My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[BeRational]

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.

So this is an objective moral position then?

Who decides what is reasonable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So this is an objective moral position then?
Who decides what is reasonable?

I think the law states the words proportionate force. That means say if I have destroyed moral relativism it would be unreasonable for me to then continually smite it's wrath upon post after post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

So this is an objective moral position then?

Who decides what is reasonable?

Without realising it Trollboy is running into the same problem here that Alan/Alien had with his "torturing a child just for fun" scenario. You can choose any moral position you like - especially an extreme one - and ask for people's opinions on it, and thereby obtain a consensus. Similarly you can ask lots of people whether or not the late Beethoven quartets are great music and obtain a consensus on that too. Even with all those opinions in the bag though, you'd be not one jot of a step towards demonstrating in either case an objective quality of "good" or "bad".

It gets more bonkers still: Trollboy has invoked "authority" - another of his arguments from consequences fallacies - yet the entire judicial system runs quite happily on the basis of concepts like "beyond reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities" and exercises its authority accordingly without the need to claim absolutes or certainties. I'd readily argue on the same basis for a moral position I hold - a messy mix of intuition and reason in most cases - but allowing always for the possibility that I could be wrong, as indeed I'd have to with no rational argument to suggest that absolute moral certainties exist at all, even assuming that I'd have some magic process to tap into them if they did. 

Like I said: weird.

[wigginhall]

I suppose Vlad is working backwards.   He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I suppose Vlad is working backwards.   He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.

Just so. He's been caught out often enough with circular reasoning now to know enough not to try the "because God made it that way" line again when he wants to use supposed objective morality as evidence for God, but that's left him with nothing at all by way of an argument to support his assertion. Instead he's reduced to announcing that moral relativism is "disproven" it seems because he thinks it has no "authority", even though it has no less probabilistic authority than many other areas of human experience that function perfectly well with no recourse to claimed absolutes at all.

When you cut through the endless evasions, fallacies and accusations his position really is that vapid.

[ekim]

I suppose Vlad is working backwards.   He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.

Quite likely.  To me, morality is 'social habits'.  Such habits could be based upon the desires and fears of the humans making up that society and enforced by whoever wealds the power and it is changeable, relative and subjective.  If one believes in a God which is eternal and absolute then one's social habits would be directed towards the objective of obeying the will of that God as only that God is Good.  The Ten Commandments would be a framework.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BR,

Without realising it Trollboy is running into the same problem here that Alan/Alien had with his "torturing a child just for fun" scenario.

That's just throwing shit and hoping some of it sticks, Hillside.
You are getting desperate. Go out for a bike ride and/or have your carbon monoxide detectors checked............You are losing the plot(not that you had it in the first place.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose Vlad is working backwards.   He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.

I think any non axe grinder would actually look at my post and say actually this chap is putting himself alongside the atheist objective moralists.....see#550.

I was actually an objective moralist before I was a convinced theist.

[Andy]

I think any non axe grinder would actually look at my post and say actually this chap is putting himself alongside the atheist objective moralists.....see#550.

I was actually an objective moralist before I was a convinced theist.

And at that time, you thought you should promote everyone's humanity because...

[bluehillside Retd.]

That's just throwing shit and hoping some of it sticks, Hillside.
You are getting desperate. Go out for a bike ride and/or have your carbon monoxide detectors checked............You are losing the plot(not that you had it in the first place.)

And here we see Trollboy not liking having his difficulty pointed out but unable to counter-argue so resorting to abuse instead.

That's the trouble with feeding trolls - sometimes they can't keep it all down...

[Khatru]

If that were true we would still be back in the earliest stages of man.

Our morality is as individual as our fingerprints...we choose it.

Hardly an objective morality, eh Sass?

I thought you guys believe that our morality isn't chosen but comes from your imaginary friend?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And here we see Trollboy not liking having his difficulty pointed out but unable to counter-argue so resorting to abuse instead.

That's the trouble with feeding trolls - sometimes they can't keep it all down...

You've obviously got an issue friend but I think you'll understand I can't climb in with you........So good luck old chum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

You've obviously got an issue friend but I think you'll understand I can't climb in with you........So good luck old chum.

Accept Trollboy's capitulation as I must, there's no pleasure in taking it from an unarmed man.

Anyways as he's exited the field he was never really in, does anyone want to make an attempt at least to bridge the gap from subjective opinion about supposed objective morality to its objective truth or can we now re-consign it to where it belonged all along?

[Stranger]

But enough of that......In the realms of where you guys are some of your chums are in fact my chums when it comes to objective morality. Now you may have a case that Objective morality has not yet been proven but moral relativism has been fatally disproven..........and at the moment it looks as though morality is in fact objective since that is where the evidence leads.

So to sum up Moral relativism disproven, Objective morality unproven.

Once again, you are making empty assertions and failing to provide any arguments.

Your main problem seems to be that you are unable to accept that it isn't a stark choice between objective morality and morality being meaningless and unimportant. Most humans have a sense of morality, think that it's important, and try to "do the right thing". However, it isn't consistent and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it is anything but an evolved trait - with all the variability that that implies. It is further complicated because we are thinking, social animals that can, on occasion, change our minds and attitudes due to experience and the influence of others.

The evidence, far from supporting objective morality, is that it is a part of human nature that is subject to complex cultural and individual variations.

[wigginhall]

A lot of Vlad's declarations operate by fiat.   Thus he declares that moral relativism has been 'fatally disproven', and hey presto, that's it.   He doesn't have to demonstrate this disproof, since the declaration should be enough.   Also known as wishful thinking.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

A lot of Vlad's declarations operate by fiat.   Thus he declares that moral relativism has been 'fatally disproven', and hey presto, that's it.   He doesn't have to demonstrate this disproof, since the declaration should be enough.   Also known as wishful thinking.

He's also given to complaining that the rest of us won't debate the ramifications of his "disproven/not yet proven" premise when he has no argument to demonstrate the former and not even a coherent description of what the latter could look like – ie, rather than "unproven" he's stuck still in "not even wrong" territory.