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

[Ringtone]

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.

 

[Coyote]

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?

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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.

 

[Ringtone]

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?

 

[Blues Man]

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

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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]

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]

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 **** 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 ******* logic. Unless of course you believe they were morally justified in owning humans, do you?

 

[ding]

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.

 

[ding]

 

[Blues Man]

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 **** 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 ******* 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]

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]

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 **** 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 ******* 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 ******* little kids was moral?

 

[ding]

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 **** little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

 

[ding]

How stupid is this guy?