Isn't morality just supersition?

Simon Anders said:
Don't confuse Max's approach with mine - not that I am assuming you have, just a little preemptive message.

I am not saying that morals are fantasy in the sense that no one thinks that way. I agree that they are a phenomenon. However when anyone tries to claim that this or that is good or moral - iow that others should believe there is some objective morality - then that person is engaging in fantasy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, objective morality can be based on observational evidence.
 
(Q) said:
Nonsense, objective morality can be based on observational evidence.
Click to expand...
1) demonstrate this
2) you cannot derive 'ought' from 'is' as Hume pointed out.
3) only a subject can introduce value into a discussion of what is.

But in any case, let's see how well you do.
 
(Q) said:
I did no such thing nor think it necessary to do so.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that you did. I am keeping a running set of examples of what is acceptable in a discussion of morals - descriptive statements - and what is fantasy - claims about what is moral behavior, outlook, etc.



That's ridiculous. It isn't fantasy to tell someone not to go into a burning building, it's a statement based on observational evidence that the person would die if they did so. Your stretching here, Simon.
Click to expand...
Of course no action is fantasy. But to say an action is 'good' objectively is fantasy. Notions of good and bad and should and should not are all subjective. IOW fantasy.

If you inform someone that entering the burning building is likely to cause them pain - or simply say 'Don't', you have not engaged in fantasy.

If you say people should tell other people not to go in burning buildings you are making a claim based on fantasy.

Objective morality is as much a fantasy as God.
 
Simon Anders said:
Still awaiting your demonstration.

(you can't read between the lines in a thread can you Q)
Click to expand...

You can't write a post without being a pompous ass, can you, Simon? Do you really believe your intellectual superiority over others?
 
(Q) said:
You can't write a post without being a pompous ass, can you, Simon? Do you really believe your intellectual superiority over others?
Click to expand...
If you'll note I edited that post before you posted this last one. I am trying to cut down on that shit.

Still awaiting your demonstration.

Ah, you can't note I edited it, I did it too fast. You'll take my word for it or not.
 
Simon Anders said:
Still awaiting your demonstration.
Click to expand...

Considering you've made the assertion that anything anyone says about morals is fantasy equivalent to gods morals, and haven't demonstrated your case yet, it would be unfair for you to ask for demonstrations.
 
(Q) said:
Considering you've made the assertion that anything anyone says about morals is fantasy equivalent to gods morals, and haven't demonstrated your case yet, it would be unfair for you to ask for demonstrations.
Click to expand...
I am making the claim that there is no objective morality.
You are making the claim something exists. The onus is on you, just as you claim it is on theists who posit the existence of something you do not believe in.
Parsimony suggests we do not posit entities unnecessarily.
It is clear that humans have wants and desires and they project these onto the universe and make them absolute and objective.
Why should I take these as more than simply your desires and wants for how things should be?
 
(Q) said:
Nonsense, objective morality can be based on observational evidence.
Click to expand...

So does that mean that "objective morality" is the same all over the world, with all peoples and all cultures? 'Cause if not, you have some real tough explaining to do.

Baron Max
 
I think morality is based on ego. e.g. is it okay to eat a person? Why not? What about a dog?

Is rape immoral? Murder wrong? what about incest? cheating? lying? What if an insect does it?

Most "objective" morality is based on the subjective view that human beings have special worth. And whatever worth human beings ascribe to other creatures determines the stance on the morality of the behaviour of that creature.
 
S.A.M. said:
Most "objective" morality is based on the subjective view that human beings have special worth.
Click to expand...

But even that's not true. Some of the "lost" tribes in the Amazon and in the isolated islands of the South Pacific, shoot at people who aren't like them, who aren't part of their tribe.

So, see, to people like that, "human beings" are ONLY people just like them, who are part of the tribe. Anyone else, even looking like them, is an enemy to be killed on sight.

So the idea of universal ethics and morality just went ...POOF! :D

Baron Max
 
Maybe they don't consider people who don't look like them human beings. Thats not uncommon.
 
S.A.M. said:
Maybe they don't consider people who don't look like them human beings. Thats not uncommon.
Click to expand...

I think, SAM, that's exactly what I said. Did you suddenly take to reading what you want to read instead of what's written? :D

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
I think, SAM, that's exactly what I said. Did you suddenly take to reading what you want to read instead of what's written? :D

Baron Max
Click to expand...

I'm just making sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. We did just agree right?

I need to lie down for a while. :eek:
 
Simon Anders said:
I am making the claim that there is no objective morality.

Why should I take these as more than simply your desires and wants for how things should be?
Click to expand...

You don't have to take what I say, you simply need to know for yourself whether or not you wish harm to befall you and whether or not you would dish out the same harm to others.
 
Baron Max said:
So does that mean that "objective morality" is the same all over the world, with all peoples and all cultures? 'Cause if not, you have some real tough explaining to do.
Click to expand...

The religiously deluded would not agree with me as they have their own sets of golden rules.
 
(Q) said:
You don't have to take what I say, you simply need to know for yourself whether or not you wish harm to befall you and whether or not you would dish out the same harm to others.
Click to expand...

Huh? That says that you now do NOT believe that morality is objective. If everyone can have differing views of it, the morality is NOT objective ....which is exactly what you were trying to say.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Huh? That says that you now do NOT believe that morality is objective. If everyone can have differing views of it, the morality is NOT objective ....which is exactly what you were trying to say.
Click to expand...

You're mistakenly asserting that theist morals are objective.
 
(Q) said:
You're mistakenly asserting that theist morals are objective.
Click to expand...

Huh? How did you get that from anything that I said? You're confused.

You said: "Nonsense, objective morality can be based on observational evidence."

So, as others have been trying to get you to answer is ...how do you get that? How can "observational evidence" give us anything like "objective morality"?

Please ........just answer that question.

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top