Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:45 am
There is no real-God in the first place.
As I had stated, theistic morality is grounded on a a generally accepted God [as defined] which is not real but illusory.
On top of being grounded on an illusory, theistic morality are very subjective to the specific group of theistic religion[group]. Theistic morality is also laden with evil elements* and enforced with the threat of Hell, thus very conditional.
Whilst Islam has loads of evil element, Christianity also has evil elements among others, e.g. 'slavery' [fundamentally is evil] is not condemned absolutely.
As such, theistic morality is pseudo-morality in contrast to secular morality which strives toward the ideal [highest good] without conditions, thus absolute.
I agree with Immanuel, and the wiki definition. Sectarian claims are idolatrous, divisive, and imbued with local customs or even superstition.
Secular morality did not arise de novo but emerged from religions after renaissance of Greek learning.Greek learning never died but survived in other religions , seers, and prophets,until the age of scientific enlightenment when it became mainstream.
You are lost in the above.
I was the one who listed the Wiki definition not Immanuel.
Secular morality is simply non-theistic morality.
I admit the theistic moral system e.g. given the present circumstances, Christianity moral system is more optimal at present [not future] than the secular theistic moral system. Whilst optimal, the theistic moral system is still pseudo morality.
However my reference to a secular-moral-system is towards the future where all the negatives are taken care of.
Such a secular moral system of the future will drives towards the highest good with spontaneity without any threat of hell from a God.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:06 amThanks. And you're wrong. It really does matter. Your recognising it means you're a moral subjectivist, even if you don't like the idea.
But, I don't recognize it, Pete. Explain it to me.
1 Your Joe-and-son scenario demonstrates precisely the problem with moral objectivism. The majority presumably think their moral opinion is fact, with brutal consequences. That's what can happen if people believe there are moral facts - that morality is objective.
Why are the consequences brutal? Why is it wrong to eat baby humans but okay to eat lambs? Or is it wrong to eat lambs as well? And: in my question I'm supposin' a majority that -- like you -- believes there's no moral objectivity. They eat babies cuz they can. What's to stop them? What's to stop you ('cept personal preference)?
2 I'd guess that you and I - as civilised, rational westerners in 2020 - will largely agree on what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness, in our opinion. And I'd guess we have similar reasons for our moral opinions.
My notions of moral rightness & wrongness extend out from my view of ownness (that a man belongs to himself as moral fact), so, no, I'm thinkin' our reasons aren't the same at all.
You missed a few...
*what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?
*Would you willingly wear the yoke (be a slave)? Why? Why not?
*Why is slavery wrong, Pete? If I want to own you, why shouldn't I? If a nation, by popular vote, decrees slavery is acceptable, why is that nation wrong? Is that nation wrong? Why?
*if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?
*Let's say...the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?
...and...
*How did you conclude I'm a moral subjectivist?
You agree that what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of opinion - so how many people - one, many or all of them - hold that opinion is morally irrelevant. That's moral subjectivism.
You keep asking this question: ah, but why is x morally right or wrong? Why is killing every third-born morally wrong, wicked, disgusting, etc? Why would it be morally wrong to kill homosexuals and witches?
And you seem to think these are factual questions with factual answers, rather like 'why does an object fall to the ground when dropped?' or 'why does the earth orbit the sun?' In other words, you imagine there must be an explanation for why x is morally right or wrong.
And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism. We can and do provide reasons (explanations) for why we think or believe x is morally right or wrong. For example, you think slavery is morally wrong because a person 'owns' herself and therefore shouldn't be 'owned'. And that's a reasonable, defensible argument.
But your having that reason for believing slavery is morally wrong doesn't and can't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong. And that's the difference between a factual assertion, like 'the earth orbits the sun' and a moral one, like 'slavery is morally wrong'.
If we ask why the earth orbits the sun, there is a tested - or at least testable - scientific explanation. But if we ask why slavery is morally wrong, there's no such testable explanation that's independent from opinion. Your (disputable) claim that people own themselves doesn't entail that people should own themselves. And IC thinks a god owns all of us anyway - and fallaciously derives moral objectivism from that unjustified claim.
'Why is x morally right or wrong? is not a factual question, with a demonstrable factual answer. So demanding that there be a demonstrable, factual answer is a mistake. And insisting that I, some, most or all of us do or can have the answer is what leads inquisitors, 'pro-life' murderers, and terrorists to feel justified in doing what they do. That's why moral objectivism is a moral abomination that we must reject. And that's my moral opinion.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:10 am
You agree that what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of opinion - so how many people - one, many or all of them - hold that opinion is morally irrelevant. That's moral subjectivism.
You keep asking this question: ah, but why is x morally right or wrong? Why is killing every third-born morally wrong, wicked, disgusting, etc? Why would it be morally wrong to kill homosexuals and witches?
And you seem to think these are factual questions with factual answers, rather like 'why does an object fall to the ground when dropped?' or 'why does the earth orbit the sun?' In other words, you imagine there must be an explanation for why x is morally right or wrong.
And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism. We can and do provide reasons (explanations) for why we think or believe x is morally right or wrong. For example, you think slavery is morally wrong because a person 'owns' herself and therefore shouldn't be 'owned'. And that's a reasonable, defensible argument.
But your having that reason for believing slavery is morally wrong doesn't and can't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong. And that's the difference between a factual assertion, like 'the earth orbits the sun' and a moral one, like 'slavery is morally wrong'.
If we ask why the earth orbits the sun, there is a tested - or at least testable - scientific explanation. But if we ask why slavery is morally wrong, there's no such testable explanation that's independent from opinion. Your (disputable) claim that people own themselves doesn't entail that people should own themselves. And IC thinks a god owns all of us anyway - and fallaciously derives moral objectivism from that unjustified claim.
'Why is x morally right or wrong? is not a factual question, with a demonstrable factual answer. So demanding that there be a demonstrable, factual answer is a mistake. And insisting that I, some, most or all of us do or can have the answer is what leads inquisitors, 'pro-life' murderers, and terrorists to feel justified in doing what they do. That's why moral objectivism is a moral abomination that we must reject. And that's my moral opinion.
Peter is working overtime to maintain his fallacious double standard which is the foundation of his argument.
According to Peter "Why is murder morally wrong?" is not a factual question.
According to Peter "Why does Earth orbit the Sun?" is a factual question.
I used to think Peter is just ignorant, but his reluctance to concede his error suggests that he doesn't care to self-correct.
On balance of probabilities and principle of sufficient reason this suggests intent and malice - immorality.
"Peter is immoral" is an objectively true statement.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:10 am
You agree that what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of opinion - so how many people - one, many or all of them - hold that opinion is morally irrelevant. That's moral subjectivism.
You keep asking this question: ah, but why is x morally right or wrong? Why is killing every third-born morally wrong, wicked, disgusting, etc? Why would it be morally wrong to kill homosexuals and witches?
And you seem to think these are factual questions with factual answers, rather like 'why does an object fall to the ground when dropped?' or 'why does the earth orbit the sun?' In other words, you imagine there must be an explanation for why x is morally right or wrong.
And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism. We can and do provide reasons (explanations) for why we think or believe x is morally right or wrong. For example, you think slavery is morally wrong because a person 'owns' herself and therefore shouldn't be 'owned'. And that's a reasonable, defensible argument.
But your having that reason for believing slavery is morally wrong doesn't and can't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong. And that's the difference between a factual assertion, like 'the earth orbits the sun' and a moral one, like 'slavery is morally wrong'.
If we ask why the earth orbits the sun, there is a tested - or at least testable - scientific explanation. But if we ask why slavery is morally wrong, there's no such testable explanation that's independent from opinion. Your (disputable) claim that people own themselves doesn't entail that people should own themselves. And IC thinks a god owns all of us anyway - and fallaciously derives moral objectivism from that unjustified claim.
'Why is x morally right or wrong? is not a factual question, with a demonstrable factual answer. So demanding that there be a demonstrable, factual answer is a mistake. And insisting that I, some, most or all of us do or can have the answer is what leads inquisitors, 'pro-life' murderers, and terrorists to feel justified in doing what they do. That's why moral objectivism is a moral abomination that we must reject. And that's my moral opinion.
Peter is working overtime to maintain his fallacious double standard which is the foundation of his argument.
According to Peter "Why is murder morally wrong?" is not a factual question.
According to Peter "Why does Earth orbit the Sun?" is a factual question.
I used to think Peter is just ignorant, but his reluctance to concede his error suggests that he doesn't care to self-correct.
On balance of probabilities and principle of sufficient reason this suggests intent and malice - immorality.
"Peter is immoral" is an objectively true statement.
For anyone new to this glacial discussion, I should point out that I don't bother responding to Skepdick's posts, because that's one of the many names of a resident troll here who boasts about deceiving contributors, deliberately subverting lines of argument - and who anyway peddles absurd claims that, like all metaphysical nonsense, come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:23 pm
For anyone new to this glacial discussion, I should point out that I don't bother responding to Skepdick's posts, because that's one of the many names of a resident troll here who boasts about deceiving contributors, deliberately subverting lines of argument - and who anyway peddles absurd claims that, like all metaphysical nonsense, come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works.
And he continues lying.
I know how language works - I am a linguist by proxy.
Which is precisely why I am pointing out your duplicit and inconsistent use of language. You claim that some questions have factual answers while also claiming that moral questions don't. That's special pleading - burden is all yours to justify it.
If pointing out your error is trolling then I am a troll.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:29 pm
It's not objective, even if it is true.
"Peter is a moral person".
Is also true.
If you want to know why, ask.
Talk to Peter, not to me.
The way Peter claims to be using words: "true" it's synonymous with "objective".
If "Peter is immoral" is true, then it's objective.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:40 pm
A factual assertion, such as 'unicorns exist' claims something about reality that may or may not be the case, so that (classically) the assertion is true or false.
You agree that what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of opinion - so how many people - one, many or all of them - hold that opinion is morally irrelevant. That's moral subjectivism.
No, Pete. I agreed that if morality is subjective, just opinion, then blah, blah, bah. I didn't state that morality is subjective, just opinion, so blah, blah, blah.
You keep asking this question: ah, but why is x morally right or wrong? Why is killing every third-born morally wrong, wicked, disgusting, etc? Why would it be morally wrong to kill homosexuals and witches?
I ask these things because, you, the moral subjectivist, declared, for example, conservatism as morally disgusting. By your reckoning, your moral disgust is just opinion, meaning your moral disgust on any subject is just opinion. So, the rightness or wrongness of, for example, baby eatin' is just an opinion. A nation of moral subjectivists like yourself could craft laws decreeing that every third baby will be slaughtered and ground up for cookin' and you, presumably disgusted by such actions, would have no recourse. You could try and change the laws (though I have no clue what your argument would be for revising the cannibalism law; as a subjectivist, you certainly can't argue that eatin' babies is wrong, you could only argue that you, personally, don't like baby eatin'), or you could become a vigilante, destroyin' the baby processin' plants (of course, in a morally subjective world, your vigilantism is no more right or wrong than the baby eatin').
What you could never do is act from anything other than your opinion. You could never claim the moral high road, cuz, by your own reckoning, there is no moral high road, no moral low road, no right or wrong. In your view: there's only opinion
And you seem to think these are factual questions with factual answers, rather like 'why does an object fall to the ground when dropped?' or 'why does the earth orbit the sun?' In other words, you imagine there must be an explanation for why x is morally right or wrong.
No, I'm demonstrating why it's silly for you to declare anything morally disgusting, or for you to talk about rightness or wrongness. All you, as subjectivist, can legitimately, say, for example, us I think baby eatin' is awful, to which your fellow baby eatin' subjectivist can say well, that's your opinion as he chomps down on his baby bologna sammich.
And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism. We can and do provide reasons (explanations) for why we think or believe x is morally right or wrong. For example, you think slavery is morally wrong because a person 'owns' herself and therefore shouldn't be 'owned'. And that's a reasonable, defensible argument.
But your having that reason for believing slavery is morally wrong doesn't and can't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong. And that's the difference between a factual assertion, like 'the earth orbits the sun' and a moral one, like 'slavery is morally wrong'.
Well, up-thread, I offered a damned good line of reasoning on why ownness is real as fire or hunger or wind. You dismissed it without, I think, really considering or understanding my reasoning; certainly you never wrecked my reasoning, so, as I see it, my position stands (whether you like it or not).
If we ask why the earth orbits the sun, there is a tested - or at least testable - scientific explanation. But if we ask why slavery is morally wrong, there's no such testable explanation that's independent from opinion. Your (disputable) claim that people own themselves doesn't entail that people should own themselves. And IC thinks a god owns all of us anyway - and fallaciously derives moral objectivism from that unjustified claim.
Yeah, I offered a test, a means of falsification, in my reasoning which you never really tackled.
'Why is x morally right or wrong? is not a factual question, with a demonstrable factual answer. So demanding that there be a demonstrable, factual answer is a mistake. And insisting that I, some, most or all of us do or can have the answer is what leads inquisitors, 'pro-life' murderers, and terrorists to feel justified in doing what they do. That's why moral objectivism is a moral abomination that we must reject. And that's my moral opinion.
A rather picayune conclusion, isn't it? Supposing moral facts can lead to awful acts. My retort: supposing moral facts is no more or less misleading than supposing an absence of moral facts; either path can lead a man to hell, but only supposing moral facts can stop him from goin' to hell in the first place.
And: no, Pete, that's not your moral opinion, that's just your (not very well thought out, uninformed) opinion.
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:23 pm
For anyone new to this glacial discussion, I should point out that I don't bother responding to Skepdick's posts, because that's one of the many names of a resident troll here who boasts about deceiving contributors, deliberately subverting lines of argument - and who anyway peddles absurd claims that, like all metaphysical nonsense, come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works.
And he continues lying.
I know how language works - I am a linguist by proxy.
Which is precisely why I am pointing out your duplicit and inconsistent use of language. You claim that some questions have factual answers while also claiming that moral questions don't. That's special pleading - burden is all yours to justify it.
If pointing out your error is trolling then I am a troll.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:21 pm
Sure. Don't you believe criminals exist?
Sure, but the police are the most dangerous criminals.
That's cute, but hardly true.
If we were in a Communist country, where the Stazi or the Cheka were kicking down the door and dragging us off to the gulags, you might have a case. But the good ol' Bobbies are hardly the secret police type. They don't even have guns.
The 4,861 reported instances of police misconduct reported in 2010 involve 6,613 law enforcement officers and even more victims. The reports link 247 fatalities with these reports of police corruption in 2010 alone.
Now, USA Today, in conjunction with the nonprofit Invisible Institute, is making available to the public a database of some 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct by 85,000 police officers across the nation.
Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.
Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.
Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.
Police officers are indicted in fewer than 1% of killings, but the indictment rate for civilians involved in a killing is 90%.
In 2015, there were 1,307 people who lost their lives at the hands of a police officer or law enforcement official. In 2016, that number was 1,152. Although lower, both years are still higher than the 1,149 people who were killed by police in 2014.
84% of police officers have stated in a recent survey that they have directly witnesses a fellow officer using more force than was necessary.
The estimated cost of police brutality incidents in the United States is $1.8 billion.
1 in 4 people who are killed by law enforcement officials in the United States are unarmed.
The second most common form of police misconduct is sexual assault.
97% of the cases of police brutality that were tracked in 2015 did not result in any officer involved being charged with a crime.
The average number of fatalities suffered by police officers in the United States over the past 10 years: 151. The average number of civilians killed by police officers over the past decade per year: 1,058.
In a second study, funded by the National Institute of Justice and analyzing more than 6,700 officer arrests nationwide during a seven-year period, Stinson found that half of arrests for sexual misconduct were for incidents involving minors. According to a 2010 Cato Institute review, sexual misconduct is the second-most-frequently reported form of police misconduct, after excessive force.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:13 pm
If "Peter is immoral" is true, then it's objective.
Obviously not.
"Peter is immoral" can only be determined by judgment. All judgements involve bias.
A thing that is true can relate to several things, both subjective and objective, but not necessarily either.
Peter is both moral and immoral. He is also amoral. It all depends.
Pete sez: Supposing moral facts leads inquisitors, 'pro-life' murderers, and terrorists to feel justified in doing what they do.
In morally empty world, the inquisitor, the 'pro-life' or 'anti-life' killer, and the terrorist are as entitled to their opinions as you are yours, Pete. You can oppose them if you like, cuz you disagree with them, but don't fool yourself: as a subjectivist, your opposition to the inquisitor, the 'pro-life' or 'anti-life' killer, and the terrorist is just a contest of opinion.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:36 am
Sure, but the police are the most dangerous criminals.
That's cute, but hardly true.
If we were in a Communist country, where the Stazi or the Cheka were kicking down the door and dragging us off to the gulags, you might have a case. But the good ol' Bobbies are hardly the secret police type. They don't even have guns.
The 4,861 reported instances of police misconduct reported in 2010 involve 6,613 law enforcement officers and even more victims. The reports link 247 fatalities with these reports of police corruption in 2010 alone.
Now, USA Today, in conjunction with the nonprofit Invisible Institute, is making available to the public a database of some 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct by 85,000 police officers across the nation.
Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.
Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.
Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.
Police officers are indicted in fewer than 1% of killings, but the indictment rate for civilians involved in a killing is 90%.
In 2015, there were 1,307 people who lost their lives at the hands of a police officer or law enforcement official. In 2016, that number was 1,152. Although lower, both years are still higher than the 1,149 people who were killed by police in 2014.
84% of police officers have stated in a recent survey that they have directly witnesses a fellow officer using more force than was necessary.
The estimated cost of police brutality incidents in the United States is $1.8 billion.
1 in 4 people who are killed by law enforcement officials in the United States are unarmed.
The second most common form of police misconduct is sexual assault.
97% of the cases of police brutality that were tracked in 2015 did not result in any officer involved being charged with a crime.
The average number of fatalities suffered by police officers in the United States over the past 10 years: 151. The average number of civilians killed by police officers over the past decade per year: 1,058.
In a second study, funded by the National Institute of Justice and analyzing more than 6,700 officer arrests nationwide during a seven-year period, Stinson found that half of arrests for sexual misconduct were for incidents involving minors. According to a 2010 Cato Institute review, sexual misconduct is the second-most-frequently reported form of police misconduct, after excessive force.
And these are only the reported crimes of the police.
There is an unfortunate tendency to give the police carte-blanche, and let them get away with murder. "I can't breath", no action taken for manslaughter.
Police murdering citizens, especially black ones has been going on a long time. These days we tend to hear about it since the advent of social media and the proliferation of mobile phone cameras.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:31 pm
Obviously not.
"Peter is immoral" can only be determined by judgment. All judgements involve bias.
A thing that is true can relate to several things, both subjective and objective, but not necessarily either.
Peter is both moral and immoral. He is also amoral. It all depends.
If you adopt Peter's semantics/perspective - all of your objections disappear.
In Peter's own perspective using Peter's own definitions - "true" means the same thing as "objective".
That it means something else to somebody else somewhere else is your problem, not mine.
