next »

[Paul Eres]

it can be both simultaneously -- something can be personal preference and also objectively better. for instance, it's a personal preference if you enjoy soda more than orange juice, but orange juice is still pretty much objectively healthier (unless you're allergic to oranges or something, then the soda would be better)

[PompiPompi]

Well, you know, they tried to do it before you.
It's called the bible. The bible also said humans are more worthy than animals.
The bible also said that if you don't abide to it's moral code then you are a sinner, wrong. Living against the bible is wrong and a sin.
(Suddenly being an atheist is not so fun? Is it? [assuming you are an atheist])

Of course if you live in a democracy there are laws forcing you to not act in a certain way. It might be also in the law to help injured people, so it might be against the law to save a dog instead of a human.
But, just because most people agree with you, doesn't make that a fact or more right.
This is all hypothetical arguments, because people who don't live by the moral standard of their society often end up in jail or outcasted.

[Christian Knudsen]

What am I "trying to do"?

And I can't even follow your logic with that reference to the bible. Are you saying I can no longer be an atheist because the bible values humans more than animals?

Half of the time you seem to be adding completely unrelated stuff to the discussion and the other half you're just not making any sense...

[thatshelby]

it can be both simultaneously -- something can be personal preference and also objectively better. for instance, it's a personal preference if you enjoy soda more than orange juice, but orange juice is still pretty much objectively healthier (unless you're allergic to oranges or something, then the soda would be better)

UHOH IT'S ORANGE SODA

[Paul Eres]

What am I "trying to do"?

And I can't even follow your logic with that reference to the bible. Are you saying I can no longer be an atheist because the bible values humans more than animals?

Half of the time you seem to be adding completely unrelated stuff to the discussion and the other half you're just not making any sense...

basically he's saying that because one (bad) form of objective morality failed (the bible), that means that all objective moralities will also fail

and of course that isn't really right, since it's perfectly possible that that was just a bad moral system because it came from like 3000 years ago, and today we know more about the world and can create better moral systems, but i'm just trying to explain his reasoning

in any case, any one who believes that animals are worth more than humans isn't living up to their ideals unless they are a vegetarian

[Christian Knudsen]

Thanks for explaining that. For a guy that throws around the word "fallacy" left and right in discussions, he sure dips into that pool a lot himself...

[PompiPompi]

No, I am saying, a moral code is never objective.
You can be both an atheist and have your own moral code. But thinking believing your moral code is superior to other peoples' moral code, is exactly what religion is all about.

[Cow]

Well, you know, they tried to do it before you.
It's called the bible. The bible also said humans are more worthy than animals.
The bible also said that if you don't abide to it's moral code then you are a sinner, wrong. Living against the bible is wrong and a sin.
(Suddenly being an atheist is not so fun? Is it? [assuming you are an atheist])

wowwwwwww you are dumb

[Dragonmaw]

No, I am saying, a moral code is never objective.
You can be both an atheist and have your own moral code. But thinking believing your moral code is superior to other peoples' moral code, is exactly what religion is all about.

There are moral codes which are objectively better than others.

[Christian Knudsen]

No, I am saying, a moral code is never objective.
You can be both an atheist and have your own moral code. But thinking believing your moral code is superior to other peoples' moral code, is exactly what religion is all about.

This has nothing to do with religion. It's about common sense and empathy towards your fellow man. You think people were running around killing each other before they had a commandment telling them not to do that?

[PompiPompi]

There are many kinds of moral codes, I don't see how you decide which one is superior.
"common sense and empathy" is too vague.
You will find there are moral codes from a wide spectrom.

Edit: Well, objective is "A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject"
Obviously empathy mean it's not objective because some people do not have empathy.

[Paul Eres]

look, think of it this way: if morality were completely subjective and doing anything was just taste and a matter of doing whatever you like, WHY GIVE TO CHARITY AT ALL -- you can just keep the money and spend it on beer, because that's your personal preference and any use of money is equally good

[Christian Knudsen]

Obviously empathy mean it's not objective because some people do not have empathy.

And we call those people psychopaths and do not use them as a standard for moral behavior.

[PompiPompi]

Obviously empathy mean it's not objective because some people do not have empathy.

And we call those people psychopaths and do not use them as a standard for moral behavior.

Well, I am just sticking to the definitions. If you use the word "Objective" it should be according to it's definition, or at least bring your own definition of objectiveness.
I would also say people have varied degrees of empathy, and people are empathic about different things.
For instance, some people are even empathic torward bugs.

[PompiPompi]

look, think of it this way: if morality were completely subjective and doing anything was just taste and a matter of doing whatever you like, WHY GIVE TO CHARITY AT ALL -- you can just keep the money and spend it on beer, because that's your personal preference and any use of money is equally good

Paul, just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean that a specific inidivdual don't feel compelled to follow it. For whatever reason.
And doing things from taste, doesn't mean an individual can change his own taste so easily, or he can do whatever he wants just because people have different tastes.