absolute vs. subjective morality

[Slartibartfast]

That's exactly how I have been feeling. Considering I raised my argument first it should be addressed first.

However I understand it is not easy for you to be wrong so you have to resort to petty bickering. If you can't prove me wrong I will allow you to ignore the main issue and quietly bow out.

[MD Marketers]

Still waiting for your rebuttal to

Your Dishonesty:
"the given situation"
really means
"any given situation"

Your Dishonesty:
"trying to separate 2 threads" by "copying the other thread here", then asking for someone to address it & then calling them an idiot when they do.

[Slartibartfast]

First come first served MD. Don't be rude. Since you were wrong and unable to fight my argument you shall wait quietly by the side until my argument has been dealt with.

So just shhhhhhh. You have no further input of any relevance here.

[MD Marketers]

First come first served MD. Don't be rude. Since you were wrong and unable to fight my argument you shall wait quietly by the side until my argument has been dealt with.

So just shhhhhhh. You have no further input of any relevance here.

Correction:

"First come honest argument, first served"
I already addressed all your arguments up until the point where you began being dishonest.
Bring your arguments back to honesty and we may continue.

For the record:
I do not want to continue, but if you somehow manage to bring back honesty to your argument I may once more return.

[Slartibartfast]

If I were you I wouldn't want to continue being wrong either. Especially after being shown multiple instances of you being wrong, idiotic, dishonest amd petty.

For the record I do not want you to continue either as you have nothing of substance to add. It seems like being proven wrong short circuited something in your brain.

[MD Marketers]

If I were you I wouldn't want to continue being wrong either. Especially after being shown multiple instances of you being wrong, idiotic, dishonest amd petty.

For the record I do not want you to continue either as you have nothing of substance to add. It seems like being proven wrong short circuited something in your brain.

Where was I proven wrong? Is this a subjective statement?
I have not conceded to having been proven wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

Where was I proven wrong? Is this a subjective statement?
I have not conceded to having been proven wrong.

My statement from page 2

I believe that is the objective side to morality. If there is an objective side to morality it means that morality is not completely subjective but rather partially subjective all if the time.

Your statement from page 2

Technically speaking Desifemlove is the most correct in stating that Morality is purely subjective.

My argument proving you wrong. Tje relevant part has been highlighted.

Here is my argument. I am going to break it down as simply as I can.

In my argument, the following words shall take on the meanings and context described below. I understand these words are general and can take on different meanings but I am aiming to streamline the argument and keep it simple.

HARM - Any injury/pain/discomfort that may be physical/emotional/mental etc.
BAD - Something that brings harm to someone or increases the effects of harm on people etc.
GOOD - Something that reduces the effects of harm on a person or a group of people.
RIGHT - An action made with intention to do something good
WRONG - An action made with intention to do something bad

My argument is that morality is not purely subjective.

My argument is that there is an underlying principle that acts as an objective underlying principle of morality (this then means that morality is not purely subjective.

The objective underlying principle can be summarised into the three following words
"DO NO HARM"

This simple phrase can be expanded to say "Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation".

feel free to replace "the" with "a"/"any". It would not change the fact that this logically proves you wrong.

Sadly, there is a lot more development for this argument but I am unable to present it until you digest this part.

I copy/pasted this from the other thread for 2 reasons
1. Laziness... not going to type it over
2. To keep my position consistent for anyone that might venture into this thread from the other to see. However, it was always meant as a reply to this thread only and has stood very well on its own thus far.

[Slartibartfast]

Note that even if using "a/any" instead of "the" changes the meaning of that statement as you say (not saying I agree it does, just saying if) it does not change my original statement that "Do no harm" is the objective underlying principle. "Your" version is still a derivitive of the very argument that proves you wrong

[MD Marketers]

That's not an argument "proving" I'm wrong, its an argument "claiming" I'm wrong.

I see where your error lies & I also see where I erred in pointing it out to you.
The error isn't the word a/any/the, it's the word "given". I cant believe I didn't show you that before. Maybe you would have responded differently even though the dishonesty still needs to be addressed.

The point in question was:
You claim "Do No Harm" is the underlying principle of Morality
Wrong. Morality does not mean be good. "Do Harm" is also a principle of Morality.
Google it:
"Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions & actions between those that are good or right & those that are bad or wrong."
"Do No Harm" falls under Morally Good.
To determine if an act is Morally Good you don't start with "Do No Harm"
You start with a few questions:
What is the act in question?
Is it a good choice or a bad choice to perform this act?
What is a good or bad choice?
What is good?
What is bad?
Google it:
Good: that which is desirable (to you)
Bad: that which is undesirable (to you)
The reason "to you" is in brackets is because there is an underlying principle that all actions are subject to interpretation based on who's asking. If we don't put (to you) then the definition is flawed, because we do not know whose desire.
Eg. Mercy Killing, Abortion, Death Penalty, Gay Marriages.
There are many cases where you make decisions to not harm someone that will result in someone else being harmed.
"Do no harm" cannot help you make a moral judgement in those instances.
If "Do no harm" cannot be used to make a moral judgement in all instances then it cannot be objective.

You said:
"I agree that all of morality is subjective to the circumstances and individuals involved."
Agreed
"What is it that makes us agree on what is morally right and wrong?".
That is where you started being dishonest and I started pointing it out to you.

Eg.
Why do you assume we will agree?
We dont always agree. This is why it's totally subjective. For it to be objective we have to "always agree" no matter the situation, perspective or intention.

You said:
"P.S. MD please ignore this entire post. You are only required to reply to my extremely simplified "one liner" argument."

Your 1 liner argument isn't a 1 liner argument because it calls for "the given situation". It shows APPARENT dishonesty. Am I wrong for pointing this out?

The only reference to a "given situation" is where you claimed "an argument needs to be addressed"
The argument that needed to be addressed was on another thread you copied from.
This is the facts and anyone looking for "the given situation" has no choice but to follow the bread crumbs you left behind.

It's not our fault you wrote the wrong word, but it is your fault you didn't correct the misinterpretation when I eloquently replied my train of thought with my assumed interpretation.

Instead of correcting the mistake you made you made it look like it was my fault I didn't know "the given situation" really means "any given situation"
This isn't APPARENT dishonesty now, it just evolved to BLATANT dishonesty

[Slartibartfast]

That's not an argument "proving" I'm wrong, its an argument "claiming" I'm wrong.

I see where your error lies & I also see where I erred in pointing it out to you.
The error isn't the word a/any/the, it's the word "given". I cant believe I didn't show you that before. Maybe you would have responded differently even though the dishonesty still needs to be addressed.

The point in question was:
You claim "Do No Harm" is the underlying principle of Morality
Wrong. Morality does not mean be good. "Do Harm" is also a principle of Morality.
Google it:
"Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions & actions between those that are good or right & those that are bad or wrong."1. In every case "Do no harm" can be used to differentiate between good and bad (This is one of the further developments of the argument that I was talking about but didnt mention earlier)
"Do No Harm" falls under Morally Good.
To determine if an act is Morally Good you don't start with "Do No Harm"
You start with a few questions:
What is the act in question?
Is it a good choice or a bad choice to perform this act?
What is a good or bad choice?
What is good?
What is bad?2. Yes this is the subjective side of morality. I did say morality is partially subjective all of the time.
Google it:
Good: that which is desirable (to you)
Bad: that which is undesirable (to you)3. I adopted simplified meanings to keep my argument simple.
The reason "to you" is in brackets is because there is an underlying principle that all actions are subject to interpretation based on who's asking. If we don't put (to you) then the definition is flawed, because we do not know whose desire.4. Again, subjective side to morality. Also note the definitions of good and bad that I chose do not leave that much room open for subjective interpretation
Eg. Mercy Killing, Abortion, Death Penalty, Gay Marriages.5. Oooo look you gave me three situations.
Mercy killing - Letting the person live causes more harm
Death Penalty - Good example. Some may argue this is a wrong action being caried out as punishment (intentionally causing harm). However, the act may be seek to to set an example to deter others in the future (I.e. cause less harm in to a group of people in the future
Abortion - another good example. Would keeping the child when you cannot provide for it cause more or less harm than are "mercy killing" before birth or are you just being selfish. There are also medical reasons to consider (which course of action would result in the least harm)
Gay Marraiges - Gay marraiges will send the entire world to hell. More harm than a nuclear bomb. Definitely wrong /sarcasm
There are many cases where you make decisions to not harm someone that will result in someone else being harmed.
"Do no harm" cannot help you make a moral judgement in those instances.6. Remember where I said "do no harm" can be extended to mean "Do as little net harm in the given situation"
If "Do no harm" cannot be used to make a moral judgement in all instances then it cannot be objective.7. Just showed you that it could

You said:
"I agree that all of morality is subjective to the circumstances and individuals involved."
Agreed
"What is it that makes us agree on what is morally right and wrong?".
That is where you started being dishonest and I started pointing it out to you.

Eg.
Why do you assume we will agree?8. further development here again. This was only talking for simple situations to show that there are some cases where the objective part of morality is prevalent (probably not the best word here). The long drawn out example is a complicated case of moral grey areas that can illustrate a scenario where the subjective side of morality is more prevalent. (Juat mentioning it now since it is already there but we are still not ready to argue about it as yet). In that case is to show that there are many morally acceptable but different amswers that can be attained from using the "do not harm" approach
We dont always agree. This is why it's totally subjective. For it to be objective we have to "always agree" no matter the situation, perspective or intention.

You said:
"P.S. MD please ignore this entire post. You are only required to reply to my extremely simplified "one liner" argument."

Your 1 liner argument isn't a 1 liner argument because it calls for "the given situation". It shows APPARENT dishonesty. Am I wrong for pointing this out?

The only reference to a "given situation" is where you claimed "an argument needs to be addressed"
The argument that needed to be addressed was on another thread you copied from.
This is the facts and anyone looking for "the given situation" has no choice but to follow the bread crumbs you left behind.

It's not our fault you wrote the wrong word, but it is your fault you didn't correct the misinterpretation when I eloquently replied my train of thought with my assumed interpretation.

Instead of correcting the mistake you made you made it look like it was my fault I didn't know "the given situation" really means "any given situation"
This isn't APPARENT dishonesty now, it just evolved to BLATANT dishonestywill tackle this irrelevant argument after we finish the argument above

Added numbers so that you can reply without quoting everything again.

[MD Marketers]

Here you go being dishonest again:

"Do no Harm" cannot possible be extended to mean:
"Do as little net harm as possible"

The instant you "do harm" you are violating "do no harm"
It's not an extension, it's a contradiction.

Here is another Dishonest point you are making:
"some cases are objective"
This is a paradox, a contradiction, an improbability.
There is no instance where objective can be "some cases"

"some cases are subjective"
"all cases are objective"

It's as if you are trying to use infinity to describe something finite.

Invalid Premises leads to invalid conclusions. Invalid conclusions are not proven conclusions.
If you wish to claim your points are proven, then rebut the points I made.

Don't change the subject until you address the errors in logic I just pointed out.

It's 4 examples not 3.
I'm beginning to think your dishonesty isn't intentional
I'm beg

[Slartibartfast]

Here you go being dishonest again:

"Do no Harm" cannot possible be extended to mean:
"Do as little net harm as possible"I did it. This proves that it can be done. Not my fault if your IQ is the same as your height in inches.

The instant you "do harm" you are violating "do no harm"
It's not an extension, it's a contradiction.

Here is another Dishonest point you are making:
"some cases are objective"

there are some cases where the objective part of morality is prevalent (probably not the best word here).

This is a paradox, a contradiction, an improbability.
There is no instance where objective can be "some cases" You blatantly misquoted me and yet you call me dishonest. Then you go on to argue against your misquote. Brilliant... just brilliant

"some cases are subjective"
"all cases are objective"
another misquote.
It's as if you are trying to use infinity to describe something finite.

This is just gettinf sad. I even went back and numbered my responses to make it easier for you to reply.

[MD Marketers]

Really?
You do realize you are claiming that in a situation where someone got harmed you have found a way to prove that no one got harmed?

How did you do it?
Yes my IQ doesn't work in the quantum level.
Please explain.

If you do something with the intention to not harm someone and they still got harmed, then you violated the intention.
What kind of sorcery is this to believe that they still did not get harmed?
This is the definition of Harm you provided:
HARM - Any injury/pain/discomfort that may be physical/emotional/mental etc.
If you wish to change the definition at least give me time to agree to that first.

"some cases where the objective part of morality is prevalent"
Simplified:
"some cases are objective"
Does this not mean the same thing?
If not then explain the difference.
If they do then why point out the difference in wording if the meaning remains the same?

If you want me to keep requoting the entire message instead of simplifying the obvious then I guess I will have to start doing that from now on.

[desifemlove]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

[MD Marketers]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

Agreed, you should make it a poll

[Slartibartfast]

MD my responses are numbered to coincide with the paragraphs of your previous post

1. Misundertanding on your part again. Look at derivitive of "do no harm"

2. I didn't do it.

3. Refer to point 1.

4. No. I said earlier that all of morality is partially subjective. I still stand by that statement. The more prevalent the objective side in morality is is the higher percentage of people you will get freely agreeing on what is right in the given situation (or any situation if you are reading this).
"Some cases are objective" contradicts my earlier statement. I never said this as I believe it to be incorrect.

5. No response.

[MD Marketers]

So to figure out Objective Morality SBH has concluded we cannot use a definition.

We must use a "derivative of do no harm"

Let me shorten this conversation for everyone:

Hey is it objectively good to eat KFC or Doubles?

Sbh,
Look at the "derivative of do no harm"

MD,
What is that supposed to mean?

Sbh,
See which one has the least harm in it & choose that.

MD,
But you said do "NO" harm. I'm confused

Sbh,
Ok, sorry I meant look at the derivative of "do least harm"

MD,
What if they both have the same amount of harm? Should I do both?

Sbh,
Then look at the derivative of "do no harm", & don't do either.

MD,
So which is it? How is your "derivative" method going to help me define a universal way to determine the best choice in every situation.

Sbh,
It's not meant to be applicable in all Moral Judgements

MD,
Then how can it be "Objective"? Doesn't objective mean applicable in all moral judgments?

Sbh,
Sorry I don't have an English Degree like you. Your cheating.

MD,
"OK then"

[Altec55]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

I disagree. I've asked the same question about why is murder wrong. But i don't think it's societal consensus, sometimes you will have situations where societal consensus affects laws. i.e. gay marriage being allowed. However, it appears as though the basis for laws regarding right/wrong goes back to religious standpoints. For the USA, the founders were predominantly Christian and therefore laws formed based on their religious beliefs, hence making murder wrong in the states.

[desifemlove]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

I disagree. I've asked the same question about why is murder wrong. But i don't think it's societal consensus, sometimes you will have situations where societal consensus affects laws. i.e. gay marriage being allowed. However, it appears as though the basis for laws regarding right/wrong goes back to religious standpoints. For the USA, the founders were predominantly Christian and therefore laws formed based on their religious beliefs, hence making murder wrong in the states.

laws are always made on societal grounds. what other basis is there? The USA is and never was meant to be a theocracy, so this gay marriage is against God argument is moot. Many of the Founding Fathers were Deist, or not staunch Christians and often said religion and state shouldn't mix.

Societal consensus made/makes slavery illegal in the US, as well as owning guns, and not burning the flag in public. Nuttn in de Bible saying owning guns is good, or burning flags is bad.

[MD Marketers]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

I disagree. I've asked the same question about why is murder wrong. But i don't think it's societal consensus, sometimes you will have situations where societal consensus affects laws. i.e. gay marriage being allowed. However, it appears as though the basis for laws regarding right/wrong goes back to religious standpoints. For the USA, the founders were predominantly Christian and therefore laws formed based on their religious beliefs, hence making murder wrong in the states.

laws are always made on societal grounds. what other basis is there? The USA is and never was meant to be a theocracy, so this gay marriage is against God argument is moot. Many of the Founding Fathers were Deist, or not staunch Christians and often said religion and state shouldn't mix.

Societal consensus made/makes slavery illegal in the US, as well as owning guns, and not burning the flag in public. Nuttn in de Bible saying owning guns is good, or burning flags is bad.

Murder is not objectively wrong. Mercy killing, abortion, self defense.
Societal consensus is not always the reason why we consider things subjectively wrong. Voting ILP
Societal consensus is not always the reason for laws. Communism.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

I disagree. I've asked the same question about why is murder wrong. But i don't think it's societal consensus, sometimes you will have situations where societal consensus affects laws. i.e. gay marriage being allowed. However, it appears as though the basis for laws regarding right/wrong goes back to religious standpoints. For the USA, the founders were predominantly Christian and therefore laws formed based on their religious beliefs, hence making murder wrong in the states.

well that depends on whether you believe the bible was written by men or through divine guidance.

many laws written into religious books, not just the bible, were put in there because it was the societal consensus of the time: how to treat your slaves, what kind of cloth to wear, what animals you can eat, how much to pay in an arranged marriage etc etc

[desifemlove]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

I disagree. I've asked the same question about why is murder wrong. But i don't think it's societal consensus, sometimes you will have situations where societal consensus affects laws. i.e. gay marriage being allowed. However, it appears as though the basis for laws regarding right/wrong goes back to religious standpoints. For the USA, the founders were predominantly Christian and therefore laws formed based on their religious beliefs, hence making murder wrong in the states.

laws are always made on societal grounds. what other basis is there? The USA is and never was meant to be a theocracy, so this gay marriage is against God argument is moot. Many of the Founding Fathers were Deist, or not staunch Christians and often said religion and state shouldn't mix.

Societal consensus made/makes slavery illegal in the US, as well as owning guns, and not burning the flag in public. Nuttn in de Bible saying owning guns is good, or burning flags is bad.

Murder is not objectively wrong. Mercy killing, abortion, self defense.
Societal consensus is not always the reason why we consider things subjectively wrong. Voting ILP
Societal consensus is not always the reason for laws. Communism.

it's social consensus that makes exceptions for euthanasia or self-defence. and in communism, in its pure sense, people make the laws....

[Altec55]

What is good and bad though? What defines it?

Societal consensus. We say murder is wrong because the many agree it is.

I disagree. I've asked the same question about why is murder wrong. But i don't think it's societal consensus, sometimes you will have situations where societal consensus affects laws. i.e. gay marriage being allowed. However, it appears as though the basis for laws regarding right/wrong goes back to religious standpoints. For the USA, the founders were predominantly Christian and therefore laws formed based on their religious beliefs, hence making murder wrong in the states.

well that depends on whether you believe the bible was written by men or through divine guidance.

many laws written into religious books, not just the bible, were put in there because it was the societal consensus of the time: how to treat your slaves, what kind of cloth to wear, what animals you can eat, how much to pay in an arranged marriage etc etc

in the Bible, some laws were not popular with society when they were established, they were opposite to society's thoughts and acceptable standards. This is prominent in the New Testament.
i believe the Bible was written under God's direction. Because i believe in the Bible, i have a basis for what i consider right/wrong, it does not change for me and therefore my concept of morality is absolute.

for persons that believe good/bad is based on societal beliefs, their concept of morality changes and is therefore subjective.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ what of people who don't believe in the bible? What makes you more right than them?

[Altec55]

i never said one is more right/wrong. i just gave an example of 2 different types of people and how both absolute and subjective can be right to each but wrong to the other.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

i never said one is more right/wrong. i just gave an example of 2 different types of people and how both absolute and subjective can be right to each but wrong to the other.

but you just said the Bible states what is right and wrong and based on that morality is absolute.

What makes it more right than any other religious text?

[Altec55]

oh i see what you're asking.

Answer: my faith.

Does this mean I am right? No.
Will I find out one day if I am right? Yes. Same with everyone.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

oh i see what you're asking.

Answer: my faith.

Does this mean I am right? No.
Will I find out one day if I am right? Yes. Same with everyone.

so your argument is Pascal's Wager?

[Altec55]

I didn't really know what a Pascal's Wager was but I remember you mentioning it in the religious thread. So I googled it quick.

Answer: No. I know God exists and I know God is real. I'm not playing a game. I'm not placing a bet.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I know God exists and I know God is real.

Does this mean I am right? No.

Will I find out one day if I am right? Yes. Same with everyone.

I'm not playing a game. I'm not placing a bet.

seems contradictory

if you think everyone has the same chance to find out if they were right in their belief, then you are hoping that the chance you take with your beliefs is right.

And are you right? If you feel you could be wrong, then you are not sure.