Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[FlashDangerpants]

What kind of thinking is that?
Try something from online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

That is in my dictionary. Objectivity is based on reason. Subjectivity is based on opinion, bias, emotions, and the like.

Heh..heh .. "my dictionary" that is very personal and subjective, thus your "Objectivity is based on reason" itself is not objective [if any is negligible within the continuum].

As such your whatever views on this topic lack objective [credibility], i.e. is subject to your opinions and beliefs.

You base your fraudulent version of objectivity on FSK things with exactly the same problematic outcome you describe there.

[bahman]

What kind of thinking is that?
Try something from online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

That is in my dictionary. Objectivity is based on reason. Subjectivity is based on opinion, bias, emotions, and the like.

Heh..heh .. "my dictionary" that is very personal and subjective, thus your "Objectivity is based on reason" itself is not objective [if any is negligible within the continuum].

As such your whatever views on this topic lack objective [credibility], i.e. is subject to your opinions and beliefs.

No that is a correct dichotomy for a clear reason. Things are based on reason, opinion, bias, emotions, and the like. We have a common understanding of things when they are based on reason. That is why I said that objectivity is based on reason. Otherwise, we are differentiated when it comes to things since we have different opinions, biases, and emotions about things. Therefore we dealing with subjectivity in this case.

You missed my point.

Here is another example,
If a car is damaged and cannot operate normally, it does not mean there is no factual objective car.

As such, while there are 1% of psychopaths, it still remain that 100% of ALL humans still has an inherent moral potential and function in varying state of operation or is damaged.

No, you have never been a psychopath it seems! They tend to kill or harm people. They desire this.

Again your knowledge is very shallow and narrow. Suggest you read to widen your horizon further.

Out of the 1% of psychopaths, there are the benign and malignant [toxic] psychopaths.

There is a toxic and a benign form of psychopathy

"The toxic form of psychopathy is characterized by antisocial impulsiveness," says Prof.
Gerhard Blickle from the Department of Psychology. Such people cannot control themselves, they take what they like, act without thinking beforehand and pass the blame to others.

"The potentially benign form of psychopathy is named fearless dominance," adds co-author Nora Schütte.
"It can develop to be bad, but also to be very good." People with these characteristics do not know fear, have pronounced self-confidence, good social skills and are extremely resistant to stress.

Oh come on, if something is objective then it has to be accepted by 100% of people. No less.

[nemos]

That is in my dictionary. Objectivity is based on reason. Subjectivity is based on opinion, bias, emotions, and the like.

I see a major flaw in that.
Subjectivity is formed in consciousness through reason - it is the reason that interprets objectivity (electrical impulses), including emotions, forming the subjective opinion about objectivity.
The subject is not destined to be objective (in the absolute sense), he can only strive for it (infinitely), but the only means for this is still reason (that's true).
But in order not to drive themselves into hopeless efforts, people have invented such a thing as sufficiency. For certain purposes we don't need an absolute match, a close enough match can be enough.

[bahman]

That is in my dictionary. Objectivity is based on reason. Subjectivity is based on opinion, bias, emotions, and the like.

I see a major flaw in that.
Subjectivity is formed in consciousness through reason - it is the reason that interprets objectivity (electrical impulses), including emotions, forming the subjective opinion about objectivity.
The subject is not destined to be objective (in the absolute sense), he can only strive for it (infinitely), but the only means for this is still reason (that's true).
But in order not to drive themselves into hopeless efforts, people have invented such a thing as sufficiency. For certain purposes we don't need an absolute match, a close enough match can be enough.

I cannot understand you at all.

[Sculptor]

That is your usual when cornered and run out of rational points to counter my above.

But you have no argument.
Everything you say is either blatantly false or just personal.

I asked you to furnish ONE example of a moral relativist who complies with yout viewpoint of them.
You have failed.
That makes the entire thread a childish strawman polemeic.

You are the one who build a strawman.

Nope. I am making no claims.


I asked you to furnish ONE example of a moral relativist who complies with yout viewpoint of them.
You have failed.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh come on, if something is objective then it has to be accepted by 100% of people. No less.

No. If something is objectively true then the number of people who believe it is, by definition, irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If 100% of people believe the Sun orbits the Earth (which historians assure us is roughly the proportion that used to believe this) then 100% of people are objectively in error.

VA doesn't understand this at all but objective and subjective are differences of type, not of magnitude. The difference between objective information and subjective information is how you check for truth. If the information is subjective, you check by asking people. If the information is objective, you check by looking at the object.

[nemos]

I cannot understand you at all.

If something is specific, I can try to explain it.
Well, if nothing is comprehensible, then it will have to be left as it is, because it is possible that my subjective understanding is too different from yours to form a sufficient correspondence for mutual understanding(it is also possible that my lame English is to blame). Although, on the other hand, you don't seem to me (perhaps erroneously, because subjectively) incomprehensible, I just don't always agree with you.

[bahman]

Oh come on, if something is objective then it has to be accepted by 100% of people. No less.

No. If something is objectively true then the number of people who believe it is, by definition, irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If 100% of people believe the Sun orbits the Earth (which historians assure us is roughly the proportion that used to believe this) then 100% of people are objectively in error.

Well, we are talking about morality which is a different category than reality. To me when it comes to morality, morality is objective if there is a reason for it, otherwise is subjective, opinion, emotion,... based.

VA doesn't understand this at all but objective and subjective are differences of type, not of magnitude. The difference between objective information and subjective information is how you check for truth. If the information is subjective, you check by asking people. If the information is objective, you check by looking at the object.

In the case of morality, there is no object that we can check to know the truth.

[bahman]

I cannot understand you at all.

If something is specific, I can try to explain it.
Well, if nothing is comprehensible, then it will have to be left as it is, because it is possible that my subjective understanding is too different from yours to form a sufficient correspondence for mutual understanding(it is also possible that my lame English is to blame). Although, on the other hand, you don't seem to me (perhaps erroneously, because subjectively) incomprehensible, I just don't always agree with you.

I am sorry. I understand what you are saying here but nothing in your previous post.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh come on, if something is objective then it has to be accepted by 100% of people. No less.

No. If something is objectively true then the number of people who believe it is, by definition, irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If 100% of people believe the Sun orbits the Earth (which historians assure us is roughly the proportion that used to believe this) then 100% of people are objectively in error.

Well, we are talking about morality which is a different category than reality. To me when it comes to morality, morality is objective if there is a reason for it, otherwise is subjective, opinion, emotion,... based.

VA doesn't understand this at all but objective and subjective are differences of type, not of magnitude. The difference between objective information and subjective information is how you check for truth. If the information is subjective, you check by asking people. If the information is objective, you check by looking at the object.

In the case of morality, there is no object that we can check to know the truth.

If you have to change the rules to make morality seem objective then you are just faking it. There is no objective morality, done.

[bahman]

No. If something is objectively true then the number of people who believe it is, by definition, irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If 100% of people believe the Sun orbits the Earth (which historians assure us is roughly the proportion that used to believe this) then 100% of people are objectively in error.

Well, we are talking about morality which is a different category than reality. To me when it comes to morality, morality is objective if there is a reason for it, otherwise is subjective, opinion, emotion,... based.

VA doesn't understand this at all but objective and subjective are differences of type, not of magnitude. The difference between objective information and subjective information is how you check for truth. If the information is subjective, you check by asking people. If the information is objective, you check by looking at the object.

In the case of morality, there is no object that we can check to know the truth.

If you have to change the rules to make morality seem objective then you are just faking it. There is no objective morality, done.

I am not changing the rules. I am just changing the definition of objective when it comes to morality. The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality. Regardless, morality is subjective given my definition as well as there is no reason why something could be morally right or wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, we are talking about morality which is a different category than reality. To me when it comes to morality, morality is objective if there is a reason for it, otherwise is subjective, opinion, emotion,... based.


In the case of morality, there is no object that we can check to know the truth.

If you have to change the rules to make morality seem objective then you are just faking it. There is no objective morality, done.

I am not changing the rules. I am just changing the definition of objective when it comes to morality. The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality. Regardless, morality is subjective given my definition as well as there is no reason why something could be morally right or wrong.

Why are you changing the definition of objective at all? You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone.

[bahman]

If you have to change the rules to make morality seem objective then you are just faking it. There is no objective morality, done.

I am not changing the rules. I am just changing the definition of objective when it comes to morality. The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality. Regardless, morality is subjective given my definition as well as there is no reason why something could be morally right or wrong.

Why are you changing the definition of objective at all? You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone.

For two reasons: First, as I said, "The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality.". Second, we can agree on what we should do in a moral situation if we have a reason for it. In that sense, my sense, morality is objective otherwise is subjective.

Even Wiki agrees with me when it comes to morality and objective: Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not changing the rules. I am just changing the definition of objective when it comes to morality. The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality. Regardless, morality is subjective given my definition as well as there is no reason why something could be morally right or wrong.

Why are you changing the definition of objective at all? You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone.

For two reasons: First, as I said, "The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality.". Second, we can agree on what we should do in a moral situation if we have a reason for it. In that sense, my sense, morality is objective otherwise is subjective.

Even Wiki agrees with me when it comes to morality and objective: Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.

You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone

[bahman]

Why are you changing the definition of objective at all? You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone.

For two reasons: First, as I said, "The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality.". Second, we can agree on what we should do in a moral situation if we have a reason for it. In that sense, my sense, morality is objective otherwise is subjective.

Even Wiki agrees with me when it comes to morality and objective: Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.

You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone

As you say, Sir! Do you have another word that I can use for objective in my sense when it comes to morality?