LordReed:


Hopefully he'll engage, this stuff is fascinating when you look into it.

Let me first educate someone on this topic.

rekinomtla:


You not answering the question, you dodging it. So I’ll ask you again:



This time please answer the question. I don't wana call you out for dodging again

U are morally wrong for slapping me for nothing

Not sure if you being deliberately dishonest here. But before you asked me isn’t it obvious to me that something could be right in one society and wrong in another. To that I said NO. I’m a moral realist therefore I believe that certain actions under certain circumstances are wrong in all and every society. That is I believe our moral judgments can be true or false, and what makes true or false is independent of our beliefs (hence, the term moral objectivism).

U are talking about ur believe... Is this what's obtainable in the actual world? We have seen the evolution of morality taking place right before our eyes. Some things right here are wrong in other places. This is not about ur believe its about what we can see.

But now you changed the question. Now you asking me if it isn’t obvious to me that certain people have different moral beliefs. That certain people in one society for example consider/believe homosexuality to be wrong but in another society some people consider/believe it to be right.

But that’s not what you ask me the first time. Originally you asked me what is the case, now you asking what people believe to be the case. The question I asked you above, the one you dodged shows the difference, that’s why I asked it.

U guys are fond of making issue out of nothing. Just a simple question talking too long. Isnt it obvious that something morls in naija could be immoral in USA? What's hard to understand in this question. And u answered its not obvious to u. Isn't that a dishonest answer?

How about you define and provide evidence for moral relativism instead of just asserting or assuming it’s true until someone proves to you that morality is objective. Why are atheists always like this, assume their position until someone provides absolute proof that another view is true.

U are looking for example? Do all countries have the same moral principles? Why is homosexuality wrong in naija and okay in USA?
People are doing things according to how it makes them feel good and this shows that objective morality does not exist.

We know that morality is objective by intuition. Intuition is right until we have good reason to doubt it. We know for instance that some of our moral judgments are true regardless if people believe them or not. (Eg we know killing for personal pleasure is morally wrong evens if the person who does so believes it is morally right.) But go ahead explain how moral relativism reaches its conclusion that nothing is objectively wrong but it's only differences in opinion. I'm sure psychopaths will agree

Intuition is right until u have good reason to doubt it yet u call it objective. The fact that our intuition can change shows that what ever conclusion we reach as a certain time is not objective.
Morality is learned... Its a result of our interaction with one another. Killing is wrong because of the effect it has on us as humans that's why we reached a conclusion that its morally bad. If killing is objectively bad u would even kill animal for food. Humans choose what is right or wrong based on how it affects them. Not based on any intuition.

hammer6F:
A man declares himself god wen he becomes ATHEIST.

Others might have already answered this part but am going to answer it again!

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

---

Auto-theist

Etymology

auto- +‎ theism
Noun

autotheism (uncountable)

1. Worship of oneself.
2. Belief that one is a deity.
3. Belief that one is possessed by a divine power.
4. The doctrine of the self-subsistence of God, especially of the second person in the Trinity.

He loses compassion and empathy and becomes dependent on Logic and reasoning. ?

Are you saying the opposite of Logic and Reasoning is Compassion and Empathy

Atheist are not guided by any principle and are possibly the most dangerous set of human being on earth.

What principle are you talking about?

frank317:

U are morally wrong for slapping me for nothing

So is it always wrong to slap someone for nothing? Because it sounds like you saying it’s objectively wrong to slap someone for nothing.

U are talking about ur believe... Is this what's obtainable in the actual world?

Yes, we can provide examples of moral judgments we know are true by intuition, true regardless of whether anyone believes them or not. Unless we have good reason to doubt our intuition, there’s no need to accept moral relativism. In fact you the one talking about what people believe, moral relativism requires you to do that otherwise it wouldn't be relative.

We have seen the evolution of morality taking place right before our eyes. Some things right here are wrong in other places.

They are believed to be right in other places. Whether they are actually right or wrong is a different question. Stop treating the two questions as if they the same.

This is not about ur believe its about what we can see.

You the one defining morality based on what people believe, eg. You said homosexuality is not immoral in USA because people there believe it's okay.

And What you mean it’s not about what we believe but rather it’s about what we can see. What we see is what we believe. To believe something just means to accept something to be the case. What we see is people have different beliefs about moral issues, but to jump from that to the conclusion of moral relativism is true is fallacious.

U guys are fond of making issue out of nothing. Just a simple question talking too long.

You ask me two different questions then responded to me as if it were the same questions. Then complain about me making an issue of it

Isnt it obvious that something morls in naija could be immoral in USA? What's hard to understand in this question. And u answered its not obvious to u. Isn't that a dishonest answer?

What do you mean immoral in USA, do you mean people believe it’s immoral or that it is actually is immoral?

You see, you can’t just equate people’s beliefs about moral issues as if the determine the truth of the matter. That would be just as illogical as me saying the earth is flat in society X because people in society X believe its flat.

U are looking for example?

I want evidence for moral relativism and I would like you to define it so as not to accuse me of misrepresenting it.

Do all countries have the same moral principles?

No. And your point is what exactly? Do we require universal agreement for something to be objective?

Why is homosexuality wrong in naija and okay in USA?

It’s believed to be wrong by many in Nigeria. In USA it’s believed by many to be morally okay. Whether it is right or wrong is another question.

People are doing things according to how it makes them feel good and this shows that objective morality does not exist.

Hmm, so if objective morality existed what should everyone suppose to be doing. Must everyone be doing the right/moral thing every time? How in the world is this an argument against objective morals? If moral objectivism is true all that means is there are objective facts about our moral judgments/beliefs. It's says nothing about whether people will follow or even know those facts.

Intuition is right until u have good reason to doubt it yet u call it objective.

We also believe in the existence of other minds intuitively does that mean the existence of other minds isn’t a objective fact. You conflating epistemology with ontology here. How we come to know something says nothing about whether that something existence is objective or subjective.

The fact that our intuition can change shows that what ever conclusion we reach as a certain time is not objective.

Hmm so the fact that our intuition can change shows that whatever conclusion we reach at a certain time is not objective. So when people intuitively believe the earth is flat then later reject that belief because they’ve been provided with good reasons to reject it. Then their conclusion (that the earth is not flat) is not objectively true. Makes sense.

Morality is learned... Its a result of our interaction with one another.

Science is learned, we learned that the earth is a sphere, does that mean our belief that the earth is a sphere is not objective because we learned it. Whether something is learned or not says nothing about whether it’s objective or not.

Killing is wrong because of the effect it has on us as humans that's why we reached a conclusion that its morally bad

What effects, give a example of situation where you would consider killing to be immoral.

If killing is objectively bad u would even kill animal for food.

Killing is objectively right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Eg. It’s objectively wrong to kill somebody because of personal pleasure.

Humans choose what is right or wrong based on how it affects them.

So things are not really right or wrong, instead humans just pick and choose based on how it affects them. Not all humans of course but most. So things like killing or raping for personal pleasure is not objectively wrong according to you. We just say so.

Not based on any intuition.

So you don’t think people intuitively know it’s objectively morally wrong to kill someone for personal pleasure? You feel you have to teach kids this otherwise it will never cross their mind as they grow up.

rekinomtla:


So is it always wrong to slap someone for nothing? Because it sounds like you saying it’s objectively wrong to slap someone for nothing.

Its wrong to slap someone for nothing because of the effect it has... However same slap could be right if the slapee enjoys it. If the effect if slap on our skin is not bad it will not be wrong. If an individual say he likes slap, slapping him for nothing will not be wrong.

How do I sound like I am saying it's objectively wrong to slap someone for nothing, what does that even mean?

Yes, we can provide examples of moral judgments we know are true by intuition, true regardless of whether anyone believes them or not. Unless we have good reason to doubt our intuition, there’s no need to accept moral relativism. In fact you the one talking about what people believe, moral relativism requires you to do that otherwise it wouldn't be relative.

People decide what is right or wrong based on how it affects them... I dont like being slapped because its painful not because of intuition... What's that?

They are believed to be right in other places. Whether they are actually right or wrong is a different question. Stop treating the two questions as if they the same.

Well to determine its wrong or right u have to make a strong case, that's the dynamics of morality.

You the one defining morality based on what people believe, eg. You said homosexuality is not immoral in USA because people there believe it's okay.

Yes

And What you mean it’s not about what we believe but rather it’s about what we can see. What we see is what we believe. To believe something just means to accept something to be the case. What we see is people have different beliefs about moral issues, but to jump from that to the conclusion of moral relativism is true is fallacious.

What we believe is what we feel, not what we see.
What we see it what we know And what we know is that people in USA accept homo as moral while people in naija accept it as immoral and this makes morality relative.

You ask me two different questions then responded to me as if it were the same questions. Then complain about me making an issue of it

OK...I hope it's clear to u now

What do you mean immoral in USA, do you mean people believe it’s immoral or that it is actually is immoral?

Both ... People believe its moral in USA and as a result it is moral in USA.

You see, you can’t just equate people’s beliefs about moral issues as if the determine the truth of the matter. That would be just as illogical as me saying the earth is flat in society X because people in society X believe its flat.

If peoples believe does not determine what's right or wrong, what does. Why do we have different moral laws in different society and why does peoples belief influence these laws?

I want evidence for moral relativism and I would like you to define it so as not to accuse me of misrepresenting it.

I have used difference laws on homosexuality as an example and u are still asking for evidence?
In simple definition morality is not objective it depends on history, learning, experience , situation, culture etc... And as a result, changes over time.

No. And your point is what exactly? Do we require universal agreement for something to be objective?

Yes

Hmm, so if objective morality existed what should everyone suppose to be doing. Must everyone be doing the right/moral thing every time? How in the world is this an argument against objective morals? If moral objectivism is true all that means is there are objective facts about our moral judgments/beliefs. It's says nothing about whether people will follow or even know those facts.

The argument is actually against objective morality... If morality is objective then everyone would agree on what is wrong and what is right. Bit that's not the case... Is it?

We also believe in the existence of other minds intuitively does that mean the existence of other minds isn’t a objective fact. You conflating epistemology with ontology here. How we come to know something says nothing about whether that something existence is objective or subjective.

If morality is objective, other minds will know and believe in what we know.

Hmm so the fact that our intuition can change shows that whatever conclusion we reach at a certain time is not objective. So when people intuitively believe the earth is flat then later reject that belief because they’ve been provided with good reasons to reject it. Then their conclusion (that the earth is not flat) is not objectively true. Makes sense.

Their conclusion is true given the information we have... But not objectively true. What do u mean by objectively true. What if a new info comes on the shape of the earth will u stand on ur ground and say it must be what u have already called objectively true?

Science is learned, we learned that the earth is a sphere, does that mean our belief that the earth is a sphere is not objective because we learned it. Whether something is learned or not says nothing about whether it’s objective or not.

Kindly define what u mean by something being objective. What qualifies something as objective.
So many knowledge have been changing under science and more will change

What effects, give a example of situation where you would consider killing to be immoral.

When kill someone for no just cause or for being nice to u, or for flimsy reason,e.g argument.

Killing is objectively right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Eg. It’s objectively wrong to kill somebody because of personal pleasure.

U can't say something is objective and still say it could be right or wrong depending... Killing someone for personal pleasure is just one of the reason the reasons for killing... Killing is the subject matter here not reason for killing

So things are not really right or wrong, instead humans just pick and choose based on how it affects them. Not all humans of course but most. So things like killing or raping for personal pleasure is not objectively wrong according to you. We just say so.

We are talking of killing... Is killing objectively wrong? NO
why? Because people kill for different reasons and one of the reason is because the person is a murderer or deserves it... Killing for personal pleasure is wrong because u hurt people who don't deserve it.

So you don’t think people intuitively know it’s objectively morally wrong to kill someone for personal pleasure? You feel you have to teach kids this otherwise it will never cross their mind as they grow up.

People learn what's moral over time based on bow it affects them. Humans have know that slap is painful therefore its not moral to apply pain to people unnecessary. But pain is still applied to people who deserve it.

rekinomtla

Still waiting on that definition.