Non-objective morality is no morality. It translates to "I can do whatever I want". — Ram
Are'nt we all the incestuous sons and daughters of Adam and eve? — Marcus de Brun
No. Read Genesis with bit of care. — tim wood
The soul of sweet delight can never be defil'd." — Blue Lux
I agree, but I also believe we have an innate capacity for morality - one that seems rooted in empathy - and such a capacity is consistent with natural selection.I've found incredible rhetorical and persuasive success by appealing to NUMVs (nearly universal moral values). To continue living, to be free from oppression, to be free to pursue happiness, etc... Moral agreements between agents with shared moral values are objectively true in the same sense that a good strategy is objectively likely to lead to victory. — VagabondSpectre
There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram
They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. — Ram
Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective. — Ram
they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists — Ram
There is simply no secular basis for morality.
— Ram
They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral.
— Ram
Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.
— Ram
they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists
— Ram
You've contradicted yourself. — S
There are normative criteria to define what constitutes doing philosophy. They are pretty broad and yet what you are doing seems to fall outside their province. — Janus
There is no contradiction. — Ram
Of course there is. If morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective, then that subjectivity is the basis for secular morality. That's the basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. The contradiction arises from you saying, on the one hand, that there is no basis, but then, on the other hand, suggesting that there is a basis.
Moral relativists have a basis for morality, so you can't lack a basis for morality and be a moral relativist.
You're either not saying what you really mean or you can't do basic logic. And you've given me reason to doubt that you know much about what you're actually talking about. — S
Subjective morality would mean morality is not real- it would be "morality" without basis.
If you want to argue that baselessness is a basis and get into an argument about semantics, you can do that.
"Moral relativists have a basis for morality" is absurd. The perceived contradiction you claim is a semantic dispute, resting upon your assertion that baselessness is a base. If you believe baselessness is a base, you can believe that. I believe otherwise.
"Moral relativists have a basis for morality"- that is one of the craziest things I have read in a while."Moral relativists have a basis for morality". Wow. That's a paradox and contrary to common sense. That is quite the logical gymnastics. I'm amazed at how people can be smug without justification. — Ram
Moral relativism is sometimes thought of as a version of anti-realism, but (short of stipulating usage) there is no basis for this classification; it is better to say that some versions of relativism may be anti-realist and others may be realist.
Subjective morality wouldn't mean that morality isn't real, it would just mean that it's subjective — S
The clue is in the name. The basis for subjective morality is... drum roll... subjectivity! — S
But one thing's for sure, there certainly is a basis, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda, which appears to be to discredit these positions by any means. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.