Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dominus Paradoxum · 02-10-2003, 02:16 AM

"But you're simply not facing up to the issue that science does tell you there is no such thing as "objective morality" --- and why there isn't.
And using scientific observation, we can easily determine people have very different morals, many of them contradicting each other."

That is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that people do not agree on objective moral values that no objective moral values exist. Even assuming that it is true that there are no objective moral values, it would not be true for that reason. You are confusing moral values with what people think about moral values, and are in essence just begging the question against the objectivist. The objectivist would maintain that there are real moral values irrespective of our evolutionary history and what anyone thinks about them.

TomboyMom · 02-10-2003, 07:12 AM

Or maybe Managalar, Gurdur and 99% eroded your will and made you sorry you ever asked the question.

managalar · 02-10-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominus Paradoxum
"But you're simply not facing up to the issue that science does tell you there is no such thing as "objective morality" --- and why there isn't.
And using scientific observation, we can easily determine people have very different morals, many of them contradicting each other."

That is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that people do not agree on objective moral values that no objective moral values exist. Even assuming that it is true that there are no objective moral values, it would not be true for that reason. You are confusing moral values with what people think about moral values, and are in essence just begging the question against the objectivist. The objectivist would maintain that there are real moral values irrespective of our evolutionary history and what anyone thinks about them.

Your confusing the medium, and it is NOT non sequitur, because objective morality is a paradoxical misnomer. Humans define morality, anything humans describe in the natural world, including other humans, are subjugated to non-universal personal perspectives (subjective). Those who assume morals are objective (tangable, real, universal, absolute, true, ect), forget that morals are just descriptions of actions, and it is not possible to have 'true - definitions of actions'. Killing another person is wrong is not (True or False). Just because most would agree that killing is 'wrong', it doesn't matter how universal it seems....in many cultures it's ok to kill to save the lives of the many.

Since objective and morality are mutuially exclusive, there is no such thing as objective morality.

managalar · 02-10-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TomboyMom
Or maybe Managalar, Gurdur and 99% eroded your will and made you sorry you ever asked the question.

Well, I'm sorry for how ugly this has been. Its a long debate drawn out over many threads.

I'm still waiting for a response from 99% to my relating of a 'why-question' to morality

Colander of Truth · 02-10-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric Starnes
For the last several years i was an Objectivist(with a big O). Ayn Rands books took me to a world so inspiring and wonderful yet so real and seemingly attainable. I embraced so much of her "philosophy" without even thinking about it. When ever i was confronted with a moral, political or philosophical problem i would know the solution within minutes if not instantly by checking the rock solid reference points given to me by Ayn Rands writings. Either directly or indirectly Objectivism affected almost every aspect of my life. I am just now realizing how much i was affected by the ideas in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountianhead.

Only now i realize that objectivism is nothing more than a secular religion with no more basis in reality than christianity or islam. I now know that Ayn Rands "philosophy" is anything but. I also know how bad a person Ayn Rand was personally and i want nothing to do with anything remotely connected to her.

So now i am standing naked in the desert of the real and my compass is lying broken and shattered upon the rocks. I am now brought to my knees by the most trivial of moral problems. I have no moral compass, and all the landmarks were pointed out to me by someone who dosnt know the first thing about the terrain. I mean, i am serriously lost. I am currently taking a honors class about the holocaust; probably the most evil event to happen in all of history and i couldnt tell you why it was evil. I could tell you why Ayn Rand would say its evil, I know why a christian would say its evil, i know why a secular humansist would say its evil, i know how a unitarian universalist would say its evil. However ask ME why its evil and you might as well ask Bush to do algebra.

Does anyone have an old compass that i could borrow, or maybe just point me in the general direction? I cant stay like this.

I'm just wondering if you can boil this down into a Zen koan, 'cause I think you have it!

Try to summarize this in a poetic fashion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2003, 02:16 AM	#51
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	"But you're simply not facing up to the issue that science does tell you there is no such thing as "objective morality" --- and why there isn't. And using scientific observation, we can easily determine people have very different morals, many of them contradicting each other." That is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that people do not agree on objective moral values that no objective moral values exist. Even assuming that it is true that there are no objective moral values, it would not be true for that reason. You are confusing moral values with what people think about moral values, and are in essence just begging the question against the objectivist. The objectivist would maintain that there are real moral values irrespective of our evolutionary history and what anyone thinks about them.

02-10-2003, 07:12 AM	#52
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	Or maybe Managalar, Gurdur and 99% eroded your will and made you sorry you ever asked the question.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.