₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
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.

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.

DeepSight:
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.

What is man that God is mindful of him? The Psalmist asked this same rhetorical question, but went on to the fact that He still did.

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?

LordReed:
Is lying objectively wrong?

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.

Image123:
What is man that God is mindful of him? The Psalmist asked this same rhetorical question, but went on to the fact that He still did.

Understandable if God is mindful of his soul. Incomprehensible for God to be mindful of his beard.

DeepSight:
Understandable if God is mindful of his soul. Incomprehensible for God to be mindful of his beard.

Understandable if it all belongs to Him and He is sovereign.

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.

LordReed:
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.

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.

Image123:
Understandable if it all belongs to Him and He is sovereign.

More understandable when it is actually an imaginary pagan tribal mountain deity.

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.

LordReed:
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.

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.

DeepSight:
More understandable when it is actually an imaginary pagan tribal mountain deity.

i don't have such experience to know if it is more understandable, i stick with what i know mostly.

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!

LordReed:
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!

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.

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.

LordReed:
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.

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

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.

LordReed:
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.

I will make an attempt. I have enough respect for you to do that.

LordReed:
Cats hunting mice and other small animals is part of their predatory nature

You really think humans don't have a predatory nature? You are funny.

DeepSight:
You really think humans don't have a predatory nature? You are funny.

Humans are omnivores, we never had to be predatory.

The former Newsboys frontman confessed he was living “two distinctly different lives” while leading the iconic Christian band.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/06/michael-tait-confesses-sexual-assault-cocaine-drugs/

LordReed:
Humans are omnivores, we never had to be predatory.

This is a wrong statement. Take it back or explain. You know better than this.

DeepSight:
This is a wrong statement. Take it back or explain. You know better than this.

Ok, I take the 2nd part back.

LordReed:
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.

Back to this. Have you had time to see the error you made?

Never said morality can be objectively right and wrong.

Said a deed in different circumstances could be objectively right OR wrong.

Think about it. Wish to be brief.

It's pretty simple. If you have no reason for killing a person and you do it, that's objectively wrong.

If you did it in self defense that's objectively right.

Be careful with words. I never said what you claimed I did.

DeepSight:
Said a deed in different circumstances could be objectively right OR wrong.

This is what is called subjective morality. I'm still surprised you are just dancing around the word subjective.

LordReed:
This is what is called subjective morality. I'm still surprised you are just dancing around the word subjective.

At least recognize your error first then we can debate it properly. You said I was saying something which I never said. You said I said morality is both objectively good and bad. Thats an incongruous, meaningless and absurd statement - and you know very well I didnt say that.

Subjective morality would simply mean if anyone personally believes it is right to r.ape, murder, commit genocide, burn women at the stake, do human ritual sacrifices - in fact anything - then its moral for them to do so. To say that all morality is subjective simply means anything a person feels like doing or thinks it is right to do - even the worst atrocities is actually okay. You are wrong on this score.

There is a reason I use terms like relative morality and situational morality. Because a thing can be relative. For example an insane person may not have any idea of what he is doing. A person with even dementia may not have any idea of what he is doing. Even medical issues like sleep walking fall in the same category - that person may have absolutely no idea what happened. And anyone can see that this is objective, rational reasoning. Even a child may have no idea what he is doing and the consequences - and that is why minors are treated differently before the law. In law we say that even a child below the age of 12 can commit no crime because he understands nothing - he is not at the age of criminal responsibility. All this is rational and objective.

In situational cases, just imagine if there was a war going on and thousands of people were stuck in a trench trying to escape from enemy bombardment. In that situation many people could do anything to get out of the trench quickly and it may be a mistake, it may be a split of the second instinctive escape etc - but could lead to the deaths of other people. That is a clear situation that no rational or objective human will think the crime was deliberate or premeditated.

I urge you to think carefully on what I am saying.
I will go further if you kindly reflect and consider that I am not dancing around any word unnecessarily.
I did tell you that this is a pure philosophical matter which I wonder about.

DeepSight:
At least recognize your error first then we can debate it properly. You said I was saying something which I never said. You said I said morality is both objectively good and bad. Thats an incongruous, meaningless and absurd statement - and you know very well I didnt say that.

I explained my statement, I didn't mean that you said it verbatim. Something cannot be objectively 2 mutually exclusive things. You are saying an action can be good sometime then bad another time. You CANNOT use the word OBJECTIVE for such a thing.

Subjective morality would simply mean if anyone personally believes it is right to r.ape, murder, commit genocide, burn women at the stake, do human ritual sacrifices - in fact anything - then its moral for them to do so. To say that all morality is subjective simply means anything a person feels like doing or thinks it is right to do - even the worst atrocities is actually okay. You are wrong on this score.

Then the misunderstanding is yours because whatever the case it is a value judgement capable individual making a choice. There is no externally imposed "thing" making the choice for the individual. By necessity all value judgements are subjective. We get to choose our moral frameworks which can help guide our actions without any guarantees that we would adhere strictly to those frameworks. This is why a Christian who professes to love Jesus more than life can still kill, it is all in the individual's powers of choice.

There is a reason I use terms like relative morality and situational morality. Because a thing can be relative. For example an insane person may not have any idea of what he is doing. A person with even dementia may not have any idea of what he is doing. Even medical issues like sleep walking fall in the same category - that person may have absolutely no idea what happened. And anyone can see that this is objective, rational reasoning. Even a child may have no idea what he is doing and the consequences - and that is why minors are treated differently before the law. In law we say that even a child below the age of 12 can commit no crime because he understands nothing - he is not at the age of criminal responsibility. All this is rational and objective.

You are using different words for the same thing. At least within the context in which we are discussing which is individual value judgements.

In situational cases, just imagine if there was a war going on and thousands of people were stuck in a trench trying to escape from enemy bombardment. In that situation many people could do anything to get out of the trench quickly and it may be a mistake, it may be a split of the second instinctive escape etc - but could lead to the deaths of other people. That is a clear situation that no rational or objective human will think the crime was deliberate or premeditated.

If killing is OBJECTIVELY wrong then no situation would make it right. It is only because morality is subjective, relative, situational that we can assign moral values based on changing circumstances. You cannot convince me to substitute the word OBJECTIVE into what is clearly not an OBJECTIVE situation.

I urge you to think carefully on what I am saying.
I will go further if you kindly reflect and consider that I am not dancing around any word unnecessarily.
I did tell you that this is a pure philosophical matter which I wonder about.

I think about these things fairly regularly, subjecting my thoughts to examination from time to time. I am fully convinced there is no external objectivity to morality. It is firmly entrenched in the capacity of value judgement beings/species/populations.

LordReed:
I explained my statement, I didn't mean that you said it verbatim. Something cannot be objectively 2 mutually exclusive things. You are saying an action can be good sometime then bad another time. You CANNOT use the word OBJECTIVE for such a thing.

You have misquoted me again. I hope this is not becoming deliberate.
I will see if you spot the error here again in order to determine if you are not doing it deliberately.

Then the misunderstanding is yours because whatever the case it is a value judgement capable individual making a choice. There is no externally imposed "thing" making the choice for the individual. By necessity all value judgements are subjective. We get to choose our moral frameworks which can help guide our actions without any guarantees that we would adhere strictly to those frameworks. This is why a Christian who professes to love Jesus more than life can still kill, it is all in the individual's powers of choice.

Is the individual's power of choice the basis of morality?
Please think carefully.

Because if you insist it is, I can only conclude that there is nothing like morality in your worldview. And that nothing is right or wrong or good or bad.

If killing is OBJECTIVELY wrong then no situation would make it right.

Look, I am tired of repeating myself. Self Defense can make it right for example.
Or are you denying that?

I think about these things fairly regularly, subjecting my thoughts to examination from time to time. I am fully convinced there is no external objectivity to morality. It is firmly entrenched in the capacity of value judgement beings/species/populations.

There is external objectivity to morality. What destroys a people and even the whole human race is external to any single individual's opinion.

DeepSight:
You have misquoted me again. I hope this is not becoming deliberate.
I will see if you spot the error here again in order to determine if you are not doing it deliberately.

How did I misquote you?

Is the individual's power of choice the basis of morality?
Please think carefully.

Because if you insist it is, I can only conclude that there is nothing like morality in your worldview. And that nothing is right or wrong or good or bad.

It isn't the only basis but it is a part of how we determine if a person is morally culpable. You yourself gave examples using children and dementia patients. What is different between such people and normal morally culpable is the ability to have proper value judgements aka choice.

Morality is a human construct. We are the ones who made morality. It's wasn't handed to us. Humans are the ones who are making value judgements.

Look, I am tired of repeating myself. Self Defense can make it right for example.
Or are you denying that?

Then itis not OBJECTIVELY wrong. Its that simple. As far as I am concerned you are just doing mental gymnastics to avoid using the word subjective. Because the meaning of the word OBJECTIVE does not support being variable.

There is external objectivity to morality. What destroys a people and even the whole human race is external to any single individual's opinion.

From where is this external objectivity? What are you talking about with this destroy talk? What brings destruction into this discussion?

LordReed:
How did I misquote you?

For old time's sake and the dear respect we bear one another please try and spot the error.
Because i strongly believe if you cant, there is a huge problem that may make it impossible for us to discuss.

DeepSight:
For old time's sake and the dear respect we bear one another please try and spot the error.
Because i strongly believe if you cant, there is a huge problem that may make it impossible for us to discuss.

I think it would be rather instructive for you to point out where you say I misquoted you.

LordReed:
I think it would be rather instructive for you to point out where you say I misquoted you.

Regrettably I believe this conversation has failed. It's better to forget it.

PS: No offense but you don't know the meaning of "objective."