₦airaland Forum

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

He cannot ask you. You already raised it and he only points out that even you yourself are commenting that which you condemn. So you were taken by your own sword

Joshthefirst:
@LordReed, @Deepsight

Subjective morality sounds tolerant and open-minded, but in real life, it’s unlivable and logically incoherent...

Subjective morality is already silly. Like asking a bandits opinion on the morals and kidnapping

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you are talking religion forgetting that in those days the religion that you are talking about did not exist yet these Laws were already in place all over the world.

And the Bible's law on shaving is what people call the traditional law and custom of the people called Isreal. But all this is departing from the issue.

Who told you there were laws against adult consensual sex all over the world?

DeepSight:
Who told you there were laws against adult consensual sex all over the world?

Go check history and see which place in the world allowed couples to have sex before marriage.

Dtruthspeaker:
Go check history and see which place in the world allowed couples to have sex before marriage.

You can't just send me on an open ended errand like that. You made the assertion so provide the evidence.

DeepSight:
You can't just send me on an open ended errand like that. You made the assertion so provide the evidence.

No. It's you who set up the assertion that consensual sex is not prohibited all over the world. And I just rebutted

Thus, you who ought to now show the place you had in mind when you first made that assertion.

Dtruthspeaker:
No. It's you who set up the assertion that consensual sex is not prohibited all over the world. And I just rebutted

Thus, you who ought to now show the place you had in mind when you first made that assertion.

No: I was denying what you had asserted. Now prove that you are no cowardly escapist and do the needful.

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.

DeepSight:
No: I was denying what you had asserted. Now prove that you are no cowardly escapist and do the needful.

Yes you tried denying my point but then made the mistake of raising a new issue in your attempt to deny. And therefore, since you raised up this issue, therefore you had the duty of showing us what you knew when you raised this issue. So it's you who should lay it out

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?

DeepSight:
This your response is weak.

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

LordReed:
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?

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?

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.

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

Huh? Deflecting how? Change what exactly?

LordReed:
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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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:
There were many silly laws based on religious nonsensicalities in times past. I hope you know the Bible also contained injunctions against shaving your beard, for example.

Context?

Image123:
Context?

What context justifies such a meaningless law being laid down by an omnipotent creator.

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

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.

I will address that later.

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.

DeepSight:
What context justifies such a meaningless law being laid down by an omnipotent creator.

Where's the law, that's what i ask.

Image123:
Where's the law, that's what i ask.

The most commonly cited verse is in Leviticus 19:27: "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you mar the edges of your beard."

Another related verse is Leviticus 21:5, which applies specifically to priests: "They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh."

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.

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

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?

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.

LordReed:
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.

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?

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:
The most commonly cited verse is in Leviticus 19:27: "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you mar the edges of your beard."

Another related verse is Leviticus 21:5, which applies specifically to priests: "They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh."

i'm guessing that i need an update or i'm missing something about DeepS, or maybe it was another person then. i don't expect the other one to ask this type of question or claim a Bible passage is meaningless. Anyhoo, incase it is the same DeepS, let me give a more detailed answer.

Lev 19:26  Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. 
Lev 19:27  Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 
Lev 19:28  Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. 

i'll quote a commentary (what i supposed the other DeepS would have done earlier) instead of reinventing the wheel. These were laws against the superstitious usages of the heathen around them and God didn't want them practising or imitating such customs.
Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous. 4. The rites and ceremonies by which they expressed their sorrow at their funerals must not be imitated. That was what was referenced here according to Bible scholars.

Similar like you stated in
Lev 21:5  They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
He was referring here to some practices heathen people did for the dead which the people of God should not imitate. The heathen cut off their hair, and let out their blood, in honour of the imaginary deities which presided (as they thought) in the congregation of the dead, that they might engage them to be propitious to their departed friends. The Israelites were not to copy this. The same principle is applicable to new testament christians who should be circumspect in their practices and distinct/peculiar compared to others.
By the way, omnipotence is not directly linked to meaning or justification, you may try sovereignty instead. There's a lot of apparent meaninglessness in the planet and the universe in our limited understanding. These don't negate omnipotence if it is the ability to DO.

LordReed:
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.

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

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/objective-vs-subjective/

We can use law as a guide as law is rational.

In law, the same action (e.g: shooting a person dead) can objectively be deemed good or bad depending on the circumstances. As you know, if self defense is involved, the moral and legal nature of that same act changes at once - objectively.

So while it is true as you say that what is objective cannot change based on a subjective consideration, its moral or legal characterization can change based on circumstances - and that remains an objective consideration.

This is iron clad, indubitable, inescapable and absolutely beyond cavil.

Image123:
i'm guessing that i need an update or i'm missing something about DeepS, or maybe it was another person then. i don't expect the other one to ask this type of question or claim a Bible passage is meaningless. Anyhoo, incase it is the same DeepS, let me give a more detailed answer.

Lev 19:26  Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. 
Lev 19:27  Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 
Lev 19:28  Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. 

i'll quote a commentary (what i supposed the other DeepS would have done earlier) instead of reinventing the wheel. These were laws against the superstitious usages of the heathen around them and God didn't want them practising or imitating such customs.
Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous. 4. The rites and ceremonies by which they expressed their sorrow at their funerals must not be imitated. That was what was referenced here according to Bible scholars.

Similar like you stated in
Lev 21:5  They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
He was referring here to some practices heathen people did for the dead which the people of God should not imitate. The heathen cut off their hair, and let out their blood, in honour of the imaginary deities which presided (as they thought) in the congregation of the dead, that they might engage them to be propitious to their departed friends. The Israelites were not to copy this. The same principle is applicable to new testament christians who should be circumspect in their practices and distinct/peculiar compared to others.
By the way, omnipotence is not directly linked to meaning or justification, you may try sovereignty instead. There's a lot of apparent meaninglessness in the planet and the universe in our limited understanding. These don't negate omnipotence if it is the ability to DO.

All of this would be meaningless to an omnipotent, omniscient and transcendental creator of all that exists.

It is simply too petty and nonsensical for such a God.

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.