Gggg102:


how do you determine the validity of a rationale.
one's decision might be completely irrational but since morality is subjective, they can apply any rationale they wish, either valid or invalid.

or is validity of a rationale some kind of objective standpoint on which one can judge morality?

I shall call this a point of progress. As in, we have leapt forward.

Let me rephrase your question. But tell if I have changed you meaning from what you mean.

"How does one determine the validity of a rationale decision?"

It's not exactly how I would have put the question, but I'm trying to stick with you own phraseology, so there.

The short answer is a simple, "that the decision be rationally arrived at". And by that, is meant, that personal bias is completely eliminated in the decision making.

Science attempts to do this with the application of the Scientific Method. Business attempts it too by doing a well thought out business plan, and we humans can generally do it by eliminating our preconceived ideas, opinions, beliefs etc from the decision making.

[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes?wprov=sfla1]Rene Descarte[/url] is the one I'd point to as a lesson of how to go about it. He attempted to strip himself of preconceived ideas so as to come to a single underlying reality of existence. But in coming to the conclusion cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), he failed to eliminate his subjective self and realise more objectively that "I am, therefore I think", which goes to show the difficulty in being objective. But I ramble.

Please reconsider rephrasing what you've said above a little clearer so I don't misunderstand what you mean.

Gggg102:

I would prefer an objective one. morality that is consistent irrespective of of human subjectivity.

But it doesn't exist! However much you prefer it! And even God knows this, confirmed with his 1+1≠2!

You ask for too much Gggg102.

budaatum:

I shall call this a point of progress. As in, we have leapt forward.

Let me rephrase your question. But tell if I have changed you meaning from what you mean.

"How does one determine the validity of a rationale decision?"

It's not exactly how I would have put the question, but I'm trying to stick with you own phraseology, so there.

The short answer is a simple, "that the decision be rationally arrived at". And by that, is meant, that personal bias is completely eliminated in the decision making.

Science attempts to do this with the application of the Scientific Method. Business attempts it too by doing a well thought out business plan, and we humans can generally do it by eliminating our preconceived ideas, opinions, beliefs etc from the decision making.

[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes?wprov=sfla1]Rene Descarte[/url] is the one I'd point to as a lesson of how to go about it. He attempted to strip himself of preconceived ideas so as to come to a single underlying reality of existence. But in coming to the conclusion cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), he failed to eliminate his subjective self and realise more objectively that "I am, therefore I think", which goes to show the difficulty in being objective. But I ramble.

Please reconsider rephrasing what you've said above a little clearer so I don't misunderstand what you mean.

you did not change the meaning.

stripping of all personal bias makes a conclusion objective.
what makes something subjective is that it is subject to personal bias.

so is rationality an objective standpoint(even if not 100% objective)?.

budaatum:

But it doesn't exist! However much you prefer it! And even God knows this, confirmed with his 1+1≠2!

You ask for too much Gggg102.

it exists(IF god actually exists), although it is ignored. I can't be sure of your atheistic premise.
it doesn't exist(IF god doesn't exist) and you would be completely right.

Gggg102:


you did not change the meaning.

stripping of all personal bias makes a conclusion objective.
what makes something subjective is that it is subject to personal bias.

so is rationality an objective standpoint(even if not 100% objective)?.

Thanks. We try to be objective. It is more a matter of degrees than 100%. And then that trying is according to one's subjective self, and one has to bear that in mind.

Take me, for instance. Objectively speaking from my subjective position, God's, are figments of the imagination. But, does that statement not come across to you as my subjective opinion? I can assure you, and as we've both shown here so far, that whatever evidence I throw your way to prove my objectivity would sound subjective to you and vice versa. You can't impose your subjective objectivity on me, and I can't impose my subjective objectivity on you. So what do we do, since we have to remain neighbours?

Herein comes the realisation that Christ made and many other enlightened people like him, and which many have missed despite so much teachings. We have to become "born again" as in literally abandon our preconceived ideas and biased subjective opinions and look at things afresh.

My neighbour may worship satan according to my subjective opinion, for instance, but how does that affect me if they do not make me worship their satan, or negatively affect my existence in any way by their worship? Yes, it is true that if I worship say Yahweh, I would believe that I may be punished for my father sins generations over, but surely my Yahweh will not punish me for my neighbours sins, or would he? If not, I can just go ahead and love my neighbour as much as I love myself and let my neighbours live as they chose to live barring breaking the law and murdering me or stealing from me and the likes. My God Yahweh will deal with their asses themselves, though, I should not even think like that if Yahweh were truly my God, for his Son said I shouldn't!

I haven't quite focused on the issue of rationality of objectivity here, but you might see how attempting to be rationale alone might help me and my neighbour. After all, my Yahweh has promised me I'll reap whatever I sow, so I better sow love my neighbours way so I'll hopefully reap love from them in return. I know if I hate them, they are less likely to love me in return, that's for sure!

budaatum:

Thanks. We try to be objective. It is more a matter of degrees than 100%. And then that trying is according to one's subjective self, and one has to bear that in mind.

Take me, for instance. Objectively speaking from my subjective position, God's, are figments of the imagination. But, does that statement not come across to you as my subjective opinion? I can assure you, and as we've both shown here so far, that whatever evidence I throw your way to prove my objectivity would sound subjective to you and vice versa. You can't impose your subjective objectivity on me, and I can't impose my subjective objectivity on you. So what do we do, since we have to remain neighbours?

Herein comes the realisation that Christ made and many other enlightened people like him, and which many have missed despite so much teachings. We have to become "born again" as in literally abandon our preconceived ideas and biased subjective opinions and look at things afresh.

My neighbour may worship satan according to my subjective opinion, for instance, but how does that affect me if they do not make me worship their satan, or negatively affect my existence in any way by their worship? Yes, it is true that if I worship say Yahweh, I would believe that I may be punished for my father sins generations over, but surely my Yahweh will not punish me for my neighbours sins, or would he? If not, I can just go ahead and love my neighbour as much as I love myself and let my neighbours live as they chose to live barring breaking the law and murdering me or stealing from me and the likes. My God Yahweh will deal with their asses themselves, though, I should not even think like that if Yahweh were truly my God, for his Son said I shouldn't!

I haven't quite focused on the issue of rationality of objectivity here, but you might see how attempting to be rationale alone might help me and my neighbour. After all, my Yahweh has promised me I'll reap whatever I sow, so I better sow love my neighbours way so I'll hopefully reap love from them in return. I know if I hate them, they are less likely to love me in return, that's for sure!

seems we have reached an agreement here.

your objective opinion might sound subjective but, it remains objective. my opinion on the opinion does not change the objectivity. your opinion would be right and mine wrong even if I feel that mine is right and yours wrong.

rationality can be helpful in addressing differences in subjective views, as it is the most devoid of bias. I think rationality is objective (enough) to make morality objective (enough). still, will everyone or a majority agree to base their morality on rationality so that morality would be more consistent?

TOSIN116:
The bible is a story book written by who?

Can you sit down and write your own unique book?

Did you even know how we got the bible.

Ignorant !mbecile.

lt undisputed story that really occurred.The sequence was carefully put together for people to read..it was not just a story,it is a faithful history ..

Gggg102:


seems we have reached an agreement here.

your objective opinion might sound subjective but, it remains objective. my opinion on the opinion does not change the objectivity. your opinion would be right and mine wrong even if I feel that mine is right and yours wrong.

Forgive me. I am a bit of a pedant! My opinion is subjective to me, however much I wish to claim objectivity! I can only try. But it takes another (and not my always subjective biased self) to truly determine how objective I am being according to that other as you seem to have done here so your opinion somewhat matters, provided you also attempt to be objective yourself. Just think, I could have been screaming "I am objective" all through our discussion, but all you'd have seen is my subjectivity!

Either one of us could hold the right opinion, and in some instances, both of us can. But it is up to both of us to put in the effort to see the other persons perspective without being blinded by ones own perspective which is a lens we wear that distorts reality. We must, allow our eyes to be cleaned by mud spat on by Jesus, so to speak, so that we can see.

Gggg102:

rationality can be helpful in addressing differences in subjective views, as it is the most devoid of bias. I think rationality is objective (enough) to make morality objective (enough). still, will everyone or a majority agree to base their morality on rationality so that morality would be more consistent?

Oh, look at us lol! When you and I began discussing we were biased, irrational, subjective and an ape jumped in too and distorted everything. But now here we are, patiently and diligently reasoning with one another and seeing each others subjective perspective.

Everyone will not base their morality on rationality, or the proper rationale for that matter, because everyone is different. And you will not have consistency either. People would always be people and some will insist on taking undue advantage. That is why objective laws are passed. Whatever morals an individual chooses to live by must remain between the legality of the law or we all shall agree they shall be arrested and punished.

The more knowledgeable people understand that the more advanced the individual's in a society are, the more capable of reasoning they become and the more rationale their laws will become too. It's why the more advanced nations spend a lot of money on educating their people so as to reduce ignorance. The fewer the ignorant people in a society, the more wiser the society becomes; the more their ability to reason increases the more rationally they behave.

It is at that point that a God would have said "let there be light!" And there will indeed be light, and everyone will see, and it will be good.

Gggg102! My atheist self feels like saying "Let us pray"!

The Christian bible is fake, false and counterintuitive.

TOSIN116:
The bible is a story book written by who?

The bible is a story book written by a bunch of liars and fakers.

Here they are speaking about the sacrifice of Marduk who made a covenant with humanity and the gods with the blood of his head so that we would be joined in eternity.

Nintu is the Babylonian name for Ninmah and is known as the 'Womb'Goddess' because she is the one who birthed all of the gods and humanity

"Nintu, mother goddess, Mesopotamian (Sumerian and Babylonian-Akkadian), broke off, according to legend, fourteen pieces of primordial clay to form the womb deities, seven on the left and seven in the right with a brick between them, who produced the first seven pairs of human embryos."

"Nintu made her voice heard
And spoke to the great gods,
On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month
I shall make a purification by washing.
Then one god should be slaughtered.
And the gods can be purified by immersion (baptism).
Nintu shall mix the clay
With his flesh and blood.
Then a god and a man
Will be mixed together in clay.
Let us hear the drumbeat (heartbeat) forever after,
Let a ghost (spirit) come into existence from the god's flesh,
Let her proclaim it as her living sign (holy Spirit),
And let the ghost exist so as not to forget the slain god."

TOSIN116:
The bible is a story book written by who?

The Christian bible was fabricated by first century Romans.