Christianity's Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's objectivity is a tiny %. So, what is the rest of it. If it is .000001 objective. Then it must be 99.99999 % subjective. Wouldn't it be better then to label it as subjective, since it is primarily subjective?

It is because reality which is continuous and not discrete that the concept of Continuum is critical to philosophy in explaining reality more realistically.
Where is reality do we find discreteness?

See also the Bell Curve or Normal Distribution techniques in Statistics.
See also, Yin and Yang principles.


0.00001 Objective is 99.99999 Subjectivity
0.00001 Subjectivity is 99.9999 Objectivity

0.00001 White is 99.99999% Black
0.00001 Black is 99.9999% White
thus
we have grey
0.5 White is 0.5 Black
which avoid the contentious Law of the excluded Middle.

In certain areas where there is a very distinct dichotomy, bringing the variables involved to a common denominator is definitely an efficient approach to resolve issues more realistically.
A common denominator will also facilitate analysis and computations.

As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.

When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.

What is critical in the above is one must lay out the specific contexts in using a continuum.

[LuckyR]

LOL



What do 'you' think or believe the word 'objective' means, or refers to, exactly?

And, how, exactly, could a moral code be based on 'dogma'? What does the 'dogma' word mean or refer to, to 'you', exactly, "luckyr"?

Objective? Not subject to opinion or differences of perspective.

Now, how can ANY thinking be not 'subjected to' 'opinion', when absolutely ALL 'thinking' is 'of an opinion'?

Also, your definition of 'Objective' being not 'differences of perspective' is, more or less, my OWN definition as well. That is; ONLY when LOOKING and/or SEEING FROM the One perspective FROM ALL can 'Objectivity' be REACHED, ACHIEVED, SEEN, and/or KNOWN, as well as Truly UNDERSTOOD.

That is; ONLY 'that', which is IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE WITH EVERY 'thing' is WHERE thee Truth LAYS and True Objectivity IS FOUND.

Or, in other words, WHERE there IS NO 'differences of perspective'.

Dogma? A conclusion accepted as is, not through a consideration of data for and against.

Okay.

Is there a 'moral code', which you are aware of, that is NOT based on 'conclusions accepted as is, and not through a consideration of data for and against?

If no, then your so-called 'moral codes' as well as absolutely EVERY other 'thought' and 'thinking' is based on 'local objective'. The 'locality' is just ALWAYS smaller and narrower or bigger and larger.

Also, absolutely EVERY text contains 'objective writings', to some degree. Well according to your text and writing above here.

But if you are aware of a 'moral code' that is through a consideration of data for and against, and not based on 'conclusions accepted as is', then will you share 'that code' with us here?

You? What's your belief or thought?

ON 'what', EXACTLY?

Until then, to me, within human bodies there are 'thoughts'. Absolutely EVERY one of 'these thoughts' IS 'subjective'. As in 'subjective' to what each and every body has, for lack of better wording 'personally', experienced. Now, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY body has experienced different 'things', and thus has also had different past experiences, and it is these different bodily experiences WHY there are different, personal, or subjective, 'thoughts' and 'thinking' WITHIN each and EVERY human body.

Now, ONLY 'that', what absolutely EVERY one can AGREE WITH and ACCEPT I say and claim is the ACTUAL Truth, of 'things', and WHAT 'Objectivity' IS, EXACTLY. Looking and/or seeing FROM the perspective of EVERY 'thing' therefore, to me, is WHERE 'Objective Truth' LAYS and IS FOUND.

'Subjective truth', or in another word, to me, 'truth' is just the 'differences of truth', which 'you', adult human beings, continually squabble and/or fight over. It is those Wrong INTERPRETATIONS of the ACTUAL Real and IRREFUTABLE Truth WHERE and WHY 'conflict' among 'you', adult human beings, PERSISTS.

BUT, maybe you were asking for clarification regarding what is my belief or thought about some thing ELSE. So, I will now WAIT, your response.

For example if I say "you're tall" that's subjective, if I say "you're 5 foot ten" that's objective. Your being tall is my opinion, from my perspective, from LeBron's perspective you're not tall. Your being 5 foot ten is not my opinion, and does not change from my perspective to your's to LeBron's.

You misunderstand my comment on different perspectives. I am not saying (as you apparently are) that objectivity requires a particular "special" perspective to be seen, rather that it can be seen from many perspectives (unlike opinions).

While it is true many shallow thinkers accept societal or religious dogma, and rebrand them as their personal moral code, many others, especially here who think philosophically, come up with some of their moral codes (especially of novel situations) through careful consideration of potential outcomes of various choices and their implications. I guess you're completely unfamiliar with the process, but trust me others do it all the time.

I see your own wording confused you. You asked what my thoughts and beliefs were on objective and dogma (and as usual you didn't supply your own). I was merely asking you the identical question.

[Iwannaplato]

It's objectivity is a tiny %. So, what is the rest of it. If it is .000001 objective. Then it must be 99.99999 % subjective. Wouldn't it be better then to label it as subjective, since it is primarily subjective?

It is because reality which is continuous and not discrete that the concept of Continuum is critical to philosophy in explaining reality more realistically.
Where is reality do we find discreteness?

1) you're missing the point. My question was why not label it subjective. You labelled it objective. Neither answer is a continuum answer. Both answers are simple, single labels. Yours labels something by what is a tiny fraction of it's makeup. My label goes by the vast majority of its make up.

0.00001 Objective is 99.99999 Subjectivity

Yup, I said that.

As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.

When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.

I'm not assuming the law of the excluded middle, in general.

But if you have a process that has some objective parts and some subjective parts it can make no sense to call the CONCLUSIONS objective.

Christian morals are the conclusions of a process. Not the process, but the conclusions.

If I say bats are mammals. Mammals can create babies. Bats are therefore like God. Bats are a kind of God.
Two of the steps in my process are quite rational and can be objectively determined, as you would say, in the relevant scientific FSK. Step three is less objective. The conclusion is not objective at all, even though this person reasoned using some percentage of objectivity.

You're acting like objectivitity is additive. These steps were objective. We add them up and come up with a percentage of the whole. But it's not additive. It's, metaphorical, multiplicative.

1+4+5+0= 10 so we could give some argument ten points of objectivity even if the last step is completely illogical.
1x4x5x0= 0 here the conclusion has zero objective value. Yes, portions of the argument are objective, but the conclusion is not objective at all, despite these steps that are. 1 ludicrous step can undermine the entire argument.

You can talk about the continuum of the argument. What percentage of the steps are objective. But the conclusion need not be objective at all, if one of the steps is not objective/rational/logical at all.

The morals of Christianity are the conclusions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote;

• "As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.
  
  When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.
  
  What is critical in the above is one must lay out the specific contexts in using a continuum."

Why should someone dictate how I use 'subjectivity' or 'objectivity' as the basis of my continuum when I specifically lay down the contexts and conditions.
Some people may not personally like the approach, but it is very meaningful and useful.

If people are still ignorant of the above, I suggest they get familiar with the principles of yin and yang.

For example, it could be;
10% summer is 90% Autumn or
10% summer is 90% Spring.

When someone walks the center of gravity shift in % from the right to the left leg or vice versa.

This is happening in every aspects of reality, so why the fuss with objectivity or subjectivity or the preference for one over the other specific to the contexts.

[Iwannaplato]

I wrote;

• "As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.
  
  When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.
  
  What is critical in the above is one must lay out the specific contexts in using a continuum."

Why should someone dictate how I use 'subjectivity' or 'objectivity' as the basis of my continuum when I specifically lay down the contexts and conditions.
Some people may not personally like the approach, but it is very meaningful and useful.

If people are still ignorant of the above, I suggest they get familiar with the principles of yin and yang.

For example, it could be;
10% summer is 90% Autumn or
10% summer is 90% Spring.

When someone walks the center of gravity shift in % from the right to the left leg or vice versa.

This is happening in every aspects of reality, so why the fuss with objectivity or subjectivity or the preference for one over the other specific to the contexts.

Not a response to my argument about additive vs. multiplicity...if it was meant to be.

This is happening in every aspects of reality, so why the fuss with objectivity or subjectivity or the preference for one over the other specific to the contexts.

It seems like there's a lot of fuss by everyone involved: for example, you are PH both make a fuss. I make a fuss. Fusses are being made.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"1. If I say bats are mammals.
2. Mammals can create babies.
3. Bats are therefore like God.
4. Bats are a kind of God.

Two of the steps in my process are quite rational and can be objectively determined, as you would say, in the relevant scientific FSK. Step three is less objective. The conclusion is not objective at all, even though this person reasoned using some percentage of objectivity.

You're acting like objectivitity is additive. These steps were objective. We add them up and come up with a percentage of the whole. But it's not additive. It's, metaphorical, multiplicative."

There is no such thing as objectivity is additive or multiplicitive.

What is objective [in degrees] is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
The above syllogism should be considered within the human-based-logical FSK.
3 and 4 do not follow from 2.
As such the syllogism in not valid.
Since it is not valid, it does not comply with the rules of the human-based FSK [classical logic in this case].
As such the question of objectivity for the above 'argument' is a non-starter.

What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the specific FSK.

Christianity's morality is conditioned within a human-based Christian FSK [with its constitution, the Gospels and 2 billion believers].
Christianity moral element 'Thou Shall not Kill' is objective because it is grounded on its constitution.

The degree % of objectivity of this specific moral element 'Thou Shall not Kill' is rated on the objectivity of the specific FSK.
Because the objective human-based Christian FSK is grounded on an illusory God, its objectivity is negligible in contrast to the human-based scientific FSK as the standard.

I can rate the FSK's in terms of subjectivity, i.e. the scientific FSK subjectivity is the standard at 0.001% while the Christianity moral FSK is at 99.999%.
Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, we can substitute 'objectivity' to the above in reverse order.

The point is the focus of the issue is 'objectivity' this is why I use objectivity as the focus on the continuum. It is not an issue to use 'subjectivity' as the continuum if necessary.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no such thing as objectivity is additive or multiplicitive.

I said 'metaphorically.' One irrational, illogical step eliminates the objectivity of the conclusion. The steps that are objective are still objective. The conclusion is not. Christian morality is the conclusion of a process that contains non-objective steps.

What is objective [in degrees] is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
The above syllogism should be considered within the human-based-logical FSK.
3 and 4 do not follow from 2.
As such the syllogism in not valid.

Well, of course. That was the whole point.

Since it is not valid, it does not comply with the rules of the human-based FSK [classical logic in this case].
As such the question of objectivity for the above 'argument' is a non-starter.

Precisely. But if there was a bat God worshipping tribe, then it would be, according to you, to some degree objective. It would be a logical argument and conclusion in that tribe's FSK.

You tell me things in your response that were clearly a part of my argument. My argument only makes sense IF the bat God argument is illogical. That was the entire point.

And note that you binarily dismiss it as not-objective. Even though the first two assertions are correct. But that doesn't matter because degree of objectivity is not additive. Oh, it has two good steps and two bad ones, it's 50% objective. Or whatever % you assign. No, the problematic steps lead to a completely non-objective conclusion.

What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the specific FSK.

Sure and in the batGod workshipping tribes they have an intersubjective set of beliefs based on their FSKs. But that doesn't lead to an objective, to some degree, conclusion.

Christianity's morality is conditioned within a human-based Christian FSK [with its constitution, the Gospels and 2 billion believers].
Christianity moral element 'Thou Shall not Kill' is objective because it is grounded on its constitution.

And there you go again giving it a binary label. It's objective, period, according to you.

The degree % of objectivity of this specific moral element 'Thou Shall not Kill' is rated on the objectivity of the specific FSK.
Because the objective human-based Christian FSK is grounded on an illusory God, its objectivity is negligible in contrast to the human-based scientific FSK as the standard.

You're just repeating yourself.

I can rate the FSK's in terms of subjectivity, i.e. the scientific FSK subjectivity is the standard at 0.001% while the Christianity moral FSK is at 99.999%.

Yes, anyone can make up numbers.

Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, we can substitute 'objectivity' to the above in reverse order.

The point is the focus of the issue is 'objectivity' this is why I use objectivity as the focus on the continuum. It is not an issue to use 'subjectivity' as the continuum if necessary.

The title of the thread is silly. It presents it in binary terms, not in degree terms. Further the argument doesn't hold just as it doesn't in the BatGod argument.

Steps may be rational/objective/logical but these are utterly undermined by other steps. Not partially undermined, but utterly undermined.

If you use hundreds of steps in a long argument all based on the most recent and confirmed science, but then after all these steps you have one ludicrous subjective step (or one at the beginning), despite the presence of all these steps and only one ludicrous step, the entire conclusion is undermined and is not objective AT ALL.

And at no point, nowhere in your post, did you show that you understood the point I made. You did not address the issue.

You repeated yourself. I appreciate that you did not link to other threads you started that would also have not dealt with the argument.

And then tangentially, if you are saying that objectivity is intersubjectivity then

Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity

which you stated above
MUST BE FALSE.
You cannot arrive att objectivity via its opposite and subjectivity is a part of all the subjectivities that make up intersubjectvity.
Their relationship, given your own position (and mine also actually) means that they cannot possibly be opposites.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above is not in accordance with my basic principles [post > a "1000" times], i.e.

• What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  The most critical condition of a human-based FSK is its Constitution.
  For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the agreed Constitution the specific FSK.
  If it is not valid within the specific FSK, it is a non-starter.

In the bat syllogism above, it does not comply the constitutional conditions of classical logic FSK at at.
Therefore the whole argument is a non-starter regardless that premise 1 and 2 are objective re the [science-biology FSK].

I said 'metaphorically.' One irrational, illogical step eliminates the objectivity of the conclusion. The steps that are objective are still objective. The conclusion is not. Christian morality is the conclusion of a process that contains non-objective steps.

• 1. What is objective is conditioned upon the agreed Constitution of a human-based FSK.
  2. The Christianity's FSK is constituted by the Gospels which is its ground.
  3. The Gospels confirmed God exists.
  4. God commanded 'Love all, even enemies' [i.e. Thou Shall not Kill'.]
  5. 'Thou shall not kill' is a moral element.
  6. Therefore the Christianity morality specific to 4 is objective [1].

The above conform to the basic logical FSK, then the Christianity FSK, therefore the conclusion is objective subject to the degrees of objectivity in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

Note, my reference to Christianity morality as objective is specific to 4 above only.
I did not assert the whole of Christianity's morality is objective.
Thus, that Christianity's morality is objective must be specific to specific moral element.

Re the moral element of slavery, the morality in this case of slavery is not objective because the Gospels did not condemn slavery absolutely.

The reason for whatever the mess is this;
-the poster made off-target-arguments based on the misinterpretation of my principles
-when I revert to my principles and made my arguments,
-the poster complained I am not addressing his off-target-arguments.

[Age]

Objective? Not subject to opinion or differences of perspective.

Now, how can ANY thinking be not 'subjected to' 'opinion', when absolutely ALL 'thinking' is 'of an opinion'?

Also, your definition of 'Objective' being not 'differences of perspective' is, more or less, my OWN definition as well. That is; ONLY when LOOKING and/or SEEING FROM the One perspective FROM ALL can 'Objectivity' be REACHED, ACHIEVED, SEEN, and/or KNOWN, as well as Truly UNDERSTOOD.

That is; ONLY 'that', which is IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE WITH EVERY 'thing' is WHERE thee Truth LAYS and True Objectivity IS FOUND.

Or, in other words, WHERE there IS NO 'differences of perspective'.

Dogma? A conclusion accepted as is, not through a consideration of data for and against.

Okay.

Is there a 'moral code', which you are aware of, that is NOT based on 'conclusions accepted as is, and not through a consideration of data for and against?

If no, then your so-called 'moral codes' as well as absolutely EVERY other 'thought' and 'thinking' is based on 'local objective'. The 'locality' is just ALWAYS smaller and narrower or bigger and larger.

Also, absolutely EVERY text contains 'objective writings', to some degree. Well according to your text and writing above here.

But if you are aware of a 'moral code' that is through a consideration of data for and against, and not based on 'conclusions accepted as is', then will you share 'that code' with us here?

You? What's your belief or thought?

ON 'what', EXACTLY?

Until then, to me, within human bodies there are 'thoughts'. Absolutely EVERY one of 'these thoughts' IS 'subjective'. As in 'subjective' to what each and every body has, for lack of better wording 'personally', experienced. Now, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY body has experienced different 'things', and thus has also had different past experiences, and it is these different bodily experiences WHY there are different, personal, or subjective, 'thoughts' and 'thinking' WITHIN each and EVERY human body.

Now, ONLY 'that', what absolutely EVERY one can AGREE WITH and ACCEPT I say and claim is the ACTUAL Truth, of 'things', and WHAT 'Objectivity' IS, EXACTLY. Looking and/or seeing FROM the perspective of EVERY 'thing' therefore, to me, is WHERE 'Objective Truth' LAYS and IS FOUND.

'Subjective truth', or in another word, to me, 'truth' is just the 'differences of truth', which 'you', adult human beings, continually squabble and/or fight over. It is those Wrong INTERPRETATIONS of the ACTUAL Real and IRREFUTABLE Truth WHERE and WHY 'conflict' among 'you', adult human beings, PERSISTS.

BUT, maybe you were asking for clarification regarding what is my belief or thought about some thing ELSE. So, I will now WAIT, your response.

For example if I say "you're tall" that's subjective, if I say "you're 5 foot ten" that's objective.

Well that is ONE way the 'objective' word can be USED.

Also, 'you are tall', is REALLY VERY USELESS, unless, of course, 'in relation to', is talked about or mentioned. The 'relativity' of 'that phrase' is REALLY to wide spread without specific clarification made. Otherwise one just HAS TO ASSUME some 'thing'. Which, as has been SHOWN here in this forum a number of times already, can all to EASILY lead to CONFUSION and/or DISAGREEMENT.

Your being tall is my opinion, from my perspective, from LeBron's perspective you're not tall. Your being 5 foot ten is not my opinion, and does not change from my perspective to your's to LeBron's.

Okay. But what is 'your point' here?

You misunderstand my comment on different perspectives.

Okay. Did I, previously, ask ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

I am not saying (as you apparently are) that objectivity requires a particular "special" perspective to be seen, rather that it can be seen from many perspectives (unlike opinions).

Not many people do say, what I am saying here.

Also, is not saying, 'you are tall', FROM saying, 'that body is five foot ten inches tall', looking and/or seeing 'things' FROM two different particular perspectives?

I am NOT sure WHY you added the 'special' word above here.

Furthermore, ALL 'views', when expressed, are in one form or another just ANOTHER 'opinion', including even the 'view', 'that body is five foot, ten inches tall'.

While it is true many shallow thinkers accept societal or religious dogma, and rebrand them as their personal moral code, many others, especially here who think philosophically,

What does 'think philosophically' even mean, from your perspective?

come up with some of their moral codes (especially of novel situations) through careful consideration of potential outcomes of various choices and their implications.

Which are, in essence, just 'opinions' anyway, right?

I guess you're completely unfamiliar with the process, but trust me others do it all the time.

WHY did you make 'this guess' for, exactly?

I see your own wording confused you.

LOL
LOL
LOL

My so-called 'own wording' may well have completely and utterly CONFUSED and DISTORTED 'you' in some way or another, but WHY do 'you' IMAGINE that 'my OWN wording' CONFUSED 'me', EXACTLY?

You asked what my thoughts and beliefs were on objective and dogma (and as usual you didn't supply your own).

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY FOR me to supply my OWN 'thinking' on ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that I am TRYING TO ASCERTAIN FROM 'you'.

I was merely asking you the identical question.

Now, did 'you' PROVIDE 'your' OWN thoughts and/or beliefs on 'objective' and 'dogma', BEFORE 'you' ASKED 'me'?

By the way, as I have been continually SAYING, and ASKING FOR here, I SEEK OUT and WANT to be ASKED as many CLARIFYING QUESTIONS as necessary. So, please feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to KEEP ASKING 'me' as MANY QUESTIONS as 'you' like. The MORE the BETTER, I say.

[LuckyR]

Now, how can ANY thinking be not 'subjected to' 'opinion', when absolutely ALL 'thinking' is 'of an opinion'?

Also, your definition of 'Objective' being not 'differences of perspective' is, more or less, my OWN definition as well. That is; ONLY when LOOKING and/or SEEING FROM the One perspective FROM ALL can 'Objectivity' be REACHED, ACHIEVED, SEEN, and/or KNOWN, as well as Truly UNDERSTOOD.

That is; ONLY 'that', which is IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE WITH EVERY 'thing' is WHERE thee Truth LAYS and True Objectivity IS FOUND.

Or, in other words, WHERE there IS NO 'differences of perspective'.



Okay.

Is there a 'moral code', which you are aware of, that is NOT based on 'conclusions accepted as is, and not through a consideration of data for and against?

If no, then your so-called 'moral codes' as well as absolutely EVERY other 'thought' and 'thinking' is based on 'local objective'. The 'locality' is just ALWAYS smaller and narrower or bigger and larger.

Also, absolutely EVERY text contains 'objective writings', to some degree. Well according to your text and writing above here.

But if you are aware of a 'moral code' that is through a consideration of data for and against, and not based on 'conclusions accepted as is', then will you share 'that code' with us here?




ON 'what', EXACTLY?

Until then, to me, within human bodies there are 'thoughts'. Absolutely EVERY one of 'these thoughts' IS 'subjective'. As in 'subjective' to what each and every body has, for lack of better wording 'personally', experienced. Now, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY body has experienced different 'things', and thus has also had different past experiences, and it is these different bodily experiences WHY there are different, personal, or subjective, 'thoughts' and 'thinking' WITHIN each and EVERY human body.

Now, ONLY 'that', what absolutely EVERY one can AGREE WITH and ACCEPT I say and claim is the ACTUAL Truth, of 'things', and WHAT 'Objectivity' IS, EXACTLY. Looking and/or seeing FROM the perspective of EVERY 'thing' therefore, to me, is WHERE 'Objective Truth' LAYS and IS FOUND.

'Subjective truth', or in another word, to me, 'truth' is just the 'differences of truth', which 'you', adult human beings, continually squabble and/or fight over. It is those Wrong INTERPRETATIONS of the ACTUAL Real and IRREFUTABLE Truth WHERE and WHY 'conflict' among 'you', adult human beings, PERSISTS.

BUT, maybe you were asking for clarification regarding what is my belief or thought about some thing ELSE. So, I will now WAIT, your response.

For example if I say "you're tall" that's subjective, if I say "you're 5 foot ten" that's objective.

Well that is ONE way the 'objective' word can be USED.

Also, 'you are tall', is REALLY VERY USELESS, unless, of course, 'in relation to', is talked about or mentioned. The 'relativity' of 'that phrase' is REALLY to wide spread without specific clarification made. Otherwise one just HAS TO ASSUME some 'thing'. Which, as has been SHOWN here in this forum a number of times already, can all to EASILY lead to CONFUSION and/or DISAGREEMENT.

Your being tall is my opinion, from my perspective, from LeBron's perspective you're not tall. Your being 5 foot ten is not my opinion, and does not change from my perspective to your's to LeBron's.

Okay. But what is 'your point' here?

You misunderstand my comment on different perspectives.

Okay. Did I, previously, ask ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

I am not saying (as you apparently are) that objectivity requires a particular "special" perspective to be seen, rather that it can be seen from many perspectives (unlike opinions).

Not many people do say, what I am saying here.

Also, is not saying, 'you are tall', FROM saying, 'that body is five foot ten inches tall', looking and/or seeing 'things' FROM two different particular perspectives?

I am NOT sure WHY you added the 'special' word above here.

Furthermore, ALL 'views', when expressed, are in one form or another just ANOTHER 'opinion', including even the 'view', 'that body is five foot, ten inches tall'.

While it is true many shallow thinkers accept societal or religious dogma, and rebrand them as their personal moral code, many others, especially here who think philosophically,

What does 'think philosophically' even mean, from your perspective?

come up with some of their moral codes (especially of novel situations) through careful consideration of potential outcomes of various choices and their implications.

Which are, in essence, just 'opinions' anyway, right?

I guess you're completely unfamiliar with the process, but trust me others do it all the time.

WHY did you make 'this guess' for, exactly?

I see your own wording confused you.

LOL
LOL
LOL

My so-called 'own wording' may well have completely and utterly CONFUSED and DISTORTED 'you' in some way or another, but WHY do 'you' IMAGINE that 'my OWN wording' CONFUSED 'me', EXACTLY?

You asked what my thoughts and beliefs were on objective and dogma (and as usual you didn't supply your own).

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY FOR me to supply my OWN 'thinking' on ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that I am TRYING TO ASCERTAIN FROM 'you'.

I was merely asking you the identical question.

Now, did 'you' PROVIDE 'your' OWN thoughts and/or beliefs on 'objective' and 'dogma', BEFORE 'you' ASKED 'me'?

By the way, as I have been continually SAYING, and ASKING FOR here, I SEEK OUT and WANT to be ASKED as many CLARIFYING QUESTIONS as necessary. So, please feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to KEEP ASKING 'me' as MANY QUESTIONS as 'you' like. The MORE the BETTER, I say.

Sorry dude. No one calls it a conversation when one side provides five answers and the response from the other is seven new questions. That's a tutoring session. Go get your instruction elsewhere then post back.

Looking forward to it.

[Iwannaplato]

No one calls it a conversation when one side provides five answers and the response from the other is seven new questions.

That's one way to frame the problem well. Age shifts the burden to the other person and that burden never goes away. If he was a pure skeptic, this could end up being, perhaps, a kind of socratic lesson for others. But all the while his assertions pop out, and many are quite wild, but he is never in the position to justify these. All the while...great condescension. It's toxic.

[Age]

For example if I say "you're tall" that's subjective, if I say "you're 5 foot ten" that's objective.

Well that is ONE way the 'objective' word can be USED.

Also, 'you are tall', is REALLY VERY USELESS, unless, of course, 'in relation to', is talked about or mentioned. The 'relativity' of 'that phrase' is REALLY to wide spread without specific clarification made. Otherwise one just HAS TO ASSUME some 'thing'. Which, as has been SHOWN here in this forum a number of times already, can all to EASILY lead to CONFUSION and/or DISAGREEMENT.

Your being tall is my opinion, from my perspective, from LeBron's perspective you're not tall. Your being 5 foot ten is not my opinion, and does not change from my perspective to your's to LeBron's.

Okay. But what is 'your point' here?

You misunderstand my comment on different perspectives.

Okay. Did I, previously, ask ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

I am not saying (as you apparently are) that objectivity requires a particular "special" perspective to be seen, rather that it can be seen from many perspectives (unlike opinions).

Not many people do say, what I am saying here.

Also, is not saying, 'you are tall', FROM saying, 'that body is five foot ten inches tall', looking and/or seeing 'things' FROM two different particular perspectives?

I am NOT sure WHY you added the 'special' word above here.

Furthermore, ALL 'views', when expressed, are in one form or another just ANOTHER 'opinion', including even the 'view', 'that body is five foot, ten inches tall'.

While it is true many shallow thinkers accept societal or religious dogma, and rebrand them as their personal moral code, many others, especially here who think philosophically,

What does 'think philosophically' even mean, from your perspective?

come up with some of their moral codes (especially of novel situations) through careful consideration of potential outcomes of various choices and their implications.

Which are, in essence, just 'opinions' anyway, right?

I guess you're completely unfamiliar with the process, but trust me others do it all the time.

WHY did you make 'this guess' for, exactly?

I see your own wording confused you.

LOL
LOL
LOL

My so-called 'own wording' may well have completely and utterly CONFUSED and DISTORTED 'you' in some way or another, but WHY do 'you' IMAGINE that 'my OWN wording' CONFUSED 'me', EXACTLY?

You asked what my thoughts and beliefs were on objective and dogma (and as usual you didn't supply your own).

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY FOR me to supply my OWN 'thinking' on ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that I am TRYING TO ASCERTAIN FROM 'you'.

I was merely asking you the identical question.

Now, did 'you' PROVIDE 'your' OWN thoughts and/or beliefs on 'objective' and 'dogma', BEFORE 'you' ASKED 'me'?

By the way, as I have been continually SAYING, and ASKING FOR here, I SEEK OUT and WANT to be ASKED as many CLARIFYING QUESTIONS as necessary. So, please feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to KEEP ASKING 'me' as MANY QUESTIONS as 'you' like. The MORE the BETTER, I say.

Sorry dude. No one calls it a conversation when one side provides five answers and the response from the other is seven new questions. That's a tutoring session. Go get your instruction elsewhere then post back.

Looking forward to it.

ONCE MORE, ANOTHER example here of HOW and WHY ACTUAL CONCLUSIONS were NEVER REACHED, back in those 'good old days', as some might call 'it'.

Also, have 'you', "luckyr", ever considered that 'you' might be misunderstanding my questions, and comments, on many levels and from many different perspectives?

[Age]

No one calls it a conversation when one side provides five answers and the response from the other is seven new questions.

That's one way to frame the problem well. Age shifts the burden to the other person and that burden never goes away.

If one wants to make A CLAIM, like many of 'you', posters, here do, then the 'burden' is on 'that one' to back up and support 'that claim'.

Also, 'a response' is NOT always necessarily 'an answer'. Although a LOT of 'you', posters, here BELIEVE otherwise.

Now, what is the ACTUAL 'problem' that 'you' SEE ,and/or BELIEVE IS, here "iwannaplato"?

Oh, and by the way, "iwannaplato" WILL NEVER ANSWER this QUESTION. This is because of just how CLOSED "iwannaplato" IS here, regarding 'this'.

If he was a pure skeptic, this could end up being, perhaps, a kind of socratic lesson for others.

But WHY would I be ANY kind of 'skeptic', let alone a PURE 'skeptic', when I KNOW that what one is SAYING and CLAIMING, IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct?

I just ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in the above scenario, in the hope that 'that one' will already have, or will formulate, an answer, which will provide IRREFUTABLE PROOF for 'its' CLAIM. That way 'it' does NOT have to keep 'making the claim' as the claim could be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY EVERY one.

But all the while his assertions pop out, and many are quite wild, but he is never in the position to justify these.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What a Truly IDIOTIC and FOOLISH thing to SAY and CLAIM.

ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, I CAN and WILL JUSTIFY My POSITIONS and ASSERTIONS here. That is; WHENEVER ANY one builds up the courage to CHALLENGE and/or QUESTION me OVER SAID POSITIONS and/or ASSERTIONS.

LOL Also, just BELIEVING that because an assertion APPEARS so-called 'quite wild', to one, IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL means that 'that assertion' can not be backed up and supported.

All the while...great condescension. It's toxic.

LOL MORE CLAIMS, but, as I WILL PROVE True here ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, WHEN I ASK 'this one' to SHOW and PROVE WHEN and WHERE such CLAIMED 'great condescension' FROM me IS, EXACTLY, 'this one' WILL NEVER PROVIDE.

Also, what can be said to be MORE TOXIC is the CONTINUAL CLAIMS with the CONTINUAL INABILITY TO back up and support SAID CLAIMS.

[Age]

No one calls it a conversation when one side provides five answers and the response from the other is seven new questions.

That's one way to frame the problem well. Age shifts the burden to the other person and that burden never goes away. If he was a pure skeptic, this could end up being, perhaps, a kind of socratic lesson for others.

The 'lesson/s' are being LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD, but NOT necessarily by 'you', posters, here, back in the days when this is being written.

But all the while his assertions pop out, and many are quite wild, but he is never in the position to justify these. All the while...great condescension. It's toxic.

[Dylinens]

It's interesting to delve into the philosophical debate surrounding the objectivity of morality, especially within the context of Christianity. As a religious person myself, I've grappled with these ideas.
While Christianity provides a moral framework grounded in faith, it's essential to acknowledge the complexities of moral objectivity. The analogy of an athlete disqualified from the starting block sheds light on the challenges Christianity faces in achieving absolute moral objectivity.
Also, I recently discovered some beautiful Christian wall art on https://www.christianwalls.com/. It serves as a reminder of the spiritual values that guide our moral compasses, regardless of the degree of objectivity we attribute to them.