Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
618
Points
140

Please predicate your views on logical justifications. Leave the ad hominem and straw men for the little girl and boy's room. The debate: does an objective standard of morality exist apart from humans or are all notions of morality merely subjective/relative among humans.
 
Last edited:

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,776
Reaction score
22,150
Points
2,180
Location
in between
For those that don't want to dive into a video with out some sort of idea what it's about, could you add a bit more? What's the debate about? What are the positions?
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
618
Points
140
For those that don't want to dive into a video with out some sort of idea what it's about, could you add a bit more? What's the debate about? What are the positions?
Edit:

The debate: does an objective standard of morality exist apart from humans or are all notions of morality merely subjective/relative among humans.​
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,501
Reaction score
609
Points
85

Please predicate your views on logical justifications. Leave the ad hominem and straw men for the little girl and boy's room. The debate: does an objective standard of morality exist apart from humans or are all notions of morality merely subjective/relative among humans.
.
The debate: does an objective standard of morality exist apart from humans or are all notions of morality merely subjective/relative among humans.
.
is there a physiological being without a spirit ...

or is everyone else just a doorbell - for ringtone. to push on.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
618
Points
140
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
618
Points
140
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
First, the history of shifting standards of mores and norms ≠ the nonexistence of an absolute, universally objective standard of morality.

Second, what is evolutionary about these changes in mores and norms? When you say evolved, do you mean improved in some sense?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,318
Reaction score
6,883
Points
1,855
Location
Houston

Please predicate your views on logical justifications. Leave the ad hominem and straw men for the little girl and boy's room. The debate: does an objective standard of morality exist apart from humans or are all notions of morality merely subjective/relative among humans.
Of course an objective standard of morality exists apart from humans. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the logical reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,318
Reaction score
6,883
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
No. Man's perception of right and wrong can change over time because man is subjective. Logic is not subjective. Morals are based upon logic.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
618
Points
140

Please predicate your views on logical justifications. Leave the ad hominem and straw men for the little girl and boy's room. The debate: does an objective standard of morality exist apart from humans or are all notions of morality merely subjective/relative among humans.
Of course an objective standard of morality exists apart from humans. Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a logical reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the logical reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
Stated negatively, the essence of evil is irrationality.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,423
Reaction score
3,352
Points
195
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
First, the history of shifting standards of mores and norms ≠ the nonexistence of an absolute, universally objective standard of morality.

Second, what is evolutionary about these changes in mores and norms? When you say evolved, do you mean improved in some sense?
when humans were tribal and nomadic there was a different set of morals.

as humans started to live in larger groups there had to be a corresponding shift in behaviors and attitudes.

Morals are nothing but acceptable behaviors that a society defines.

There is no universal set of morals because even today there exists differences in morals between different societies

Religious people like to claim that their god has put down a universal code and that does not prove that there is one.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,423
Reaction score
3,352
Points
195
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
No. Man's perception of right and wrong can change over time because man is subjective. Logic is not subjective. Morals are based upon logic.
Morals are created by humans therefore they cannot be universal
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,318
Reaction score
6,883
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
No. Man's perception of right and wrong can change over time because man is subjective. Logic is not subjective. Morals are based upon logic.
Morals are created by humans therefore they cannot be universal
No, dummy. Logic determines what standards are. Standards exist for logical reasons. Man is subjective and can ass fuck logic when it is in his interest. For example, there was a time when man believed it was moral to own human beings. That is man ass fucking logic. Unless of course you believe they were morally justified in owning humans, do you?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,318
Reaction score
6,883
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,423
Reaction score
3,352
Points
195
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
No. Man's perception of right and wrong can change over time because man is subjective. Logic is not subjective. Morals are based upon logic.
Morals are created by humans therefore they cannot be universal
No, dummy. Logic determines what standards are. Standards exist for logical reasons. Man is subjective and can ass fuck logic when it is in his interest. For example, there was a time when man believed it was moral to own human beings. That is man ass fucking logic. Unless of course you believe they were morally justified in owning humans, do you?
man determines his own standards.

And FYI logic as we know is man made. Logic is nothing but man's attempt to analyze his own reasoning process.

We discarded slavery as our societies evolved because the people who believed slavery was not justifiable outnumbered the people who thought it was.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,423
Reaction score
3,352
Points
195
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,318
Reaction score
6,883
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
correct.

Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
No. Man's perception of right and wrong can change over time because man is subjective. Logic is not subjective. Morals are based upon logic.
Morals are created by humans therefore they cannot be universal
No, dummy. Logic determines what standards are. Standards exist for logical reasons. Man is subjective and can ass fuck logic when it is in his interest. For example, there was a time when man believed it was moral to own human beings. That is man ass fucking logic. Unless of course you believe they were morally justified in owning humans, do you?
man determines his own standards.

And FYI logic as we know is man made. Logic is nothing but man's attempt to analyze his own reasoning process.

We discarded slavery as our societies evolved because the people who believed slavery was not justifiable outnumbered the people who thought it was.
So you could determine that fucking little kids was moral?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,318
Reaction score
6,883
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none
Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top