16 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwPretending there is objectivity is fantasy, it is all subjective. Morality based on religion is also fantasy since all religions are strictly man made therefore so is morality.
If interpreted subjectively, then there's no standard. Without a standard there is no objectivity. Without objectivity reality is open to interpretation, which cancels out everyone's opinion.
Reality is interpreted according to an objective standard, otherwise we'll be sitting here arguing all day to no effect. That includes the reality of the existence of good and evil.
We may not have objective standards but we know evil when we see it and we don't need a reference to a deity to figure it out. It is not rocket science. You harm a child, we know the consequences, unfortunately this dude didn't care or think about them.
The pitiful thing about this case: the father now writing these letters to his son saying how much he loves him and wants to be part of his life.
Like that would ever happen after what he did.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThe term "evil" implies violating a divine law of some kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Stewart_(phlebotomist)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91048&page=1
I was listening to BBC on the way to work and the son of this guy who is now 25 was being interviewed and told what happened. The child at age 11 months went to hospital for asthma treatment only, the father paid a surpise visit supposedly just t ...[text shortened]... is life, doesn't want to talk to him, interact in any way.
Tell me there is no evil on Earth.
I would think that being an atheist you would have used different verbiage.
Originally posted by whodeyIn standard English, which is used by both superstitious people - like you - and non-superstitious people - such as atheists, the word "evil" implies a profound lack of morality in one's actions that are, as a consequence, damaging to others and most likely rooted in a sociopathic or even perhaps psychopathic lack of empathy for others.
The term "evil" implies violating a divine law of some kind.
I would think that being an atheist you would have used different verbiage.
The term "evil" implying violating a divine law of some kind, only applies to people who believe there is a divine law of some kind.
You don't need to commandeer the word; it works just fine as it is.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47With literally no respect intended in the slightest, you, sir, are an idiot.
I don't think there such thing as good or evil. Only different perspectives, everyone interprets the world differently. Everyone has different life experiences that skew their perception of reality. There is no right way of looking at things, only different ways.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyEvil doesn't imply any such thing to me. It applies to such people as Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Brian Stewart, Charles Manson. If you don't think those animals are evil I don't know who is.
The term "evil" implies violating a divine law of some kind.
I would think that being an atheist you would have used different verbiage.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonhousePretending there is objectivity is fantasy
Pretending there is objectivity is fantasy, it is all subjective. Morality based on religion is also fantasy since all religions are strictly man made therefore so is morality.
We may not have objective standards but we know evil when we see it and we don't need a reference to a deity to figure it out. It is not rocket science. You harm a child, we know ...[text shortened]... e loves him and wants to be part of his life.
Like that would ever happen after what he did.
If this is the case then how can their be such a thing as crimes against humanity? For there to be such a thing as crimes against humanity requires a consensus and a consensus by its very nature is not subjective but objective.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieConsensus, by it's very nature, is a coinciding of subjectivities.
If this is the case then how can their be such a thing as crimes against humanity? For there to be such a thing as crimes against humanity requires a consensus and a consensus by its very nature is not subjective but objective.
Originally posted by FMFnonsense, you can come to a consensus and still have those who are dissenting internally. The only scenario where your suggestion is true is where there is a unanimous consensus. Furthermore when the consensus has been reached and accepted its an objective reality.
Consensus, by it's very nature, is a coinciding of subjectivities.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhether or not someone or some party agrees to subscribe to or act in accordance with a consensus is a subjective decision, as would be any decision by some to dissent. Consensus does not create an "objective reality" other than the fact that the consensus may be said to ~ in fact ~ exist. If you and me and sonhouse reach a consensus about which Bert Jansch album is the best, this does not create "objectivity" about Bert Jansch's albums. Objective information about Bert Jansch's albums would be provided by release dates, musicians used, and sales figures.
nonsense, you can come to a consensus and still have those who are dissenting internally. The only scenario where your suggestion is true is where there is a unanimous consensus. Furthermore when the consensus has been reached and accepted its an objective reality.
Originally posted by FMFYes it creates an objective reality. 'Murder of innocents is wrong', is an objective reality agreed upon and ratified by countless nation states. If you were to go to a court of law and plead based on your subjectivity that someone 'deserved to die', its most likely that the court will through your defence out based on the objective reality that murder of innocents is deemed to be wrong and your subjectivity will have literally no bearing on the matter when you are sentenced.
Whether or not someone or some party agrees to subscribe to or act in accordance with a consensus is a subjective decision, as would be any decision by some to dissent. Consensus does not create an "objective reality" other than the fact that the consensus may be said to ~ in fact ~ exist. If you and me and sonhouse reach a consensus about which Bert Jansch albu ...[text shortened]... bout Bert Jansch's albums would be provided by release dates, musicians used, and sales figures.
Furthermore such a subjective approach is dangerous and it leads to all kinds of atrocities as the natural faculty of conscience ( a shared objective reality) (see the Nuremberg trials of crimes against humanity) is superseded by some subjective reasoning, e.g. 'I was only following orders'. One can think of honour killings where the perpetrator kills based on some kind of subjective perception of dishonour, or the Orlando nightclub killings based on the subjective reality of the perpetrator.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI disagree. Undoubtedly, if one is surrounded by by society that punishes murder, then it's an objective reality that the society punishes murder and that someone committing it will therefore most likely be punished, but that's all.
Yes it creates an objective reality. 'Murder of innocents is wrong', is an objective reality agreed upon and ratified by countless national states. If you were to go to a court of law and plead based on your subjectivity that someone 'deserved to die', its most likely that the court will through your defence out based on the objective reality that ...[text shortened]... wrong and your subjectivity will have literally no bearing on the matter when you are sentenced.
I, like millions and millions of others, oppose the death penalty. Our opposition to it does not creates an objective reality that the death penalty is wrong.
If you and I agree - i.e. our subjective opinions coincide - i.e. we reach a consensus - about which is, say, the best film ever, we have not in any shape or form generated "objectivity" about that film or about other films relative to the film we have chosen. Our shared opinion is not somehow rendered objective simply because we share it.
I suspect you want to define the word objective so that you can apply it to subjective opinions you have - something many ideological religionists often seek to do [and non-believers too, sometimes] - and which you have done countless times on the Spirituality Forum.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHang on, "the natural faculty of conscience" is "a shared objective reality"?
Furthermore such a subjective approach is dangerous and it leads to all kinds of atrocities as the natural faculty of conscience ( a shared objective reality) (see the Nuremberg trials of crimes against humanity) is superseded by some subjective reasoning.
What do you mean by this?
Originally posted by FMFTo try to reach a consensus on 'the best film ever', is not expressing any kind of objective reality and its ludicrous to think that it is. All that is being expressed is a subjective preference, not an objective reality. There is no such thing as 'the best film ever'. There is such a thing as the natural faculty of conscience which deems that killing innocent people is morally wrong. This most certainly is an objective reality. What the spirituality forum on my religious disposition has to do with it I cannot say, it seems a rather cheap attempt to introduce irrelevancies.
I disagree. Undoubtedly, if one is surrounded by by society that punishes murder, then it's an objective reality that the society punishes murder and that someone committing it will therefore most likely be punished, but that's all.
I, like millions and millions of others, oppose the death penalty. Our opposition to it does not creates an objective reality t ...[text shortened]... n-believers too, sometimes] - and which you have done countless times on the Spirituality Forum.
Originally posted by FMFWe share with almost every human being the natural faculty of conscience which we are free to exercise. This has produced a shared objective reality enshrined in national and international law. For example that the killing of innocent people is wrong. This is a shared objective reality based upon the natural faculty of conscience and enshrined in law.
Hang on, "the natural faculty of conscience" is "a shared objective reality"?
What do you mean by this?
