My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[BeRational]

If this turns out to be a forum where people are just interested in attacking other peoples views without feeling the need to defend their own, then as Duncan Bannatyne would say...............I'm out.

But I am making no claim, YOU are.

[wigginhall]

But the change is through concluding that one position was wrong...namely always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong at least in that sense.

I don't think it works like that.  Take the morality of killing, it has been subject to massive fluctuations, dependent on the social situation, whether war or peace are prevailing, and many other factors.   To cite 'always wrong' ignores historical changes; we no longer cut our enemies' heads off and impale them on stakes, but it would be a stretch to say that an ancient tribe were absolutely wrong to do this.   My neighbour killed a burglar, well was that absolutely wrong?  I don't think so.    It depends.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

YOU have the burden of proof as YOU say that morality is objective.

Please demonstrate this assertion, or stop asserting it.

I have clarified my position in reply#550 and it is not what you make it out to be.

[BeRational]

I have clarified my position in reply#550 and it is not what you make it out to be.

It is not clear.

How do you use your method to come to a conclusion about a moral position to take?

I weight up my own subjective opinion and form a view.

You it seems do NOT do that, but have some external means to find the true correct objective answer.

You have been asked to provide this, but you never do.

Waffle about looking at nature is just vapid white noise.

Is homosexuality objectively morally correct according to YOUR method?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think it works like that.  Take the morality of killing, it has been subject to massive fluctuations, dependent on the social situation, whether war or peace are prevailing, and many other factors.   To cite 'always wrong' ignores historical changes; we no longer cut our enemies' heads off and impale them on stakes, but it would be a stretch to say that an ancient tribe were absolutely wrong to do this.   My neighbour killed a burglar, well was that absolutely wrong?  I don't think so.    It depends.

Surely the moral position is killing is wrong and having to kill is always a lesser evil but evil all the same. Particularly those who believe in either the theists edenic paradise or the atheists concept of post enlightenment progress. Otherwise it would be a regular feature of all societies wouldn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is not clear.

How do you use your method to come to a conclusion about a moral position to take?

I weight up my own subjective opinion and form a view.

Meaningless bollocks unless you care to elaborate.

[BeRational]

Meaningless bollocks unless you care to elaborate.

There is nothing to elaborate on.

I weigh up what I think the pros and cons are and come to a subjective opinion.
I sometime weigh them up at a later date with more information and come to a different conclusion.

What do YOU do?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is nothing to elaborate on.

I weigh up what I think the pros and cons are and come to a subjective opinion.
I sometime weigh them up at a later date with more information and come to a different conclusion.

What do YOU do?

What do you weigh against................ your own standard? or society's standards? or the one you were brought up on? or the one you have been programmed with? and what is the rule that governs your decision?.......or is it a random process?

What if hitting some one on the head tips the scales for you?

Any way isn't your process more akin to reasoning than taste which is after all irrational?

[wigginhall]

Surely the moral position is killing is wrong and having to kill is always a lesser evil but evil all the same. Particularly those who believe in either the theists edenic paradise or the atheists concept of post enlightenment progress. Otherwise it would be a regular feature of all societies wouldn't it?

Well, that is your position, so calling it 'the' moral position is a false generality.   My neighbour definitely does not think that killing the burglar was evil.   That is his position, and agreed with by many of my neighbours.   He is a local hero.     

[Andy]

I'll just put it out there that I'm not a moral relativist. I think moral assessments are objective, but the foundational values those assessments are based on are subjective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, that is your position, so calling it 'the' moral position is a false generality.   My neighbour definitely does not think that killing the burglar was evil.   That is his position, and agreed with by many of my neighbours.   He is a local hero.   

Sounds like they are confusing something with something else.

[BeRational]

What do you weigh against................ your own standard? or society's standards? or the one you were brought up on? or the one you have been programmed with? and what is the rule that governs your decision?.......or is it a random process?

What if hitting some one on the head tips the scales for you?

Any way isn't your process more akin to reasoning than taste which is after all irrational?

My own standard that's why it's subjective.

My standard will be informed from all around me, but it's mine

[BeRational]

Well, that is your position, so calling it 'the' moral position is a false generality.   My neighbour definitely does not think that killing the burglar was evil.   That is his position, and agreed with by many of my neighbours.   He is a local hero.   

Indeed.

I may agree or disagree depending on the circumstance.

For example if the burglar was a little old lady that posed no threat, then NO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My own standard that's why it's subjective.

My standard will be informed from all around me, but it's mine

So you can never be wrong or do bad then?

[BeRational]

So you can never be wrong or do bad then?

In my subjective opinion NO.

Is this not the same for everyone?

I might feel uncomfortable about some decisions if I was torn between competing actions, and I could not see a clear winner, but had to make a decision.

Can you answer the homosexuality question I ask but you never answer?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In my subjective opinion NO.

Is this not the same for everyone?

No I think everyone apart from you has admitted that they fall short on occasions......You seem to be the only one.

[BeRational]

No I think everyone apart from you has admitted that they fall short on occasions......You seem to be the only one.

Fall short.

I make poor decisions of course but not deliberately.

I sometime have to choose over the lesser of two evils.

Don't you?

How do you do it?

[wigginhall]

Sounds like they are confusing something with something else.

I don't get that.  They don't think that X killing the burglar was at all evil; they see it as necessary and heroic.   How is that confused? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fall short.

I make poor decisions of course but not deliberately.

I sometime have to choose over the lesser of two evils.

Don't you?

How do you do it?

No I think you are still a rarity when someone who ought to lose weight does something to increase it they know they are harming themselves for instance. I agree about lesser evils......but that suggests belief in evil which I would have thought is I moral objectivists trait.

[BeRational]

No I think you are still a rarity when someone who ought to lose weight does something to increase it they know they are harming themselves for instance. I agree about lesser evils......but that suggests belief in evil which I would have thought is I moral objectivists trait.

No not objective at all.

I sometimes struggle with two subjective moral actions, and have to make a decision. I might later conclude that it was not the best decision after all, when new information comes to me.

You ignored the question about homosexuality again, when I keep answering yours.

Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't get that.  They don't think that X killing the burglar was at all evil; they see it as necessary and heroic.   How is that confused?

If he is just a burgler then they are confusing property with humanity. If he was more then it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.
No reason it wasn't heroic. I think most people feel something if they are forced into killing someone don't they?

[BeRational]

If he is just a burgler then they are confusing property with humanity. If he was more then it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.
No reason it wasn't heroic. I think most people feel something if they are forced into killing someone don't they?

What if the burglar was 10 year old child.

Is killing still justified and heroic?

[wigginhall]

If he is just a burgler then they are confusing property with humanity. If he was more then it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.
No reason it wasn't heroic. I think most people feel something if they are forced into killing someone don't they?

Yes, but Vlad, this is the point.  My neighbours don't think it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.   And they don't think it was confusing property with humanity.  OK, you do, but isn't this what we are arguing about?   People have different views on moral questions, and there is no fixed objective position.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but Vlad, this is the point.  My neighbours don't think it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.   And they don't think it was confusing property with humanity.  OK, you do, but isn't this what we are arguing about?   People have different views on moral questions, and there is no fixed objective position.

But it is Palpable confusion whether they think it not or so. But it raises an interesting point. There have always been people who think like that and those who are opposed. So these moral positions are part and parcel of human experience and not zeitgeist which has been suggested.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What if the burglar was 10 year old child.

Is killing still justified and heroic?

I think you've demonised me a little too much and too often BR. You have got the wrong end of the stick.....this is a Wigginhall post and I do not think it is right to use more than reasonable force with burglars. If the state then lets me down in terms of justice then that's just the tories for you.