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

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

 

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

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans. All of those things are actualized or manifested by mind but they are not created by mind as they exist apart from the human mind.

 

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

Because of subjectivity. I have already covered that.

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]

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.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Everything is manifested in mind. So by your logic nothing exists apart from human mind. That just isn't so though. Ask any great scientist and they will tell you that they did not invent anything, they discovered it. Ergo it exists apart from human mind.

You are not a stupid man, so please stop acting like one. Lest you become a militant atheist like Hollie.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

For one logic is not a physical thing that can exist outside of the mind.

It's the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

So did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it?

No it is your conclusion

No. You just aren't intelligent enough to understand the consequences of your beliefs.

Did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it? If he discovered it then it existed before mind existed. Same as logic.

Once again you are comparing logic to a physical object.

You cannot compare a mental construct to a physical object or to the properties of a physical object. Light matter and energy are all physical things and Einstein saw a relationship between them. That relationship has existed since matter, light and energy have existed because those are physical things.

Logic is not a physical thing, you cannot measure it and it doesn't exist if there isn't an intellect to codify it.

You are dodging the question because you know you are defeated.

Did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it?

 

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

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Everything is manifested in mind. So by your logic nothing exists apart from human mind. That just isn't so though. Ask any great scientist and they will tell you that they did not invent anything, they discovered it. Ergo it exists apart from human mind.

You are not a stupid man, so please stop acting like one. Lest you become a militant atheist like Hollie.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

For one logic is not a physical thing that can exist outside of the mind.

It's the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

So did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it?

No it is your conclusion

No. You just aren't intelligent enough to understand the consequences of your beliefs.

Did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it? If he discovered it then it existed before mind existed. Same as logic.

Once again you are comparing logic to a physical object.

You cannot compare a mental construct to a physical object or to the properties of a physical object. Light matter and energy are all physical things and Einstein saw a relationship between them. That relationship has existed since matter, light and energy have existed because those are physical things.

Logic is not a physical thing, you cannot measure it and it doesn't exist if there isn't an intellect to codify it.

Were the laws of physics invented or were they discovered?

 

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

Yes, because of logic. For any given error there were people in those days who disagreed with it. They did so for logical reasons.

 

[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

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.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

 

[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

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.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Everything is manifested in mind. So by your logic nothing exists apart from human mind. That just isn't so though. Ask any great scientist and they will tell you that they did not invent anything, they discovered it. Ergo it exists apart from human mind.

You are not a stupid man, so please stop acting like one. Lest you become a militant atheist like Hollie.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

For one logic is not a physical thing that can exist outside of the mind.

It's the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

So did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it?

No it is your conclusion

No. You just aren't intelligent enough to understand the consequences of your beliefs.

Did Einstein invent E=mc^2 or did he discover it? If he discovered it then it existed before mind existed. Same as logic.

Once again you are comparing logic to a physical object.

You cannot compare a mental construct to a physical object or to the properties of a physical object. Light matter and energy are all physical things and Einstein saw a relationship between them. That relationship has existed since matter, light and energy have existed because those are physical things.

Logic is not a physical thing, you cannot measure it and it doesn't exist if there isn't an intellect to codify it.

Were the laws of physics invented or were they discovered?

OK so what can't you understand about the physical world being different from thought?

 

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

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

 

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

Yes, because of logic. For any given error there were people in those days who disagreed with it. They did so for logical reasons.

They changed because societies have changed.

For example.

Nomadic tribes would routinely kill and stranger they came across. This killing was not considered to be taboo because any outsider was a threat to the tribe.

As people started living in closer proximity killing every stranger you saw became an unsustainable behavior so the morals of tribal clans changed as society changed.

 

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

Yes, because of logic. For any given error there were people in those days who disagreed with it. They did so for logical reasons.

They changed because societies have changed.

For example.

Nomadic tribes would routinely kill and stranger they came across. This killing was not considered to be taboo because any outsider was a threat to the tribe.

As people started living in closer proximity killing every stranger you saw became an unsustainable behavior so the morals of tribal clans changed as society changed.

Sounds like they changed because they discovered the truth which is based upon logic.

 

[ding]

Let me say it again... 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 reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the 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.

 

[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

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.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

 

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

Yes, because of logic. For any given error there were people in those days who disagreed with it. They did so for logical reasons.

They changed because societies have changed.

For example.

Nomadic tribes would routinely kill and stranger they came across. This killing was not considered to be taboo because any outsider was a threat to the tribe.

As people started living in closer proximity killing every stranger you saw became an unsustainable behavior so the morals of tribal clans changed as society changed.

Sounds like they changed because they discovered the truth which is based upon logic.

No they changed because it was not practical anymore it served no purpose in the functioning of the society or its advancement

 

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

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

 

[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 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?

I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past

And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.

I wouldn't excuse it.

I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.

You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.

You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.

And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?

You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.

BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?

My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.

I never said they were just opinions you said that.

I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.

So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.

If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.

The can and have changed over the history of humankind.

Yes, because of logic. For any given error there were people in those days who disagreed with it. They did so for logical reasons.

They changed because societies have changed.

For example.

Nomadic tribes would routinely kill and stranger they came across. This killing was not considered to be taboo because any outsider was a threat to the tribe.

As people started living in closer proximity killing every stranger you saw became an unsustainable behavior so the morals of tribal clans changed as society changed.

Sounds like they changed because they discovered the truth which is based upon logic.

No they changed because it was not practical anymore it served no purpose in the functioning of the society or its advancement

Which means they discovered the truth. They realized their error because the error eventually revealed itself through consequences and they corrected their error which is exactly what I said when I wrote...

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 reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the 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]

#winning

 

[ding]

Mind did not invent science, math, music, art or logic. Mind discovered science, math, music, art and logic

 

[ding]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

 

[ding]

Morals like science, math, music, art and logic are discovered.