Got moral obligations?
Moderator: Moderators
Got moral obligations?
Post #1If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
Post #41
olavisjo
Grumpy
Two apples plus two apples is not four apples? Numbers are representative of things which ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE. Morals represent the collective opinions of society, opinions ARE subjective.Since "2+2=4" is not a physical object, it too is liable to our subjective take.
Grumpy

Post #42
What non-subjective thing does this number represent?Grumpy wrote:Two apples plus two apples is not four apples? Numbers are representative of things which ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE.olavisjo wrote:Since "2+2=4" is not a physical object, it too is liable to our subjective take.
2i ^ 2 = - 4
Do you have any reason for saying that morals are "collective opinions of society"? Or is it just your subjective opinion speaking?Grumpy wrote:Morals represent the collective opinions of society, opinions ARE subjective.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #43
That's not a number, it's an equation. But as a fundamentalist, I'm sure it doesn't matter what everyone else says it is, you'll still call it a number.olavisjo wrote:What non-subjective thing does this number represent?
2i ^ 2 = - 4
Post #44
Where were you when we started with "2+2=4"?Crazy Ivan wrote:That's not a number, it's an equation. But as a fundamentalist, I'm sure it doesn't matter what everyone else says it is, you'll still call it a number.olavisjo wrote:What non-subjective thing does this number represent?
2i ^ 2 = - 4
It is not all that much different from 2i ^ 2 = - 4.
The point is that math is an "objective" realm that does not necessarily represent any physical thing.
So for something to be objective, it need not be a physical object.
And I am not all that certain that everyone else says that "i" is an equation rather than an imaginary number.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #45
That's another equation. Not a number.olavisjo wrote:Where were you when we started with "2+2=4"?
They're both equations.olavisjo wrote:It is not all that much different from 2i ^ 2 = - 4.
I can tell you know the difference between "objective" and "subjective", you just seem to enjoy fooling around with people.olavisjo wrote:The point is that math is an "objective" realm that does not necessarily represent any physical thing.
"i" is a letter. -edit: And if the equation is valid it represents a number. There is nothing subjective about any of this and you know it.olavisjo wrote:And I am not all that certain that everyone else says that "i" is an equation rather than an imaginary number.
Post #46
Yes, I know it, but there are members who do not understand objective and subjective.Crazy Ivan wrote: There is nothing subjective about any of this and you know it.
If you will look back a few posts, you will see that a member suggested that morality is subjective because people differ on what is moral and immoral. So I refuted that by suggesting that people have and still do differ on the shape of the Earth, yet we hold that, the Earth is a sphere, to be an objective fact regardless of how many people think it is flat.
Next a poster suggested that since the Earth is a physical object, it's reality is objective and since morality is not a physical object it must be subjective, so I brought up the simplest mathematical truth to show that non-physical entities can be objectively true.
Then a poster suggested that in my example the numbers represent physical objects, and therefore math is objective for that reason. So I brought up the square root of negative one as an example of a number that does not represent any physical object.
So, is morality objective or subjective? Either way we are going to behave the way we want to, so does it even matter?
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #47
People have different reactions to certain behaviors. To some men, humiliation of women is a natural consequence of their "superiority". To others, given PERCEIVED equality, it is immoral. The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women. The same applies to any other FEELING or REACTION.olavisjo wrote:If you will look back a few posts, you will see that a member suggested that morality is subjective because people differ on what is moral and immoral.
Earth's physical properties are objective. Limited PERCEPTIONS that result in untruthful conclusions are subjective. You're telling me you don't understand the difference?olavisjo wrote:So I refuted that by suggesting that people have and still do differ on the shape of the Earth, yet we hold that, the Earth is a sphere, to be an objective fact regardless of how many people think it is flat.
The poster didn't make the argument that "non-physical entities are subjective". The argument was that "physical entities have objective properties". How's your logic?olavisjo wrote:Next a poster suggested that since the Earth is a physical object, it's reality is objective and since morality is not a physical object it must be subjective, so I brought up the simplest mathematical truth to show that non-physical entities can be objectively true.
You brought up an equation. Equations aren't subjective. A valid equation is equally valid to everyone.olavisjo wrote:Then a poster suggested that in my example the numbers represent physical objects, and therefore math is objective for that reason. So I brought up the square root of negative one as an example of a number that does not represent any physical object.
I already explained that I'm fully aware you cannot, and will not, consider different premises in a godless context.olavisjo wrote:So, is morality objective or subjective? Either way we are going to behave the way we want to, so does it even matter?
Post #48
"The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women."Crazy Ivan wrote: People have different reactions to certain behaviors. To some men, humiliation of women is a natural consequence of their "superiority". To others, given PERCEIVED equality, it is immoral. The morality of the issue is RELATIVE to how you THINK about women. The same applies to any other FEELING or REACTION.
Would you say that it is okay to rape a woman if a person THINKS it is okay to rape a woman?
All perceptions, untruthful or truthful, are subjective. My subjective opinion of the Earth being a sphere does not make it a sphere. It just happens that my subjective opinion may correspond to the objective reality. But that is something that I can't really know, the Earth may just be a very vivid dream that I am having or a computer program that I am living inside (like the movie "Matrix").Crazy Ivan wrote:Earth's physical properties are objective. Limited PERCEPTIONS that result in untruthful conclusions are subjective. You're telling me you don't understand the difference?olavisjo wrote:So I refuted that by suggesting that people have and still do differ on the shape of the Earth, yet we hold that, the Earth is a sphere, to be an objective fact regardless of how many people think it is flat.
I admit error, I said "must be" when the poster only said "liable to".Crazy Ivan wrote:The poster didn't make the argument that "non-physical entities are subjective". The argument was that "physical entities have objective properties". How's your logic?olavisjo wrote:Next a poster suggested that since the Earth is a physical object, it's reality is objective and since morality is not a physical object it must be subjective, so I brought up the simplest mathematical truth to show that non-physical entities can be objectively true.
Morality is not a physical object, and is liable to our subjective takes thereof.
I think you missed my point, I gave an equation as an example and the other poster said that the equation is objective because the numbers in the equation represent physical objects, so I gave an example of an equation that had an imaginary number, the point being that the objectivity had nothing to do with what the numbers represent.Crazy Ivan wrote:You brought up an equation. Equations aren't subjective. A valid equation is equally valid to everyone.olavisjo wrote:Then a poster suggested that in my example the numbers represent physical objects, and therefore math is objective for that reason. So I brought up the square root of negative one as an example of a number that does not represent any physical object.
And you are right, equations are not subjective, but they are not physical objects either, and they may not even represent physical objects.
As long as humans have been around, no good argument for subjective morality has ever come to light. So why would any rational person even consider such a possibility?Crazy Ivan wrote:I already explained that I'm fully aware you cannot, and will not, consider different premises in a godless context.olavisjo wrote:So, is morality objective or subjective? Either way we are going to behave the way we want to, so does it even matter?
Greater minds than mine have said...
Socrates wrote:A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
- Sage
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:24 pm
Post #49
What the hell kind of question is that? It's "okay" on many levels. It's "okay" for the rapist to rape, it's "okay" for the victim to be traumatized, it's "okay" for me to feel disgusted, it's "okay" for a jury of peers (where applicable) to feel disgusted as well, it's "okay" to put him away for a long time... "is it okay?"... give me a break... we're not 4-year-olds.olavisjo wrote:Would you say that it is okay to rape a woman if a person THINKS it is okay to rape a woman?
Post #50
It is a rhetorical question. But why is it that we expect even a 4 year old to know the right answer? And your indignation tells me that you think there is a correct answer to that question. And yet, there is nothing in a natural universe that could possibly make an act right or wrong.Crazy Ivan wrote:What the hell kind of question is that? It's "okay" on many levels. It's "okay" for the rapist to rape, it's "okay" for the victim to be traumatized, it's "okay" for me to feel disgusted, it's "okay" for a jury of peers (where applicable) to feel disgusted as well, it's "okay" to put him away for a long time... "is it okay?"... give me a break... we're not 4-year-olds.olavisjo wrote:Would you say that it is okay to rape a woman if a person THINKS it is okay to rape a woman?
If there is no God, how can we possibly say that humans are endowed with unalienable rights, like the right to not be raped? If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong, it is that simple.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis