GeneralShepherd:


When any thing is said to be objective the inherent characteristic of such a thing is the fact that it's attributes are immutable and does not depend on the subjective views of its observer.

Which is what I think about pedophilia. Doesn't depend on your subjective views it is wrong. I think atheists and theists shoot themselves when they say we should look at it one way. And leave aside the issue of looking at it case by case whether moral objectivity or subjectivity applies in some cases as opposed to others.

tintingz:
Lol, finding your questions interesting.

They sure are. lol

For humanity not to go extinct.

why is it good for humans not to go extinct?

It's not an assumption, it's part of human instinct to see survival as good.

LOL. it is a fact that organisms aspire towards survival, the question here is; why do you think this aspiration is good?

I never made mention of science giving the moral basis, I gave a fact why pedophile is harmful to young girls/human race.

Then you agree that saying "This is harmful" is not same as saying "this is wrong"?

It's a fact that can be practicalize and find to be horrible.

That is the moral assumption! A fact is morally neutral. there are simply no moral facts because morality isn't an absolute/objective quality.

johnydon22:


why is it good for humans not to go extinct?

Because humans WANTS to live, it's part of our nature, this is a universal thing.

LOL. it is a fact that organisms aspire towards survival, the question here is; why do you think this aspiration is good?

Because it favors us.

Then you agree that saying "This is harmful" is not same as saying "this is wrong"?

When something is harmful then it's wrong not by mouth but in practical. No one wants something harmful for themselves even Jesus cried to his daddy to take the cup away from him even on the cross he cried to his daddy.

If you feel stabbing you is not wrong, maybe we should do some test on you.

That is the moral assumption! A fact is morally neutral. there are simply no moral facts because morality isn't an absolute/objective quality.

When something can be practicalize and find to be true, why do you think it's not objective?

tintingz:
Because humans WANTS to live, it's part of our nature, this is a universal thing.

So, why is wanting to live good?

Because it favors us.

Why is something that favors humans good?

When something is harmful then it's wrong not by mouth but in practical. No one wants something harmful for themselves even Jesus cried to his daddy to take the cup away from him even on the cross he cried to his daddy.

there goes the moral assumption. something is harmful isn't same thing as something is morally wrong.

If you feel stabbing you is not wrong, maybe we should do some test on you.

why is stabbing me wrong?

When something can be practicalize and find to be true, why do you think it's not objective?

finding something is harmful isn't same as it is not moral.

empiricism has no moral weight. empiricism makes no moral claim.

"Stabbing may kill you" empirically correct

"Stabbing is wrong" is now all you, that is your moral projection not what empiricism implies.

it is you as the observer that can decide to assume moral weight on these.

johnydon22:
So, why is wanting to live good?

Because It's a WANT and we know it's GOOD for us.

Why is something that favors humans good?

Because it's good for us.

there goes the moral assumption. something is harmful isn't same thing as something is morally wrong.

When it can be empirically demonstrated that something is harmful then there is objective justification it's not good.

why is stabbing me wrong?

Because it's harmful and can leads to one's death. If this can be practicalize and find to be horrible and detest then it's wrong.

finding something is harmful isn't same as it is not moral.

Actually it's

empiricism has no moral weight. empiricism makes no moral claim.

It's a justification to supports moral claims.

"Stabbing may kill you" empirically correct

"Stabbing is wrong" is now all you, that is your moral projection not what empiricism implies.

it is you as the observer that can decide to assume moral weight on these.

Again if find to be empirically correct why do you think it's not justified to be objective?

johnydon22:
So, why is wanting to live good?

Why is something that favors humans good?

there goes the moral assumption. something is harmful isn't same thing as something is morally wrong.

why is stabbing me wrong?

finding something is harmful isn't same as it is not moral.

empiricism has no moral weight. empiricism makes no moral claim.

"Stabbing may kill you" empirically correct

"Stabbing is wrong" is now all you, that is your moral projection not what empiricism implies.

it is you as the observer that can decide to assume moral weight on these.

These questions u ask makes me think u see humans as objects that do not feel, think and decide.

You tend to forget the reasoning part of us that judges based on how we feel and how others around us feel about our actions.

There was once a little boy called john who didn't understand why people react so much when they lose a loved one. He thought victims should just move on with their lives already, a dead person is dead and gone. He used to say mean things to these people and don't bother to care.
But one day he lost he mum and he began to understand how people feel. He started to empathise with others when they lose their loved ones.

Like I told u before. ..morality is subjective because it hinges on learning, feeling, empathy, experience etc.

Asking a fellow human why wanting to live is good is like telling us u don't know how u will react when someone tries to stab u

GeneralShepherd:


Pedophilia is wrong today and I agree with everyone on that but to say morality is relative and absolute at the same time is a contradictory as saying you found a desert under water.

If is either morality is absolute or relative . If it is absolute then Muhammad was wrong and will always be wrong, if it is not then Muhammad was not wrong but his followers now are wrong.

@bold, is not as simple as u put it.
If morality was objective, who would have decided Mohammed was wrong? If morality wasn't a human construct that is based on empathy, learning, feeing and experience, who would have decided Mohammed was wrong?