My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[torridon]

I don't think biologists would agree with you.
By your logic all science is subjective since all atoms are in different positions as are there sub atomic particles.

Well, yes, true objectivity in any profound respect is ultimately impossible. We are all bound together in spacetime and we cannot access some external objective reference frame.  All we can do is witness how things appear from our location.

[BeRational]

What do you mean by right or wrong?

I mean objectively morally correct or not.

You know, morality the thing you say is objective.

Morality is about shared rules of behaviour.

So, is it right or wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I mean objectively morally correct or not.

You know, morality the thing you say is objective.

Morality is about shared rules of behaviour.

So, is it right or wrong?

Define right and wrong. If you refuse then we can't proceed can we?

[BeRational]

Define right and wrong. If you refuse then we can't proceed can we?

You are the one that claims objective morality exists.

How does it exist without some measure of right or wrong.

This is my point, right and wrong do not really exist. We create them based on outcomes that we want/desire.

You must have objective values for right and wrong.

You have the problem, not me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Music is governed by physics and maths Hillside and art by the fives senses.
These operate within and across physical spectra. Morality is just a question of ought and ought not.It is markedly different from the analogies you use.

I've never thought stupidity could be like this fixed, but I used to think it could at least be trained a little. Seems I was wrong.

Trollboy is seems will never get around to telling us why qualitatively deciding, say, what constitutes "good" from "bad" art does not require an objective measure of either, whereas deciding what constitutes "good" from "bad" moral behaviour does.

Ah well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've never thought stupidity could be like this fixed, but I used to think it could at least be trained a little. Seems I was wrong.

Trollboy is seems will never get around to telling us why qualitatively deciding, say, what constitutes "good" from "bad" art does not require an objective measure of either, whereas deciding what constitutes "good" from "bad" moral behaviour does.

Ah well.

Good old Hillside. He is like Rene on ello ello who, whenever he gets caught with his pants down by his wife, starts his response with "you stupid woman '.

A morality based on taste like he maintains would not work.

So therefore there is only one way to respond to Hillside on this

"....................You stupid woman...............

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are the one that claims objective morality exists.

You said that like it was a bad thing.."...............define bad.

[BeRational]

You said that like it was a bad thing.."...............define bad.

I see you are simply trolling and not engaging.

You have the problem as you claim objectivity, so you must have definitions for all these.

Just lay them out with your method, or stop saying that morality is objective.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Good old Hillside. He is like Rene on ello ello who, whenever he gets caught with his pants down by his wife, starts his response with "you stupid woman '.

A morality based on taste like he maintains would not work.

So therefore there is only one way to respond to Hillside on this

"....................You stupid woman...............

In which Trollboy treats us to an evasion, a straw man, an argument by assertion and a splash of misogyny to complete the cocktail – and all in one eructation of a post!

Can I suggest we all move along now - clearly there's nothing to see here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I see you are simply trolling and not engaging.

Trollboy trolling?

Say it ain't so!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy treats us to an evasion, a straw man, an argument by assertion and a splash of misogyny to complete the cocktail – and all in one eructation of a post!

Can I suggest we all move along now - clearly there's nothing to see here.

That's right Hillside. If you haven't got a case play the man!

[BeRational]

That's right Hillside. If you haven't got a case play the man!

You never answer.

You just respond with evasion.

Answer the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you are simply trolling and not engaging.

We cannot proceed until you define right or wrong....which ,as inquisitor is encumbent  upon you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

That's right Hillside. If you haven't got a case play the man!

Can someone add ad hominem to the list of terms Trollboy doesn't understand, and maybe explain to him in very short words that describing accurately what someone has done isn't "playing the man" at all - it's just describing accurately what someone has done.

[BeRational]

We cannot proceed until you define right or wrong....which ,as inquisitor is encumbent  upon you.

You have the burden of proof not me.

YOU claim objective morality exists, not me.

So explain how you arrive at an objective moral value or stop saying morality is objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You never answer.

You just respond with evasion.

Answer the question.

Blimey.........this thread is really turning into Ello Ello.
First Hillside as Rene and now Be Rational as Herr Flick.
What Shaker as Von Schmalhausen...........

Oh and BR I'm afraid I don't know where the Madonna with the big boobies is either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

You never answer.

Rule 1 of the trolling playbook: Never answer a question. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever...

...ever.

Rule 2: Demand that other answer your questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have the burden of proof not me.

YOU claim objective morality exists, not me.

So explain how you arrive at an objective moral value or stop saying morality is objective.

No you have to define your terms as inquisitor

[BeRational]

No you have to define your terms as inquisitor

I am asking how YOU define objective morality.

You must know them to have come to the conclusion.

State the definitions and your workings or stop saying morality is objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am asking how YOU define objective morality.

You must know them to have come to the conclusion.

State the definitions and your workings or stop saying morality is objective.

I am saying I and others have found God and therefore the source of morality.
However I also say that there is moral reality to be found in nature and detected by humans.

The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.

That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.

[floo]

I am saying I and others have found God and therefore the source of morality.
However I also say that there is moral reality to be found in nature and detected by humans.

The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.

That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.

There is nothing moral about the Biblical god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I am asking how YOU define objective morality.

He doesn't understand "burden of proof" either by the way. He just asserts objective morality then demands that others prove him wrong – standard Trollboy scumbaggery.

[BeRational]

I am saying I and others have found God and therefore the source of morality.
However I also say that there is moral reality to be found in nature and detected by humans.

The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.

That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.

What is moral reality in nature?
How have you found god?
I look at nature and see no moral morality so what do you mean.


So using these vague and asserted values, you can derive objective morality.

OK, so I ask yet again, using YOUR method, is homosexuality 'right' or 'wrong' based on YOUR method?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is moral reality in nature?
How have you found god?
I look at nature and see no moral morality so what do you mean.


So using these vague and asserted values, you can derive objective morality.

OK, so I ask yet again, using YOUR method, is homosexuality 'right' or 'wrong' based on YOUR method?

Are humans not natural. You aren't looking properly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

That is an objective thing...

Asserts Trollboy having just expressed only a personal and anthropocentric opinion on the matter.

Any prizes for guessing how he just jumped from his personal opinion to "an objective thing"?