I'm no longer an Existentialist

No, i do not.

I'm not saying that we as human beings do not subscribe to any morality or that we shouldn't.

What i'm saying is that our sence of morality is a result of a combination of forces.

Environment, upbringing, evolution, self-interest, ect, and not the result of an awareness of some cosmic duality.

In other words, morality is subjective and flexible, not objective and absolute.

 

So, if your next door neighbor was torturing babies for fun and he had no problem with it, would that be alright?

 

I've already answered this question.
Would i be alright with someone torturing babies?
No i would not be alright with someone torturing babies.

Whether or not i think a particular action is good or bad is beside the point.

You are either not understanding what it is that i'm saying or you are choosing to ignore it...

 

i was just trying to make a point, trying to see if you would agree that it is absolutely never alright for someone to torture babies for fun.

 

To my worldview and sence of morality, no.

But that isn't really making much a point, and it isn't the point of contention.

It still says nothing about objective or absolute morality, only that the shared general morality of human existence doesn't allow for the torture of babies. This doesn't affect whether or not the act itself is a universal "evil".

 

well, either you believe that it is never alright for someone to torture babies for fun or you don't believe that. If you believe that it is never alright, well then that would be a moral absolute.

 

You're messing with me aren't you?

Just because I don't believe that it is ever okay to tortue babies, doesn't mean that torturing babies is a universal or objective evil. It only means that human beings don't allow baby torture in their concept of what is good.

I also don't believe that it is ever okay to wear plaid, but that doesn't mean that it is a universal truth that wearing plaid is a bad thing.

 

Definition of terms regarding morality:


http://en.wikipedia.org

 

that's pretty funny.

i do think you try to remove yourself from being a human to evaluate things, which of course you can't do. everything is seen through your human eyes. that is reality as you know it.

As you know, everything we know, we know as a human so why try to seperate reality from the human experience. you're always going to be a human.(if that makes any sense)

 

So, now your position is: You can't escape it so why bother?

You gave up soooooo easy....

 

But, that doesn't mean it is reality as it actually is.

So, after repeating baby torture time and again, you've given up?

Typical.

Too bad.

 

i'm not exactly sure how what I said is "giving up" whatever that means. Maybe you can explain.

We can't escape the human experience. This is reality. This is what I believe and applies just as much to you whether you believe it or not. It is the starting point.

Everything we know starts from this, including your position that we can't know anything objectively(which, by the way, uses logic)

 

Holy shit, now i know you're messing with me!
Of course the human experience applies to me, i never claimed it didn't!
I never claimed that we could escape the human experience!

What i did say is that human morality can not be proven to be a universal absolute or part of an objective (outside the realm of human experience) reality.

And your subsequent reply was: "So you think it's okay to toture babies?"

Those links and terms i provided, research them, just a little...

 

i never said you said that.

it's human morality. it applies to humans. we can look at animals and see that they don't have the same morality(from what we observe). the point is we have it.

as i said before, the starting point for us to know anything is our humanity which include the laws of logic. i don't think this is an escape, i think it's reality. if you agree with this, which it seems to me you do, then what difference does it make if we can prove something outside of the realm of human experience. we could only do this if we were something other than human.

 

i also differ with your definition of "objective". i don't define objective as something outside the realm of human experience necessarily. objective is having actual existence or reality.

 

Then provide a definition of what you mean by "objective" , i already provided mine.

 

Already addressed this issue.

I'm not saying it isn't a reality, i'm say that it is a subjective reality and not an objective reality.

If our morality only applies to us and no other being it is not absolute it is relative.

And if you can't prove it's existence outside of human experience it's also possible that it is part of our subjective reality and not a part of any objective reality.

Torturing babies is neither good nor evil in an objective sense, it's just torturing babies. Like opening an envelope is neither good nor evil.
To human beings torturing babies is percieved as an evil act, that's because we are applying our subjective morality onto that act, it's not a reflection of the act itself.

 

but isn't "subjective reality" a contradiction in terms. reality is reality like truth is truth. reality doesn't contradict itself.

when i say "absolute" i don't mean that every living and nonliving thing has morality built in. I'm saying human beings do across the board. This is a truth. There are moral absolutes that humanity is aware of.

Because a mouse and I do not have the same morality does not mean that morality is any less real. Because a mouse may not be aware of moral laws does not mean they don't exist in reality.

The fact that human beings are intuitively aware of moral laws is an objective reality.

 

No it's not, guy.
Please read a book.
Absolute is absolute and relative is relative.
not that complicated.

This was fun, but is now as tedious as explaining how a combustion engine works to my 2 year old.

PM me when you figure this out.

Have a nice day

 

yes, absolute is absolute and relative is relative. Oh well. You're right, we're not getting anywhere. I'll have to figure out a better way to present it and come back to it.

Thanks for the conversation.

Peace.