So God asks his servant Satan to play a trick on this poor bloke called Job to prove what how mighty and powerful is god.
Nice!
Not the sort of deity worthy of any respect.

60 years ago it was legal to rape your wife.
— charleton

It still is in some countries. — René Descartes

Indeed it is. Which simply enough begs the question what would an objectively correct moral law look like?
I keep asking this question but no one has had the courage to begin to address the question.

It is simply an historical fact that women for centuries have not been considered as men's equals.
Such a position has been the moral standard until the 20thC.
Why are you trying to deny the basic facts of history?

The same goes for the laws of morality.
— Samuel Lacrampe — charleton

Please state the "laws" of morality!

Day One: All men are equal
Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too.
— charleton

This only proves the words describing the idea have changed, not the meaning or the idea behind them. — BlueBanana

No it proves that women were not considered fully human.

If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument, — Samuel Lacrampe

It does not. You have it backwards.

No? The formula 2+2=4 is not objective, but man-made? — Samuel Lacrampe

Exactly. Now you are getting it.
Nature has no integers or equivalents.
There are no straight lines, circles, geometric shapes, in nature.
Maths relies on all these fictions including irrational numbers.

Also what makes you think that the west thinks war is immoral? lol we seem to be involved in so many wars all the time. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I do.
Millions of others do too. That's because morals are personally relative.

60 years ago it was legal to rape your wife.
Morals are temporally, culturally, personally, and nationally relative.
There is no objective morality and no arguments have been offered to substantiate that claim.

I'm puzzled why you find this all so confusing.

The same goes for the laws of morality. — Samuel Lacrampe

utter nonsense.

Quite the opposite. Unless you believe the content was purely arbitrary, then it is reasonable to suggest it was inspired by real morality. — Samuel Lacrampe

Only if you believe in the god delusion.

Incorrect. You believe the mathematical laws to be objective, don't you? — Samuel Lacrampe

No, why?

↪charleton I consider it my definition. I've come to that definition by my own research and contemplation. Isn't that what a philosopher is to do? — Clayton Sharrits

It is wise to establish a definition, stupid to assume that your definition is a perfect form that has existed since the dawn of time, absolute, objective and universal.
Claiming such a definition is a great way to establish an ideal code and to assess other moral positions from that perspective. It is not a means to stand on a high horse and demand that your standards are the only ones.
By asserting a definition it is possible to say how and why such consequences of that position could work for others. Kant asserted the Categorical Imperative, Bentham Utilitarianism. Both positions useful and assessable through comparison; neither are natural and neither are objective, though they may co-op objective knowledge, and the natural "is" of conditions; neither entails an "ought".

the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights.
— Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV — Samuel Lacrampe

The reason that this had to be declared was that morality does not definitively entail it.
If morality had included this, the declaration would not be necessary.

The criteria for moral value is justice; and justice is equality in treatment among all men; thus equality in treatment is the criteria for moral value. — Samuel Lacrampe

Circular, question begging rubbish.

↪Michael Death can be funny but murder certainly isn't. — Benkei

Depends on who is murdered.
Actually - also depends on how the murders are described. Agatha Christi was quite a humourist at times.

What research? The drug has been available since 1953. Toxoplasmosis (a brain infection) is not a communion disease, but not exactly rare, either. (Cat feces is a common source.) Generally it occurs in immunocompromised people (AIDS, transplant patients, other causes). It's also used on certain intestinal parasites (single celled parasites, not worms). — Bitter Crank

It is thought that significant numbers of people live with the worm parasites. If you are a cat owner you will have had or be carrying the plasmid at some point.
In mice the same disease makes mice disinhibited, and fearless of cats. Cats eat the mice and the cycle of the plasmids continues. natural selection in action.
There was a recent study which demonstrated that people responsible for causing road accidents predicted high for toxoplasmosis, leading the researchers to conclude that the same sort of recklessness found in mice was also a factor in humans.
Cat lovers beware. If you wonder why you are sometimes a bit over-the-top, impatient, or reckless; try taking some anti-worming pills.

Yes, very true. And in some cultures even today those are still true. — René Descartes

I can't imagine what sort of mind The DD has. To think that whatever he thinks is true must be universally, objectively and absolutely true, is what I might expect from someone like Trump, but not a person who has any interest in philosophy.

So, What does Scientism actually mean? — Pseudonym

Shite that takes on the mantle of scientific respectability but pays no regard to the subjective interests in its findings, but most importantly just uses science methods to built a false premise.

Race Theory, Evolutionary Psychology, Sociology, Economics - tend towards scientism.
There aim is to use the methods of science upon matters that are predefined.

Astrology is the easiest example. It starts with the premise that our lives are cryptically encoded in the movement of the stars, because they effect our lives, and thus knowing where the stars are can lead us to predict the future and paint character pictures of people by their birth dates. Astrology piggybacks the findings of astronomy to give a scientific veneer and mathematical credibility to their method.

There is no basis for the premise.
Each of the above examples also have more or less faulty premises.

-War is Immoral
-Slavery is Immoral
-persecuting sexual minoritys is Immoral
-Rape is still Immoral — The Devils Disciple

These are all culturally relative, and very modern and Western oriented.
Go back just 2400 years to Aristotle and none of those are true.

Really? Id say that; do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, have not changed — The Devils Disciple

That is such a naive statement.
Of course they have changed!!!
Take a look at the Gortyn Law Code, which is a shopping list. Rape a slave and pay the owner $1, rape his wife and pay the husband $10. This code is seen as an improvement in a society where rape was otherwise acceptable.
Definitions as to what constitutes murder has also vastly changed. It was seen as impossible to murder a slave for example. Killing a slave was involved compensating the owner. Stealing is okay for the Lord to do to the serf, or crossing the border to raid the barbarians.
The historical examples are just too numerous to mention.
Even in the modern day some regard euthanasia and abortion as murder, others do not.
Where's your objectivity now?

"Equality in treatment" is the criteria of moral value — Samuel Lacrampe

Says who?

I have decided to stop taking your comments seriously. With that, thanks for increasing the Replies count on this discussion. I suspect this attracts more readers. :blush: — Samuel Lacrampe

There's none so blind that cannot see.
I suggest you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and bury your head in the sand. Alternatively could could actually start to think about what you believe on these issues - but i doubt you have it in you.

Can you describe how you think it has changed? — Samuel Lacrampe

Day One: All men are equal
Day Two: Oops I mean women and children too.

So what are the objective rules to morality then?
What ever shit comes into your head?

I was aware. As previously stated, by 'men', I mean mankind. This is a conventional term in traditional philosophy. Thus I am not omitting children or women. But what is the point to linger on this? Do you want me to apologize? I can if you want. My intent was not to offend anyone. — Samuel Lacrampe

No I do not want you to apologise. But this is a clear indication that morality is neither absolute or objective. You can't even agree with the moral position to had a few days ago.

I agree that animal behaviour might be explained without mentioning belief.

I made the point that belief implies a choice; it involves believing one thing rather than some other. Instinct does not involve choice. — Banno

I wonder is that is true. Since we do not know how deep into our psychology reaches, it might be that the same brain activity which keeps a dog going back to his bowl might be much the same mechanism by which we are similarly draw to things that we 'know' without a consciously acknowledgement.

Haters gonna hate, but not philosophize. :groan: — Samuel Lacrampe

Please refer to the post I made above.

The evidence is the rationality of the explanation and the function of the process. Quite a bit of explanation, and I could post a link to a lot more if preferred. — Tyler

In other words you have no evidence.

The method of obtaining memories is irrelevant, — Tyler

How convenient for you!!! LOL

That's a new interpretation to me. According to this view, would lying to a murderer to save the victim then be considered moral because of the circumstances? — BlueBanana

Depends if he thought that doing this was generally okay. For example. Killing is generally okay if you are in a state of war; or a butcher killing an animal. He is saying that soldiers fighting wars are able to ignore the rule against killing/ The CI insists that since you accept that it also means that enemy soldiers attacking Austria also enjoy that exception to the rule of killing, and may kill Austrians morally.
See how this works?

gender and sex — Mr Phil O'Sophy

There are more than 2 genders. At least five I think.

Its pretty much 99% of the worlds population that have coinciding gender and sex. that would suggest a pretty good correlation between the two. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Actually the Kinsey report places homosexuality at closer to 10%. Social pressure to suppress these feelings can reduce full expression to around 1-2% though.

This is supposed to mean that the circumstances of the action shouldn't matter. — BlueBanana

What makes you think this?
There is nothing to say that the exact circumstances of the action are not important - far from it.
The point about the CI is that it suggests you do not make special exceptions for yourself.
If you think that killing is okay in some circumstances, then those same circumstances equally apply to yourself.
E.g. being hung for murder means that you should have to face the same penalty.

You may be right, but that would merely suggest that no society is completely just; not that justice is subjective. — Samuel Lacrampe

This is question begging nonsense.

Justice should also be offered to children you know; why are you omitting children? :joke:
By 'men', I mean mankind. A minor misunderstanding. — Samuel Lacrampe

A MASSIVE error. You omitted children and women. Did you realise that it was international women's day this week?

I doubt you have anything worthy to say. So I'll not hold my breath waiting.

You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points. — The Devils Disciple

How does it exist? It does not exist without the humans that generate it. It is not objective, but the constantly changing results of how we act with the world and each other. Relative to each other relative to the changing social milieu.

I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions. — The Devils Disciple

The closest you can get to objective morality is the law. Most people generally comply with the law. However, as you will agree, there is such a thing as a bad law.
You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god. Morality is written by humans, mostly men. And as society changes so does the law and morality - usually it changes well behind human practice.
Human opinion; their very subjectivity is constantly forcing society to reassess and change morality.

I am really puzzled by your problem here.

yes we all start with wombs. But for most of us sexual differentiation takes place before birth.

Vaginas and penises are a start. — Noble Dust

There is a tribe in South America where all children are girls. In the early teens, when puberty strikes, around half of all children start to grow penises.

There are ultimately very few differences between the sexes and in most areas there is more variation within a gender than there are differences between genders.

In the West there are a small but significant number of children born of indeterminate sex, and many have suffered the indignities of surgery that have assigned them in the direction counter to their eventual innate feelings upon reaching puberty.

Sexual orientation in terms of attraction preference seems to be natural, and beyond the sensible choice of individuals. Homosexuality seems to be perfectly natural. And many people seem to exist on a spectrum of attraction in scale and towards both sexes in different degrees.

Some species are capable of changing sex during their lives, whilst others can have characteristics of two genders.

Given these observations I do not think it possible to argue for gender indelibility on naturalistic grounds.

The idea that the possession of a vagina or a cock must mean you have to comply with what is a socially defined status in not arguable on naturalistic or scientific grounds.

I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction. — The Devils Disciple

That's just rubbish. We all assess the goodness or badness of what we do, and that not only is measured against what is taken to be the norm, but the very act of assessing our own actions is perfectly subjective. Subjectivity is the relationship we have the the moral laws we learn. The very learning process results in a subjective interpretation. So we have to relate subjectively with something subjectively modified by our opinion.

But even if you were completely correct none of that would indicate anything other then pure social construction.

He's talking bollocks. I don't think he is very bright. slow and a bit confused. Not even sure he knows what subjective and objective mean.
Subjective and object is about relationship. All objects of art are objective in that they are material. They are also ALL subjective as to their meanings.

All good art is crafted. There is no good art without craft. When I make art, I MAKE it. I get dirt under my nails.
Some of the most "accomplished" modern artists (so-called) have an idea and tell others to do the work; others just drag some shit out of a skip; and others shit into a bag.
For my money these examples simply do not qualify as art.

Are you saying the definition of justice is subjective? Definitions of concepts are always objective. If not the case, then the Socratic Method of finding correct definitions would be in vain. At worst, you could say that my definition is wrong and then proceed to explain why. — Samuel Lacrampe

Culturally defined. Let's look at what you think defines justice.
"(2) Justice is defined as: equality in treatment among all men."

The first thing that strikes is the word "men". These days in most civilised societies justice is also offered to women. Odd that you you should hold such an outdated notion.
Secondly, you strangely use the word "all". I suggest that there is not a single society that has offered justice to all men and women, let alone 'all men'.
Third, I think you have a big task ahead if you think that people who the society deeds as worthy of justice, shall receive that justice equally.
Your definition is so bad it's not even wrong. It's nowhere near.

Saying your definition was subjective , I was being kind.

(2) Justice is defined as: equality in treatment among all men. — Samuel Lacrampe

Subjective.

Any action that is done unconsciously is automatically considered to be not moral or immoral, but amoral because it was done on accident. Only when an individual aims to directly affect themselves or others can an actions be looked at through a moral lens — Clayton Sharrits

This is not any kind of definition.