Right, Wrong, and Moral.................

[Tom_in_CA]

Why are you equating something you should do with "an objective moral ought?"....

This is a strange bizarre question to me. Are we needing to go back to first base and define "objective" vs "subjective" all over again ?? I thought we were past that. If someone "should do something", that is either subjective (eg.: just your "preference " that they should do it) versus objective (ie.: they REALLY need to do it, despite what anyone on earth thinks or prefers). If you are saying that they REALLY "should do" it (and that it's not just you or Texas' preference), then presto: You are saying it's objective. Not simply someone's collective society's preference (since another society might prefer something else).

.... - The mechanism I appeal to is our humanity, and what that entails as it relates to our desires especially as it pertains to what we want (described by the word good) and do not want (described by the work bad) to happen to us.
-

Ok, read slowly and pay attention to the underlined bold words from your quote above :

"Our humanity" & "we" Who is that ? What country ? What set of people ? What era ? What continent and time frame ? 'Cuz I got news for you : There are morals that are not shared. So which "our" and which "we" adjudicates in those situations of contradictions T.O.T. ?

....- I may be forced to admit that our nature has objective components

Ok. We're getting somewhere. And if you say that objective moral standards exist, I promise I'll go light on you

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Human beings....

Which ones ? Which set ? What country ? What era/time ?

And you still haven't taken my bait from the other post where I offered to you the notion that it requires the consensus of the "entire world" and over "all the eons" (if it were conceivably possible to poll the entire world over thousands of years, and then tally their results). In other words, I was GRANTING YOUR SIDE an "out", by pointing out that it might be intellectually dishonest of me to try to give you examples of Nazi Society, Pol Pot, , blah blah. Since those could be labeled "outlier flukes". And we don't study 'outlier flukes' to determine what "we" is. Right ? We study the bigger picture of world-wide. Right ? Hence being the death-knell to Tom_in_CA examples of Nazis, Jim crow laws, etc.... Right ? You never took my bait. On the surface, this would seem to be a fist-pump for your side. So why aren't you jumping on that ? Such that when you answer "human beings", you would need to also say : "over the entire earth, over all the centuries since man existed, if-it-were-possible to have taken votes ".

Are you afraid to add that to "human beings" ? Might I be setting a trap for you ? Go ahead , give it a try

We appeal to our humanity (nature) and the fact that we are forced to share a reality to adjudicate human affairs of morality.....

Who is the "our" ? Which person(s) ? What continent ? What era ? And no, we are not "forced" to share any realities. You or I (or any particular country) can be greedy and not share, and could, in fact, come out ahead.

 

[Truth OT]

T.O.T., notice your use of the words "have to" (in bold above) . And the use of the word "forced". And the moral implications of the word "share" and "cooperation" and "respecting", etc.....

No choice is involved in having to or being forced to coexist, that's just the way it is. Sharing and cooperating on the other hand requires a choice to be made and whatever that choice is will have consequences the chooser likely cannot control.

Note the bold text above in your quote "Human". Ok, which human(s) ?

No individual human in particular, just humanity and how humans are.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

No choice is involved in having to or being forced to coexist, that's just the way it is. .....

If it's "just the way it is", then presto: You've just been converted to saying that morals are based on objective fixed points. Glad to have you on our side of aisle now T.O.T. Henceforth you will no longer say that morals are relative/subjective to society, collective "we", culture, humanity, evolution, etc.... Right T.O.T. ?

Before I proceed with my next step , I just want to make sure I get a resounding "Yes" to the above statement I just made. Otherwise I fear you will "rush back to subjective/objective morals", when you see the heat getting turned up. So please acknowledge that you are now converted to agree that morals are objective, and not subjective. Then we can proceed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....No individual human in particular, just humanity and how humans are.

Ok then, if it's "no particular human(s), and is just "humanity", then what do you do when you have two conflicting/contradicting moral codes, in two different countries ? How do you adjudicate ? Since they too are "humanity".

Why don't you just take my bait, and say that the answer is "To poll the entire earth, not just a single country, state, or continent" . Doesn't that sound like a tempting answer for you ? Or am I setting a trap ?

I can see that you are still holding on to subjective /relative morals. Or have I converted you yet ?

 

[Truth OT]

Which ones ? Which set ? What country ? What era/time ?

Homo Sapiens.

I offered to you the notion that it requires the consensus of the "entire world" and over "all the eons"

No vote or consensus is required as the bulk of it is NOT about choice but rather human nature.

examples of Nazi Society, Pol Pot, , blah blah. Since those could be labeled "outlier flukes".

Their societies quite possibly aren't outliers when it comes to what is deemed moral. Human morality is a standard humans developed in many ways to govern coexistence among human peers. That peer view of other humans is frequently disrupted by our tendency towards tribalism which we use to create divisions between ourselves and our preferred tribe and others. That tribal distinction lays the framework for tribes to dehumanize outsiders. Too often those we deem as others are not afforded the same level of humanity we require for ourselves and those of our tribe and that gives rise to things like ethic cleansing, slavery, discrimination, denial of rights we afford to ourselves, etc. That tribal inclination seems to also be a part of human nature.

 

[Truth OT]

If it's "just the way it is", then presto: You've just been converted to saying that morals are based on objective fixed points. Glad to have you on our side of aisle now

When it say no choice is involved in having to or being forced to coexist, that's just the way it is, that's not a claim about morality or living together in harmony. That's a claim about the fact that we're born into a world of other people and we have no say so in that whatsoever. Coexisting, (e.i having to live with people) is just the way it is.

T.O.T. Henceforth you will no longer say that morals are relative/subjective to society, collective "we", culture, humanity, evolution, etc.... Right T.O.T. ?

If I were to assert that morals have no basis, I wouldn't seem to have a leg to stand on. However, that's not what I'm asserting. What I have asserted is that human morality is based on human nature. (This is how homo sapiens are, and because of that, it should be expected that certain things will be viewed as good while others as viewed as bad.)

 

[Truth OT]

Ok then, if it's "no particular human(s), and is just "humanity", then what do you do when you have two conflicting/contradicting moral codes, in two different countries ? How do you adjudicate ? Since they too are "humanity".

Why don't you just take my bait, and say that the answer is "To poll the entire earth, not just a single country, state, or continent" . Doesn't that sound like a tempting answer for you ? Or am I setting a trap ?

You are setting up a few roadblocks. First, holding the view that some type of consensus is mandated is not warranted, and secondly, assuming that an overarching code that can "accurately" adjudicate all situations must exist isn't necessary either. For instance, if according to my morals as it pertains to deceiving humans, I infer that it is ALWAYS wrong to deceive while another person holds that SOMETIMES employing deception is good; who's right and who's wrong? Both cannot be right simultaneously so we are left at having to assess this from the point of view of either rigidity or deciding between the lesser of apparent evils.

 

[Truth OT]

what is the difference between "social contract" and "we" and "humanity"

We can't help being human (humanity). We have a choice as to whether or not we will abide by what living in a beneficial societal construct asks of us (social contract). The two are not the same and making the so, muddies the water.

Did I just hear you say "requirement" ? As in ... HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ? As in a moral obligation that someone would be "wrong" to violate ?

You TOTALLY missed the point. This, as I said before is not about morality, it's about existing. No choice is afforded and there is no way to violate. I exist and I had no choice in the matter, that's how it works. Again, I exist with other people, I had no choice in the matter; that's just how it works.

And BTW, it's not "impossible" to go against "co-existing". I can kill you, and take your stuff, and EXIST JUST FINE ! In fact, sometimes NOT "co-existing" is the best way to survive.

Again, you are conflating coexisting with living in harmony with others. You can choose not to do one, but as far as the other is concerned no choice is afforded you.

I can get ahead by lying, stealing, killing, etc.... So why be a nice guy, if I have a better chance of getting my genes into the next generation by killing others in wars, to expand my borders, have more kids, eat better food, etc.... ?

Sure a small fractional minority in positions of extreme power, influence, and wealth may be able to survive for a while by lying, stealing, killing, etc., but they'll have consequences to face from those outside of their designated group. Even within their group they may have consequences to pay including but not limited to things like fear of retaliation, lack of relationships, imprisonment, etc.
Choosing to violate the social contract is a way to fast track becoming one of the "thems" that are not regarded as being worthy of human treatment.

Why the heck should you or I give our $$ to some charity that feeds the poor, if by keeping the $ for ourselves it allows us more prosperity, more kids, longer life, etc.... ?

This is actually pretty easy. Doing the types of things we regard as good have a tendency to bring us pleasure. I don't bite into a juicy steak to avoid punishment, I do so because it gives me pleasure. Engaging in actions that bring other people "good feels" are often good to and for us. We have biological incentives to do so!

 

[Truth OT]

Not realistic ? I would/could agree with you if I had no *real* names and *real* events in history, to show that they are VERY MUCH INDEED "REALISTIC". Did you think I just made up the name "Hitler" ? (yet no such dude and no Nazi party ever actually existed). Did I just make up the name Pol Pot (but he's fictitious ?). If it were true that these countries, persons, eras, didn't exist (and were just hypotheticals that never actually occurred in history), THEN YES: It would "not be realistic". But I got news for ya T.O.T. : They are not made up. Re-read your history books dude.

You're obfuscating. Go back to the post of mine that you quoted a line from. I clearly gave an explanation.

..... A question I wrestle with is that of if human morality is based on human nature and human nature is observable, testable, and can be verified as being whatever it is; does that then make human morality in settings where multiple human agents exist together objective?[/QUOTE]
Not tracking you on this one. Can you elaborate ? Specifically as-to-how it plays into our conversation. Thanx.[/QUOTE]
I'm pondering the idea that if our human nature, (that is, how people are), is somewhat definitive, then by extension does that make the morality that arises from that nature definitive (or as you would say, objective) as well.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Homo Sapiens. ...

Which homo sapiens ? Which country ? What era ? What if they have contradicting moral codes? Would you have adjudicating tie-breaker ? If so, then you have just admitted to an objective standard that is OUTSIDE of and ABOVE each set(s) of "homo sapiens"

Why don't you just take my bait and say "polling the entire earth , over every generation since man first walked the earth " ? What's wrong with that answer ? Or is this Tom_in_CA laying a trap ?

.... No vote or consensus is required ....

Aaahh, you're not taking my bait ? You are a wise man. But the pickle still remains for you. Because, as a matter of fact, you are now saying that "consensus is not required". HHhhmm, how can that be ? YOU are the one who is perpetually saying it's "we" and "humanity" and "homo sapiens" that decide what is morally good versus bad. But then you turn right around say "no consensus is required " ? Then how the heck to these "we's" that you speak of decide these morals you say are decided by then ? It seems to me that consensus is VERY MUCH needed. Lest how else would you/they/we ever come to conclusions ? This isn't making sense.

.... Their societies quite possibly aren't outliers when it comes to what is deemed moral. Human morality is a standard humans developed in many ways to govern coexistence among human peers. That peer view of other humans is frequently disrupted by our tendency towards tribalism which we use to create divisions between ourselves and our preferred tribe and others. That tribal distinction lays the framework for tribes to dehumanize outsiders. Too often those we deem as others are not afforded the same level of humanity we require for ourselves and those of our tribe and that gives rise to things like ethic cleansing, slavery, discrimination, denial of rights we afford to ourselves, etc. That tribal inclination seems to also be a part of human nature.

Well if I understand you correctly here, then you're acknowledging that these past societies and eras (their composition of homo sapien "we's") were indeed entitled to choose their moral codes. And decide what is "good" vs "bad". Since, as you say, it's all subjective and relative to the various times and places of "we's". And to your credit, you did, on a past post, say that you could not look back at the Nazi state, from 1933 to 1945, and say "they were wrong" [let that sink in]. At least not meant in any objective way. Since , at that time, the majority there deemed Jews as sub-humans. Hence *their* moral system called that good. For the betterment of Germany, blah blah . So I have to give you credit for being consistent with your subjectivism, to agree that you can't call that "bad". Other than just your personal current subjective preference there in Texas.

However, the problem I keep seeing, is that on the one hand you are/were consistent in realizing that you can't wag your finger at the Nazis and call them "wrong". HOWEVER, in the very next breaths you breathe, you typically list a bunch of stuff people should do or should not do. In other words, you DO "wag your finger" and it is very clear that you are meaning it in objective senses. As if things really ARE "wrong" or "right" in objective senses. Wuzzup with that ?

This is very typical of persons who say morals are subjective and relative. All you have to do is follow the person around for an hour, listen to what they say, and : Guaranteed they give their position away that they *do* believe in absolute morals. You tried to walk a thin line (so as to be consistent with your views), when you said that the Nazi's were only subjectively wrong, not objectively [let that sink in]. But then as I say, with your other hand, in the next breaths, you start listing other things people should and shouldn't do. And it's unmistakable that you are meaning that in objective senses. Wuuzzup ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

When it say no choice is involved in having to or being forced to coexist, that's just the way it is, that's not a claim about morality or living together in harmony. That's a claim about the fact that we're born into a world of other people and we have no say so in that whatsoever. Coexisting, (e.i having to live with people) is just the way it is.....

Point duly noted. Thank you for clarifying.

...... If I were to assert that morals have no basis, I wouldn't seem to have a leg to stand on. However, that's not what I'm asserting. What I have asserted is that human morality is based on human nature. (This is how homo sapiens are, and because of that, it should be expected that certain things will be viewed as good while others as viewed as bad.)

Sure. I "get" that you are NOT saying that "morality has no basis" (lest how could anyone ever call something right or wrong ??). Sure. I get it. OF COURSE I didn't think your system "had no basis for morality". And here is your "basis" : It's whatever the collective homo sapien "we" decides. It's subjective to whatever the societies and cultures decide and "human nature". Right ? But then presto: You have no right to look at any other civilization (that practiced slavery or gassing Jews) and say it's wrong. After all, that was THEIR "human nature". Ok, I got it.


And T.O.T. , Believe it or not, some countries, right now as we speak, see utterly no problem with pedophilia (sex with young kids) And have an actual tourist market of men that go to those countries to vacation & engage. Then on your view, since those cultures (those "human natures") see no problem with pedophilia , well then presto, it's not wrong. At least not in an objective sense. It's only wrong in our country, for us. But you couldn't go over there and tell them "that's wrong" for them to do.

So do tell us all : Is sex with kids wrong ? In an objective sense ? Or only subjective sense (to our western culture sensibilities and views). In order for you to be consistent with your view, you will have to do the same thing you did with the Nazis : You will have to agree that it's only subjectively wrong. But if you were over there , in that country for some reason, you can not say to them "this is wrong" (in any objective sense). If you are agreeing that sex with kids is only subjectively wrong, then : Let's all let that sink in.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... ...Sure a small fractional minority in positions of extreme power, influence, and wealth may be able to survive for a while by lying, stealing, killing, etc., but they'll have consequences to face from those outside of their designated group. Even within their group they may have consequences to pay including but not limited to things like fear of retaliation, lack of relationships, imprisonment, etc.....

I don't doubt that if you rape, you will likely get caught and go to jail , for example. But now we're back to ontology vs epistemology again. We can both look at a speed limit sign, and agree that the speed limit is 35 mph. Right ? And then everything you're saying above, in your quote, would apply to that. Eg.: persons with power and influence *might* be able to break the speed limit for awhile. Their "designated group" *might* catch them and give them a speeding ticket. Right ? There might be "consequences to pay" , right ?

Ok, sure, we all agree on everything in that sense. BUT WAIT !! This isn't answering the bigger question: "Where did the speed limit come from ". Ie.: ontology vs epistemology . Ok ?

....This is actually pretty easy. Doing the types of things we regard as good have a tendency to bring us pleasure. I don't bite into a juicy steak to avoid punishment, I do so because it gives me pleasure. Engaging in actions that bring other people "good feels" are often good to and for us. We have biological incentives to do so!....

And to the theist, they would say that this is : The [objective] moral code "written on our hearts".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You're obfuscating. Go back to the post of mine that you quoted a line from. I clearly gave an explanation......

If I am obfuscating, please accept my apology. But I don't know where you are referring me to go back and re-read. Can you do with with post #'s , which appear in the upper right of each post. And then direct me to which paragraph. I'll go back and look and see if I was obfuscating .

.... I'm pondering the idea that if our human nature, (that is, how people are), is somewhat definitive, then by extension does that make the morality that arises from that nature definitive (or as you would say, objective) as well.

So it seems to me that you *realize* that .... yes , an objective moral code DOES exist, that is not dependent on what individual societies, and continents and eras decide. Right ? However, for YOU, this "objective moral code" comes from some sort of a decision of what is "definitive" .

This was the VERY SAME PONDERING that I had, that brought me to this forum. An atheist friend of mine had come to the conclusion, that ... yes ... objective moral standards exist (like "It is wrong to murder innocent people", for example). And he had the notion that he could have the "best of both worlds", by declaring that a moral "becomes objective" when it is held by the majority. Mind you, this is nothing but semantics (since, as you see, it still required the "majority" to say whatever the moral was, hence, technically, it's subjective). But in his mind's eye is CROSSED OVER and BECAME objective, since , of course, the majority say. And at first blush, I was taken back by that. Since, yes, it's FAIRLY OBVIOUS that the majority say rape and murder and theft is "wrong". And since we've had entire states, countries, and continents that have had abhorrent moral codes in history, you'd have to expand that to "the entire world" (lest you had to count those pesky fluke outliers as individual groups of "we's", eh ? :/ )

HOWEVER, you haven't taken my bait yet. Why not ? Why not say it requires a vote of the entire world , over all the eons, to THEN know what "we" and "homo sapiens" and "society" is ? And then you can proudly proclaim that THOSE moral values are "objective". Ok ? Are you afraid I'm setting a trap for you ? I will allow you to take-back what you said about morality NOT "requiring consensus or vote". And I promise I'll go light on you. Ok, are you ready to take my bait ? Or am I setting a trap ?

 

[Philip James]

Choosing to violate the social contract is a way to fast track becoming one of the "thems" that are not regarded as being worthy of human treatment.

I agree. Not looking good for those who hold that homosexual 'marriage' is a mockery of the 'good' that is the union of a man and a woman.

With subjective morality, it will be seen as just when Church lands are confiscated and its possessions stolen..

Peace be with you!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Where's T.O.T. ? We're anxiously awaiting his replies to my posts #52 to #55

 

[Truth OT]

Then how the heck to these "we's" that you speak of decide these morals you say are decided by then ? It seems to me that consensus is VERY MUCH needed. Lest how else would you/they/we ever come to conclusions ? This isn't making sense.

No need to decide, just recognize how humans are and that humans have to/get to be humans together.

Well if I understand you correctly here, then you're acknowledging that these past societies and eras (their composition of homo sapien "we's") were indeed entitled to choose their moral codes. And decide what is "good" vs "bad". Since, as you say, it's all subjective and relative to the various times and places of "we's". And to your credit, you did, on a past post, say that you could not look back at the Nazi state, from 1933 to 1945, and say "they were wrong" [let that sink in]. At least not meant in any objective way. Since , at that time, the majority there deemed Jews as sub-humans. Hence *their* moral system called that good.

Good and bad weren't exactly what would be decided on in these circumstances. What is done instead is a rationalization of why bringing about bad upon another group is somehow justifiable. Dehumanization, villainization, etc. are methods employed by would be bad actors to attempt to justify why doing bad things to some group of "thems" is somehow acceptable. Killing in these cases is still bad, but it gets rationalized as morally acceptable due to the parties being killed and persecuted somehow being placed in a category that denies them the humanity afforded to the decision makers in the "us" group.

the problem I keep seeing, is that on the one hand you are/were consistent in realizing that you can't wag your finger at the Nazis and call them "wrong". HOWEVER, in the very next breaths you breathe, you typically list a bunch of stuff people should do or should not do. In other words, you DO "wag your finger" and it is very clear that you are meaning it in objective senses. As if things really ARE "wrong" or "right" in objective senses. Wuzzup with that ?

I call things that are deemed wrong due to how humans are based on HUMAN MORALITY. That is what I appeal to, nothing beyond that because human morality only governs how humans should be treated. So, I will concede that there is a standard I appeal to when determining what are acceptable interactions and treatments of humans consist of. That standard in humanity/human nature/how we are.

Are there standards that can be applied to interactions with humans? YES
Who develops them? HUMANS
How are they developed? by looking to and understanding how human nature is
Are there situations that can make violating those standards justifiable? YES
Is that justification highly subjective? Definitely

And here is your "basis" : It's whatever the collective homo sapien "we" decides. It's subjective to whatever the societies and cultures decide and "human nature". Right ?

Wrong. Again, no decision is appealed to or needed. An self assessment of human nature is all that's needed to categorize what humans determine as good and what humans determine as bad in relation to human treatment.

"Where did the speed limit come from ". Ie.: ontology vs epistemology . Ok ?

The assessment and understanding of our nature as humans and how humans like us should be treated.

And to the theist, they would say that this is : The [objective] moral code "written on our hearts".

Which is a religious way of acknowledging the idea that that's just how humans are tied to a HUGE unsubstantiated assertion that claims to know that humans were fashioned this way due to the will and purpose of a specific deity.

So it seems to me that you *realize* that .... yes , an objective moral code DOES exist, that is not dependent on what individual societies, and continents and eras decide. Right ? However, for YOU, this "objective moral code" comes from some sort of a decision of what is "definitive" .

I have an open mind. Looking at data and examining what its implications are can definitely move me. I'm not married to anything that cannot reasonably be substantiated. As this thought experiment has played out I've had to amend my thinking as it relates to morality being a subjective thing that arises simply when peers are forced to share a space to human morality being a product of human nature which is testable, can be studied, and is verifiable, and has social applications. The fact that human nature is a real thing and is biologically verifiable, perhaps the morality resulting from that is in fact objective.

 

[Truth OT]

I agree. Not looking good for those who hold that homosexual 'marriage' is a mockery of the 'good' that is the union of a man and a woman.

With subjective morality, it will be seen as................

Why have we made sexuality into a moral issue at all? It seems to overstep and greatly "subjectify" what is good and what is bad.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... No need to decide, just recognize how humans are and that humans have to/get to be humans together.....

This seems to be more semantics. To just "drag this thing out" ? As if the longer you can "drag it out", the longer you don't have to admit the inevitable. For example, here, what the h*ck difference is "decide" vs "recognize" ? We both know we're talking about the same thing. I can switch to the word 'recognize', and it makes no difference for the picture we're discussing .

And what appears to be more semantics stalling strategies: Notice :

.... Good and bad weren't exactly what would be decided on in these circumstances......

versus :

.... What is done instead is a rationalization of why bringing about bad upon another group is somehow justifiable......

What the heck is the difference ? "rationalization" vs "decided on" ? And "good & bad" vs "justifiable" ? Instead of ever answering the questions of the obvious test-drive-crash-pickles you are in, here's what you do instead: Pick random words, and start to dispute their meanings. EVEN THOUGH WE BOTH KNOW FULL WELL WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT !

Sort of reminds me of how some wives get their way : When it comes to the "talking about it" portion of decision making in marriages, they "talk about it till the husband simply gives up". The husband eventually just "gives up". Because she will just talk-him-to-death, with perpetual objections. Most of which have nothing at all to do with nothing. Eventually the poor guy just "gives up". That's what I see happening here. Especially since I see the word-distinctions you are tossing out as road blocks, are basically nothing more than grabbing a thesaurus and finding synonyms. And the issues I showed you are not affected by your alternate choices of words.

.... Dehumanization, villainization, etc. are methods employed by would be bad actors to attempt to justify why doing bad things to some group of "thems" is somehow acceptable. Killing in these cases is still bad, but it gets rationalized as morally acceptable due to the parties being killed and persecuted somehow being placed in a category that denies them the humanity afforded to the decision makers in the "us" group. ......

There ya go again T.O.T. Smuggling objective morality in "through the back door". Is it objectively wrong to do all the things I put in bold above ? Or only subjectively wrong ? If it's only subjectively wrong (which is what you'll have to say, to be consistent with your view), then why are you griping ? Perhaps other people and/or cultures or eras LIKE "denying other people's humanity" . Perhaps other people and/or cultures or eras LIKE duhumanizing and villainization and killing . Who are you , or who is Texas, to call those things "Bad " ?

But if you meant all those things in an objective way, then presto : You're converted to believe in objective moral absolutes. Congratulations ! Welcome to our side of the aisle ! Now let me hear you say it loudly and proudly : "I am converted". But let me guess, you will simply ignore this , and rush back to subjective morals. Because otherwise your agnosticism is at stake. Or you will nit-pick word choices, so that this thread become a million more posts long and such-that-you never have to face the music. Right ?

.... I call things that are deemed wrong due to how humans are based on HUMAN MORALITY.......

Correction : You only call them SUBJECTIVELY wrong, not objectively wrong. And guess what ? That Nazi society disagreed with you, and they called YOU and Texas "wrong based on Human morality". And on your view therefore, they weren't really wrong (you are on record as admitting to this, let that sink in ).

Or have you converted yet ? If so, then please come on board with an admission of your conversion. We all anxiously await it.

.... I will concede that there is a standard I appeal to when determining what are acceptable interactions and treatments of humans consist of. That standard in humanity/human nature/how we are........

A) the "standard" you speak of, is a subjective standard, not an objective one. Unless of course you are now willing to admit your conversion. B) As for the 2nd part of your quote here : So too did the Nazis have a "standard in humanity/human nature" of "how they were"

.... Who develops them? HUMANS
How are they developed? by looking to and understanding how human nature is........

Last I checked : Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin were "humans". They too pondered "development". They too pondered "human nature". So everything you're saying, could be said of those societies and people-groups and continents and eras. Yet you seem to think (say-it-isn't -so) that there appears to be something that allows you to wag your finger and them and pronounce them "wrong". Hmmm, seems we've converted you into admitting there's an outside objective moral scoring card that exists NO MATTER WHAT HUMANITY THINKS. Are you ready to admit it ? Why don't you just spit it out and admit you are converted. It keeps coming out of your mouth every time you speak. But then you keep rushing back with the next breath claiming that morals are subjective and relative . When are you going to see this contradiction that you live in ?

I promise I'll go light on you. You can admit morals are objective and absolute, yet deny the existence of God. Why don't you just do that ? Then you don't have to give up your agnosticism. Or .... perhaps this is a trap ?

.... Wrong. Again, no decision is appealed to or needed. An self assessment of human nature is all that's needed to categorize what humans determine as good and what humans determine as bad in relation to human treatment. ........

Back to playing with your thesaurus T.O.T. ? What the heck difference is "deciding" versus "assessing" versus "determining" ? Seems you're just tossing out word game red-herrings, to take the heat off of your pickle.

.... The assessment and understanding of our nature as humans and how humans like us should be treated.........

Who is the "our" ? Which "humans" ? Which "us" ? Why not Stalin's Russia ? Why not Pol Pot's Cambodia ? Why not Hitler's axis group ? Why Texas and T.O.T . ? Don't just stall and toss out "homo Sapiens" again (another word game thesaurus delay tactic). Because I'll merely ask "which homo sapiens", blah blah).

And gee, I see that you say there's a "way that people should be treated". Wait, did you mean that objectively ? THEN PRESTO ! YOUR CONVERTED ! But nope, you won't admit it. Because to do so will be to jeapardize your agnosticism ? And ... tsk tsk, you can't go there. So go ahead and grab your thesaurus for some more stalling tactics, and refuse to see the contradiction you are living in

.... I have an open mind. Looking at data and examining what its implications are can definitely move me. I'm not married to anything that cannot reasonably be substantiated. As this thought experiment has played out I've had to amend my thinking as it relates to morality being a subjective thing that arises simply when peers are forced to share a space to human morality being a product of human nature which is testable, can be studied, and is verifiable, and has social applications. The fact that human nature is a real thing and is biologically verifiable, perhaps the morality resulting from that is in fact objective. .........

Thank you for this candid honesty. And I hope I have been open to your challenges as well . You will note that a few times I've actually said "score ones for T.O.T." haha

So anyhow, in-lieu of this last paragraph, can we now have an admission from you, to us, that you now agree that morals are NOT subjective and NOT relative ? And that they are in fact objective and absolute ? Can you just come clean once for all and say it ? You can even hold-on to your agnosticism at the same time . [ Or is this a Tom_in_CA trap ? MMMuuuhhhhahaha ]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Why have we made sexuality into a moral issue at all? It seems to overstep and greatly "subjectify" what is good and what is bad.

I sympathize with you on this one . If ever a Christian starts bringing up in-house morals (like harping about various sexual issues ) it doesn't do ANY GOOD TO the conversation of "Does God exist". In fact, it only turns off agnostics and atheists even more. So if Christians themselves wish to be with a single women, and not engage in gay sex, nor vote for candidates that don't share their views, THAT'S FINE AND DANDY ! But it has utterly no bearing on someone who doesn't even believe in God, in the first place.

So I cringe when this stuff gets tossed out, by well-meaning sincere Christians, when there is a much bigger concern of : "Is there even a God, IN THE FIRST PLACE".