Search results

Uh, the definition of this is self-evident, but here goes : The difference between something that is objectively wrong, versus subjectively wrong, is this : If it is OBJECTIVELY wrong, then that determination is OUTSIDE of what anyone or any society thinks. It doesn't matter what people...

Perfect. Then you have nothing bad to say about Stalin or Hitler, who "co-existed just fine", expanded their borders, eliminated the obstacle people, etc.... Right ? I mean, sure, you can say "bad" or "wrong", but you would mean that in only a subjective way, not an objective way. Eh ...

Yup. As long as we assume objective moral absolutes, I totally agree. When you say "defend your assertion", I assume you're referring to "how does Tom_in_CA ground the moral scoring card ?" Eg.: If I'm attacking truth-OT's "grounding", then pray-tell, how does Tom-in-CA ground them ?"...

Nope. I've not missed any of the full context. I totally *get * what you are saying. And you repeat it here: Subjective and relative based on the "we" factor. I Got it. Ok ? But what YOU are *missing*, is that in the very next breaths, you go on to cite various things which are...

Nope. Not until we've drawn a conclusion to the conversation of the test drive of YOUR views. If you continue to say you're not contradicting yourself perpetually (spelled out in post #11 ), then why on earth would I tell you what I think is the grounding of the moral scoring card ...

Dude, now you're back to subjective/relative. Which I figured you'd do. Because I think you know that your agnosticism is in peril if you admit to objective moral values. But then again, you turn around in the very next breaths and start talking about different various moral things as if...

Well then PRESTO, you DO believe in objective moral absolutes. (At least as far as murder goes) We're getting somewhere ! So now can you PLEASE acknowledge that, contrary to your earlier statements, that morals are NOT subjective and relative to societies, times and cultures. And that...

Yup. You are being consistent with relative/subjective moral "good" and "bad". At least no one can accuse you of being inconsistent . And re.: the Above quote : Sure, and Hitler's Nazi Germany defined , desired, and approved of various things. Eh ? Then : On *your* view, you can not...

It is so easy to discuss this with persons who say that morals are subjective. And persons that say that there isn't such a thing as objective moral absolutes. Why is it so easy ? Because all you have to do is follow them around for a day, or read their very next breath post, and you'll...

Wait, aren't you seeing your inherent contradiction ? You have implied, in your above statement, that the "high and mighty" had taken the wrong position in a matter (thus requiring civil disobedience, protests, etc....) Eh ? Ok, but then what does that imply ?? It implies that there is...

Me thinks you do not understand the definitions of subjective versus objective AS IT RELATES TO OUR CONVERSATION . "Subjective" (as it relates to our conversation) means : That it depends on the "subject" (the individual person). To determine the matter. Eg.: flavors of ice-cream ("good"...

Yup. And that would include Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. Right ? They had an "our" as well. Right ?

As soon as you state whether or not your stated ability to look-back-in-the-past, at your own society, and say some behavior of theirs was "wrong". Was "absolutely" wrong vs only "subjectively" wrong ? Great ! Then by all means , we're all waiting on the edge of our seats waiting for you to...

Ok, so when I asked "why should anyone care what you think ?" I guess that was poorly worded. What I meant was more along the lines of : What makes you right, and them wrong ? No, I was not purposefully trying to obfuscate. You bring up a good point, when you detail the difference...

No, in each case, it was objectively wrong. The fact that those societies did differently, does not mean "morals are subjective", it merely means: We humans can break the objective code". Wow, let's unpack this : So you're no longer saying that "society [and their laws, etc...] create moral...

Look closely at the post here (might have to cross-reference to what you were answering in the first place, but let's give it a try anyhow) : When you asked "Isn't government a "thing" ?, you were referring back to when I said that moral obligations and laws can only come from "whos", not...

What's wrong with might-makes-right ? Who cares where the "authority" came from ? Whether it be collective society that codifies laws, or a God up there somewhere. Either way, we both agree on these moral laws (don't murder, don't rape, etc....). We're just trying to discover what best...

Truth-OT, this is your 2nd attempt to take yourself off the hot-plate. But here's what I'm afraid of : If you haven't seen the test-drive-failure of your own views, via our conversation so far, then any attempt I give to "ground morals", then you can summarily dismiss them, and run back to...

And who is the "our", in your above quote ? What country ? What era ? etc.....

Truth OT, again and for the umpteenth time: This statement of yours is confusing epistemology and ontology . Like two people arguing about the neighborhood speed limit . The one person (Tom_in_CA) is pondering "who made the speed limit ?" And the other person (Truth-OT) keeps saying : "why...