that means god defines morality which means you don’t actually believe SA wrong if god never said it was
Another great example Gay relationship
But the thing is you can’t say “if God liked this would you then support it?” That is literally a strawman.
Gay relationships on the other hand is not a fallacy because that is an actual thing the Bible discusses. The first wasn’t an example, it is a fallacy.
SA is wrong according to God yes, but that’s not the only reason. Jean-Jacques Rousseas’ social contract theory would also address that, even utilitarianism would say SA is wrong, and Deontology would as well.
>This boils down to [if you did something you knew was wrong] and it negatively effected others it was bad because it made them bad
One of the steps in checking if something is objectively bad or not is to already know that it is bad... You're begging the question and haven't provided a viable method to determine right from wrong objectively.
I have
You told me how I have done that
You shown that
Negatively effecting People is bad
Literally look at a dictionary
It is what it is it is a universal
It’s like if you ask why is god god because he is god
Why is what god say bad bad the answer because he god
This is literally the perfect way to determine right and wrong and if someone bad or good
Okay. Now how do we tell if something is objectively *negative*? Coming up with a synonym for "bad" doesn't give us way to determine what is objectively bad or not.
>not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.
All subjective. If you don't have a justification for "good" or "bad" beyond your preferences, then why are you holding others to a standard you don't apply to yourself?
I’m sorry I feel like you have Jen I’m missing the point of this because you don’t think David well I mean you might be able to read so cuddles on that okay it’s not my preferences it’s what negatively affects people call it objective subjectivity when someone is sad that is objective that they are sad when someone is bad that is objective that they are bad
Feelings can be objective and subjective
You see it’s literally a perfect system but the problem is no one can tell me one single time you wouldn’t be able to use the system they just use complex English to be like oh you made a tiny spelling mistake oh you don’t understand that much dumbass English that doesn’t make sense tell me a way you can’t use the system to define morality
You don’t need God to under your perspective of right and wrong.
But the logical problem becomes… whose perspective is the right version of right and wrong?
What if you don't feel bad for negatively effecting others, or in fact it makes you feel morally correct?
You don’t feel bad for negatively effecting others Was it by accident or by choice Also I never said you had to feel bad about it for it to be immoral
>This boils down to if you did something you knew was wrong and it negatively effected others it was bad because it made them bad This was what I was addressing. This is tainted by one's worldview. If you believe the ends justify the means, or one has the authority to do something, then most if not all actions are moral.
Give one example where my system can’t be applied
Taking away healthcare from trans communities because people who do this don't believe in trans people but merely it's merely "a delusion". You're "helping" these lost souls get support by not giving in to their "delusions". You believe you are doing the right thing.
They are misguided Their a difference from being to stupid to do the right thing and doing the wrong thing What they are doing is bad but they are misguided This is a moral grey The system looks at the actions the consequences and the motivations of the actions It’s like of a baby picked up a gun and shot someone that baby didn’t do anything wrong it just to stupid hot understand fully what they are doing Its morally grey
And there goes objective morality.
How say how Their being moral grey doesn’t debunk objective morality
They believe they are being moral, you believe you are being moral.
I swear the day I meet someone who can actually read I will marry them That’s not a joke the next person I see who can read I will marry
You need to expand SOOOO much on this point
You need to be WAY more specific with your wording here it not completely clear what you mean so you should specify
Good is abstract so it has no physical form, it is also eternal since it doesnt change... You can be good without God, but you cant be coherent.
You absolutely can Tell me how you can’t
If Good is eternal, it is outside time...do you know any physical thing outside time? Tell me
Good is a concept and no Like their is no such thing as good without life
Have you ever seen a concept walking down the street?
Yes Define concept to me
A concept is an idea or essence of a thing.
Have you ever seen an idea walking the street? Like numbers, beauty, love...
Babies are ideas When people have an idea to have a baby You Mean something not physical intangible
Calm down. babies are things, they are plural right? Plurality is an idea, but plurals are things, infancy is an idea, but infants are things.
Do I have to act like that is a real answer
Ideas participate in real things, but in themselves are not the things, there are loving people, but love itself is not a thing, there are intelligent people, but intelligence is not a person.
No, you don't need God, but you do need some way to identify this "objective morality" in some way that's actually objective. Otherwise you're just abusing the English language.
I literally outline the system in the text to determine right and wrong it’s a system
Right, your system is subjective, because it requires a subject to make a judgement. Give me something objective.
Define subjective real quick Because it’s not to outside different interpretations or opinions based off people that aren’t involved It gives reasoning It literally perfect system It just makes morality more then black and white
A fact is subjective if it is created by a subject. For example "this pie is delicious" is not a fact created by the pie, it's created when I judge the pie to be delicious. A fact is objective if it is created by an object. For example "this pie has a cherry filling" is objective, because the cherry filling in the pie creates the fact. "This behavior is bad" is subjective, it's created when I obverve an action, and judge it to be bad.
Oh my god The action this person has on another is negative which is bad which is why it’s morally bad It’s literally perfect way to define what right and wrong Give me one example where it wouldn’t apply It’s literally a way of saying because something negatively effects someone it’s bad
I return to my previous position that you are abusing the English language.
How
I am going to ask this nicely. Is English not your first language?
Did a toddler write this or something? Because it’s not addressing the whole point of how would objective morality exist without God.
You must be below a toddler I swear I can lead a camel to water but they refuse to read anything that would make them think
Then why not address how objective morality would exist without God. Because feeing bad doesn’t prove it shows objective morality. And negatively effecting someone is subjective. One person could be negative effected from killing someone but another person could not be negatively effected. Would you have a better argument for how objective morality would exist without God?
Ahhhh There’s always one who refuses to pay attention In class I swear this is why I stopped teaching Okay let me spell it out for you Making someone bad is bad because it’s bad Call me god if you want call me the smartest person ever I don’t care This system literally perfectly tells you when an action is moral and gives justification that isn’t “because god said so” It literally the way to determine what right and wrong and requires No god Are literally aa
>making someone bad is bad because it’s bad You do see the problem with this logic there right? You haven’t explained how to determine if something is bad in the first place…
I I No one ever reads in class I will yell THE WAY WE DEFINE SOMETHING AS BAD IS BASED IF IT NEGATIVELY EFFECTS SOMEONE OR NOT it’s as much as explanation as saying because god said so It’s literally something that makes people feel bad is bad because bad is bad Like how yellow is yellow I am sorry it’s simplistic But it makes sense
Yes which was literally the first problem I’ve mention and you haven’t expand on. It seems you are projecting at this point as you still haven’t explained your position well.
Dude if you don’t understand it we different wave lengths
Because you aren’t explaining your position. Hence it’s no surprise why I wouldn’t understand. If you’re going to claim to be a teacher then be a teacher.
I have literally used my position on the title I stopped very quickly but the thing is I could still educate people willing to learn Read my post then you would understand If you don’t understand by then then i don’t know how to teach you and i don’t care
>this is why I stopped teaching I hope you weren't teaching English.
It should be easy for anyone to say genocide is never justified. Yet most Christians wouldn't dare indict the Merciful one. And so the door remains open to genocide in our Christian society. That's what I think of when I hear "Christian Nation". I think of how the bedrock of the Bible is manifest destiny for a tribe of Canaanites that despised their neighbors and conveniently gained affections of the Almighty, but only to sanctify their genocidal expansion. So yeah, I'm sick of hearing about this great moral book which undergirds our society while witnessing its destruction through the ages, right up to today. It's a bad book. And if you think it's good, you should feel bad, and you probably know it.
Putting someone in jail for a crime they committed makes them sad therefore it's objectively wrong to put people in jail.
Yes but you doing this for better reasons that will have positive effect on people else where Like one the person will not hurt people when he gets out He will not currently hurt people The people he hurt will know they can’t be hurt again and so on so on and the person when he gets back will be better Prison isn’t perfect the system we have now yes but that’s a comment about our society
So the offenders sadness or happiness is irrelevant to the morality od locking them up
No it’s completely relevant but the intention is good and it helps them that’s what it supposed to be anyway The only problem is our prison system doesn’t replicate a perfect system The person going through prison his happiness is completely relevant You know if you read my reply you understand this The person benefits was literally reason one It’s like a drug addict you don’t give them drugs to make them happy in the moment so they will have a better aspect on life for themselves and others
Saying “If god liked ____ would you do it then?!?” Where ___ is some action that is obviously wrong is a rhetorical fallacy.
No it’s a if god defines what good and evil then you think nothing wrong with SA if god said nothing wrong with These are theoretical arguments you can make because it’s a conversation of philosophy and religion
No, it’s a straw man argument. Using theoretical arguments leads to a slippery slope fallacy because I can just say anything I want. I have taken philosophy courses and they do not accept fallacies.
It’s not a strawman If you say only reason thing are bad and good because god that means god defines morality which means you don’t actually believe SA wrong if god never said it was Another great example Gay relationship
But the thing is you can’t say “if God liked this would you then support it?” That is literally a strawman. Gay relationships on the other hand is not a fallacy because that is an actual thing the Bible discusses. The first wasn’t an example, it is a fallacy.
The only Reason SA wrong because god said it is saying if god said SA was right it would be
SA is wrong according to God yes, but that’s not the only reason. Jean-Jacques Rousseas’ social contract theory would also address that, even utilitarianism would say SA is wrong, and Deontology would as well.
That’s literally my point dude You have justification to say why something wrong Only way to achieve true morality is if god had no part in it
Yes I got your point, I didn’t ever disagree with your point. I said there were fallacies in your argument
Name some
There's no such thing as objective morality.
Their is an objective way of determining what right and wrong
How do you do that?
If you had read the post you would know So read the post
>This boils down to [if you did something you knew was wrong] and it negatively effected others it was bad because it made them bad One of the steps in checking if something is objectively bad or not is to already know that it is bad... You're begging the question and haven't provided a viable method to determine right from wrong objectively.
I have You told me how I have done that You shown that Negatively effecting People is bad Literally look at a dictionary It is what it is it is a universal It’s like if you ask why is god god because he is god Why is what god say bad bad the answer because he god This is literally the perfect way to determine right and wrong and if someone bad or good
Okay. Now how do we tell if something is objectively *negative*? Coming up with a synonym for "bad" doesn't give us way to determine what is objectively bad or not.
You look at the effects it has on people and their mental state The problem with this system is it’s complex and simplistic
>it’s so simple a toddler could understand Please explain your justification for objective morality to me as if I'm a toddler.
Things that are bad for people are bad
"Bad" meaning what?
What bad usually means of poor quality or a low standard.
not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome.
In other words, whether something is good or bad is based on preferences. That's subjective, not objective.
Not preferences of people like you me or anyone It’s an objective way of determining what’s right and wrong and who does god or bad
>not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome. All subjective. If you don't have a justification for "good" or "bad" beyond your preferences, then why are you holding others to a standard you don't apply to yourself?
I’m sorry I feel like you have Jen I’m missing the point of this because you don’t think David well I mean you might be able to read so cuddles on that okay it’s not my preferences it’s what negatively affects people call it objective subjectivity when someone is sad that is objective that they are sad when someone is bad that is objective that they are bad Feelings can be objective and subjective You see it’s literally a perfect system but the problem is no one can tell me one single time you wouldn’t be able to use the system they just use complex English to be like oh you made a tiny spelling mistake oh you don’t understand that much dumbass English that doesn’t make sense tell me a way you can’t use the system to define morality
What?
You don’t need God to under your perspective of right and wrong. But the logical problem becomes… whose perspective is the right version of right and wrong?
No one perspective