₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
I will make an attempt to explain better later today and hope it gets through to you.

I don't think you should. To me you are just playing at avoiding the word subjective. Something cannot be objectively one thing and an opposite thing. This is exactly why objective morality cannot exist. Morality tends to be flexible because it is people giving value judgements. If those judgements are objectively 1 way then they cannot be flexible to change. Trying to make objective assume that position of flexibility is nothing but mental gymnastics and I am not interested in that.

Kobojunkie:
What I noticed is that it took all of those who comment many years to come clean about the supposed realities in those workplaces for them. Religion and fear-fear, ehn!

That's why religion is such a misused tool. You can imprison someone without lifting a finger. It's disgusting.

budaatum:
Thank you very much. I too have heard many hypothesis, and it is conceivable that something must have come out of something as the big crunch hypothesis suggests. The big bang theory suggests the same thing to me, since something has to exist to go bang if one thinks about it.

What I admire more is your "it's just a hypothesis", as in something to further consider, as opposed to something to be believed and stop asking and knocking and seeking.

Some people mistakenly think the BB came from nothing. I dunno how they arrive at that since all the descriptions of the BBT include mentions of a hot dense state before the expansion.

DeepSight:
I am honestly befuddled that you can't see the point. Honestly. We leave it.

PS: Don't misquote me. I haven't said the bold anywhere.

PPS: And LordReed, that anyone could mangle what I said and convert it into the incongruous balderdash in bold must be the eight wonder of the world.

That is what you said in essence. I asked you if lying is objectively wrong and you said yes but there times when it is objectively right. So you're telling me that morality can be objectively right and wrong in essence.

DeepSight:
So you are telling me that an assessment that a person who kills in self defence has done no wrong is necessarily subjective.

Enjoy, Mr. Adult.

The fact you can give such an example and still think morality is both objectively wrong and right tells me all I need to know about the mental gymnastics on this you are running in your mind. LoLz. Chei!

DeepSight:
Subjective is different from situational. Subjective has to do with differing personal feelings. Situational is what I am describing and it has to do with differing circumstances.

It's disappointing that you of all people cannot grasp this simple distinction, but no matter.

No I am the one disappointed that you resorted to this juvenile attempt at mental gymnastics to claim something can be objectively right and wrong. Truly disappointed.

DeepSight:
I don't know how many times you want me to say the same thing. Generally, yes. But there are circumstances in which it can be objectively justified.

Just as killing is generally wrong. But there are circumstances in which it can be objectively justified.

The same goes for most things we can call wrong.

Guy you are contradicting yourself. You cannot claim something is objectively wrong sometimes and also objectively right other times. That is not how that word works. You have word for that situation it is called subjective, use it instead of this gymnastics you're doing. LoLz.

DeepSight:
Very simple. Consider the act of lying. One can objectively determine if a lie is told. So the Jews are hiding in my basement. The Nazis come and ask "Are there any Jewish vermin in these premises?" I say no.

That is a lie, objectively speaking. And it is a fact that it is a lie.

The moral question then arises: was telling that lie wrong?

Again, we know that the Nazis were committing genocide/ ethnic cleansing against the Jews. Objectively speaking that was wrong. It is a fact that that was wrong.

So objectively speaking my lie to protect those Jews was justified. This is not a matter of opinion. It is an objective fact.

Now let's change the scenario. Let's say those Jews hiding in my basement were wanted for proven murder. And let's say there was no genocide/ ethnic cleansing going on, but the police legitimately wanted them on valid grounds.

With these changed set of circumstances the same act - telling a lie to say they are not there - will be objectively wrong. Again this is not a matter of opinion.

Same with shooting someone dead. If I was attacked, the same act would be justified objectively. If I wasn't, the same act could be condemned objectively.

It worries me that a man of your intellect struggles with something so simple. Yes, I know the question of objective and subjective morality is a delicate and nuanced one. Nonetheless it can't be hard to see that the circumstances can and do change the moral and legal characterization of an act. Objectively. Not by opinion. Not subjectively.

Even though I should hasten to add that aside from this, of course people can and do have subjective opinions of such scenarios.

Is lying objectively wrong?

DeepSight:
What is objective is based on facts while what is subjective is based on emotions and opinions.

So explain how something based on fact is changing. Use the example you gave about hiding Jews from Nazis and lying about it. What is the objective that is based on fact and why is it changing in this scenario.

DeepSight:
I am also befuddled that someone of your pedigree cannot grasp the simple fact that every act must be assessed based on circumstances around it. This is elementary in law. Do we say the law is subjective or non objective since it adjudges similar acts differently based on circumstances? Come on, you are better schooled than this.

Are you saying that it is not objective to take self defence into consideration in assessing a killing, for example?
Good grief.

Tell me someone has hacked into your account. Is this Olaadegbu?

LoLz. This is why sometimes it is good to ask for definitions. Something is objective means it cannot change based on any subjective consideration. If you do not agree then tell me what you think objective means.

DeepSight:
It seems to me you have started drinking the JD I fined you.

I was clear: the same act can be wrong in one situation and right in another.

E.G: Killing is an act. It can be wrong when unprovoked and done maliciously. It can be right when done in self defense or pursuant to a court order. Lying is an act. It can be wrong when done fraudulently for pecuniary gain. It can be right when done to protect the innocent (example of protecting Jews from Nazis was given). I can go on and on here. What is odd or funny or hard to understand about this?

If the the morality of an act can vary then it CANNOT be objective. Its quite simple. I am wondering how someone like you can even attempt to use this as an argument.

DeepSight:
For you, it will boil down to a subjective thing still. But for those of us who believe in objective morality, there will be situations were something is objectively right and situations where the same thing is objectively wrong.

A very simple example is killing a fellow human. While generally wrong, situations such as the need for self defence, or the presence of over arching provocation can objectively justify or mitigate it.

LMAO! How can something be both objectively right and wrong. Dude please! Bwahahahahahahaha.

Failure to do so as is your wont will attract 17.5 lashes of a bullwhip and one bottle of Jack Daniel as a fine.

I don hear.

DeepSight:
Subjective is simply someone's personal feeling or notion as opposed to what remains true regardless of it. Relative is situational. For example it might be wrong to do an act in one situation but right in another.

Now that I have put that away, do you see the point on mala in se and mala prohibita?

Who is making the judgement on whether the situation fits or not?

I will address that later.

DeepSight:
Good. So that at least makes it clear that even within the philosophy of something as rational as the law, that is to say, within jurisprudence, it is well understood that there is a distinction between acts that are inherently wrong (and thus not wrong merely by any subjective consideration) and acts that are only prescribed as wrong for the smooth functioning and order of society.

I therefore say to you that the very precept of mala in se gives us to know that certain things are objectively and inherently wrong regardless of any subjective opinion.

You aren't answering the distinction between relative and subjective.

erniok:
Rightly said. He keeps deflecting and trying to change an argument premise he started.

Huh? Deflecting how? Change what exactly?

DeepSight:
Subjective and relative morality oft coincide but are still not the same thing. There is a delicate and nuanced difference.

What is your understanding of the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita in criminal law?

One is wrong in of itself and one is wrong because there is law making it wrong.

Still carrying forward the argument that something is inherently wrong which is already the bone of contention.

DeepSight:
Fair points. I have personally argued extensively against subjective morality on this platform. Have a look at this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/1520806/evolution-morality

However there is a difference even if nuanced and slight, between subjective morality and relative mortality. The latter is more situational. It speaks to how different circumstances can have an impact on what is moral or immoral. For example I don't think that a person telling a lie to hide a Jew from a Nazi extermination team during the holocaust has done anything wrong.

What is the difference? The person who is telling lies to hide a Jew is he not doing it based on his own subjective perception on what is appropriate to do?

Joshthefirst:
@LordReed, @Deepsight

Subjective morality sounds tolerant and open-minded, but in real life, it’s unlivable and logically incoherent.
We all recognize certain things as truly good or truly evil.

No we do not. Good and evil are value judgements which by necessity will always be subjective issues. We can spread a value judgement so that is standard eg money, justice, human rights, etc. It doesn't make those things exist without the intervention of our subjective perceptions.

That means there must be an objective standard — something outside of us — and that points us to objective morality, and ultimately to a moral lawgiver.

No such thing. There is no being outside of the human species at this point capable of issuing to us any value judgements.

Subjective morality doesn’t make sense in reality because it collapses under its own logic when applied to real-world situations:

Unfortunately for you it is all we have. Even an attempt to introduce a so called lawgiver simply pushes the subjectivity to another being capable of value judgement. If there exists an objective set of moral facts then you do not need a law giver since those facts would exist without any intervention.

1. Subjective morality makes moral claims meaningless

No it doesn't. What I think most of you want is to arrive at a point where none of your moral choices can be questioned or revised. This is the essence of religion, take up a set of moral choices and stick with them come hell or high water. Fortunately life doesn't work that way because as we grow and learn as a species we must rethink certain positions from time to time. Moral claims are not meaningless because they can be revised they are meaningful within the confines of the context they are used in. However when enlightenment comes we must ditch the old and embrace the new.

If morality is just a matter of personal taste (like “I like chocolate”), then saying “torturing babies is wrong” is no different from saying “I don’t like pineapple on pizza.”
There’s no truth value — just preference.

But it isn't just a matter of personal taste because we must live in a community of other humans so your taste is not the only criteria for what ought to be.

But in the real world, when we say something like:

“Slavery is wrong.”
“Rape is evil.”
“Genocide is unjust.”

We don’t mean it’s just our opinion. We mean it’s actually wrong — no matter what anyone thinks.

This is perfect. The bible at some point says that these 3 things where good and acceptable. Yet here you are bible believer calling them wrong. Pray tell is that not subjectivity at work?

2. You can’t condemn genuine evil

Define genuine evil.

If morality is subjective, then Nazi ideology, terrorism, and child abuse are not objectively wrong — just “different values.”

Yep different values that hurt other people in the community of humans.

But we know they are wrong, regardless of cultural or personal views.
Subjective morality makes it impossible to rationally condemn evil practices — even if your gut knows they’re wrong.

Your gut "knows" because empathically you can see that they are hurting other humans.

Don't be dishonest. You literally have to argue on the side of Nazi's and mass murderers and serial killers if you want to hold on to subjectivity

If anyone turns out to be dishonest it would be you. You would most likely claim that the genocide the bible says the ancient Hebrews committed was justified.

3. It destroys justice

Wrong. In fact it does the opposite, it extends justice. It does not limit justice to the simplistic concepts religions try to limit us to especially withing the changing circumstances of our world, where things and situations the ancients never had to grapple with are facing us.

If everyone makes their own moral rules, then there’s no real basis for law or punishment.
Why shouldn’t someone steal or murder if it “feels right to them”?
In a subjective framework, you can’t say, “You’re wrong to do that,” only “I personally don’t like it.”
That leads to moral anarchy.

Strawman. No one says because morality is subjective therefore only the individual's preferences matter.

Finally, like earlier, and for me the most glaring; It’s self-refuting

Obviously it is the so called objectivity that you religious people advocate for that is self refuting because you must point back to another value judgement capable being.

If someone says, “All morality is subjective — there are no objective moral truths,” I ask:

“Is that statement objectively true?”

If yes → they’ve contradicted themselves.
If no → then you can ignore them, because it’s just their opinion.

This is a bait and switch. You just snuck in truth to the conversation. If you had asked are there objective truths from the beginning of course the answer would be yes ending your game.

Unfortunately, a non theistic worldview, will NOT hold up in any side of the divide;
Whether it tries to hold onto objective morality without a moral lawgiver (which is illogical) or subjective morality (which doesn’t make sense in reality), a non-theistic worldview ultimately fails to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of moral truths.

In other words, non-theistic worldviews that try to explain morality in any form without a divine source are logically flawed and incorrect.

Without a moral lawgiver, non-theistic worldviews struggle to ground moral truths in a way that aligns with how we experience right and wrong in the real world. Therefore, in the context of morality, such worldviews fail to provide a practical, logically consistent foundation for living a realistic moral life.

Like already pointed out, this is a contradictory position that just exposes how subjectivity with regards to morality is the fact of our universe. A so called moral law giver just bumps the issue of subjectivity to a different value judgement capable being, which is, wait for it, subjectivity.

Joshthefirst:
Good. There are many ways to make this collapse. But I'll use the easiest.

You just said "there is no objective right and wrong"

This statement you just made, is borrowing from an objective stance. You said there’s no such thing as objective right and wrong — but that statement actually assumes there is an objective truth.

If you’re saying it’s objectively true that no objective morals exist, you’re contradicting yourself.

You can’t deny objective morality without accidentally affirming it.

Pardon my French but this is nonsensical. You didn't ask me about objective truth so why are you attempting a bait and switch?

DeepSight:
Just the principle.

What principle?

DeepSight:
I think LordReed was being overly careful with me because he probably thought I was coming from the religionist angle which would argue that all these things are normal if one does not believe in God, and only belief in God grounds morals. But that's not where I was coming from at all.

Not at all did I think that. Why would I when I know you aren't a religious proselyter?

DeepSight:
Ok, how about saying that humans have a natural tendency to violence and exploitation of one another.

Yes I will accept that this is a natural tendency of humans with some caveats. The main caveat is our empathy modifies that behavior in varying degrees which is also another natural tendency.

DeepSight:
It doesn't help much because we could easily dispense with the word murder and ask if killing one another is normal human behavior.

Yes that is a better question. But I would still say no. Our human societies were built by cooperation not by killing. Yes killing occurred or occurs from time to time however I still don't see those as normal.

Joshthefirst:
is sexual assault and drug misues normal human behavior?

Maybe you're downplaying God because you want to continue to live in sin. That's the majority reason people claim to not believe in God. So they can go on deceiving themselves that they won't ever be accountable. But their conscience bears or once bore witness and judgment is coming

No they are not, which is why I called them mistakes.

LoLz. Here they come with the usual nonsense. Please if you have nothing better to say find someone else to converse with. This tired canard is not worth my time.

DeepSight:
This your response is weak.

Ok.

Joshthefirst:
is murder objectively wrong?

Is deliberately and selfishly taking innocent life objectively wrong irrespective of human opinion or bias or majority?

Your answer will let us know how to make you collapse on your position

My saying murder is a legal term should have already keyed you to my position. First off, there is no objective right or wrong. It is thinking beings who determine what is valuable and therefore what is wrong or right. Humans have evolved to have empathy so they view the taking of a human life as subtracting from something valuable. The universe at large has no concept of value for human life which is why a natural disasters can wipe out whole cities and it doesn't seem like anything special happened, the world continues turning as usual. There is no pause in the tides to mourn the passing of any human or humans.

Murder as a legal concept is our way of imposing order to what would have been otherwise arbitrary killing.

DeepSight:
Clearly you haven't seen cats killing mice or lizards which they do not eat but use as toys. Clearly you have not seen lions kill other lions for the sake of winning a lioness. And other animals do the same. I can go on and on but there are myriad scenarios where animals kill outside for food or defence.

Now you should know that I know murder is a legal term. But what has law got to do with philosophy at an existential level. I am speaking about primal instinct and you are telling me that murder is a legal term. I am speaking about the way the universe might view a matter and you are telling me that murder is a legal term.

As you well know, throughout history greedy tyrants have killed on a grand scale and indeed mass murder has been the prime way in which conquest was done and conquest pretty much established the demarcations and borders of the nations of today. The mere fact that we pick up an pen and scribble down some rules describing what manner of killing is legal or illegal will not change the fact that our world and its borders today have been set up largely by mass murder.

Who even gets to define murder. Was what Bush and Blair did in Iraq mass murder or not. Is what Putin is doing in Ukraine mass murder or not.

Remember I said even as higher animals we will only find higher ways to fulfill primal instincts. So look at the problem of corruption in the world - the abuse of power for private interest. Is this theft of a kind or not, and is it normal for human beings? The law might say it is not, but history and the world around us decidedly say it is normal.

You really have to ask yourself this question: is it normal, in the sight of the universe, for one higher animal to kill another for land, to seize its wife, or to enslave its children, or indeed for any other gain? The law (of today) might say no, but history decidedly says yes.

Lastly - be careful not to conflate the word "normal" with "good" or "right."

Cats hunting mice and other small animals is part of their predatory nature. Domestication did not erase that instinct so that even though their don't always eat their kill, it is still part of them. Humans have no such instinct. We are not obligate predators or carnivores that need to kill. Especially mass killing, it has to be done with extreme thought and calculation. That removes it from being normal. We can see it because it occurs in every era it is still despicable to most people.

AngelahFlo:
I agree but it's still required that you forget and forgive even if it's a deliberate act on yourself because it frees you of bitterness which sets you back. On the Issue of God forgiving. He does forgive and forget. The people he punished at the flood event where given time to change their ways but they scorned God and missed their chance. Now brother lemme ask you this personal question: can you forgive someone for a wrong done to you. I mean forgive from the heart?

Required by who to forget?

How does giving someone time to change their behaviour equal forgetting?

What does forgive from the heart mean? As far as I am concerned the heart has nothing to do with it. When I tell someone I forgive them, it means I won't count that specific wrongdoing against them anymore. And when I say it, I mean it sincerely. Still doesn't mean I have forgotten that they did me wrong.

DeepSight:
But Musk had said for a long time that he didn't need the EV subsidies/ protections. Infact he had repeatedly called for them to be removed.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/12/05/congress/elon-musk-electric-cars-00192848?hl=en-GB

Saying one thing but doing another. When he was front and centre in DOGE what did he do to reduce or eliminate EV subsidies and protections?

Newsgeek24:
https://news360ng.com/god-told-me-my-first-child-would-die-if-i-dump-rccg-pastor-adeboye-reveals/

How does he explained the one that died? The god was sleeping too? Or he travelled or was distracted?

Klington:


I still don't understand why musk is in a hurry to pull down the same person he supported with everything a few months ago.

Could it be for personal gains?

Trump started touching him where it hurts. The new bill removes stuff about electric vehicles that will definitely affect Musk's Tesla brand.