Is morality objective or subjective?

[Age]

Once again...

I'm sorry, Age...Given your history here, I just don't care enough about your opinion to be bothered.

Carry on. I know you will.

But there was only a clarifying question, which you are, obviously, not brave enough to answer.

There is also the fact of why you are the way you here.

[Age]

Once again...

I'm sorry, Age...Given your history here, I just don't care enough about your opinion to be bothered.

Carry on. I know you will.

you can try to lie and deceived your way out of here. But you will not fool all of the readers all of the time.

you may well want to claim that "religion" is something in which you have no interest, but reality is quite important, to you . But the fact that you will not stand behind this claim proves what the actual Truth is here.

[phyllo]

It is funny to watch and observe just how many people completely dismiss me here when I say I have the irrefutable facts or Truths. And, what makes this more funnier to play out is these people did this without ever challenging nor questioning me.

Can you state your irrefutable facts about free-will for the record?

But, and obviously, absolutely no one can logically argue validly nor soundly against an already sound and valid argument.

Only what is not yet a sound and valid argument can be, logically, argued against.

Sure they can.

Because many arguments are not so binary and trivial that there is not some other way of thinking about them.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality begins with the act.

I'm sorry -- I don't understand this claim. It might be right, in some sense, but it's too vague. Can you clear it up for me?

Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.

Okay; that means you're a moral objectivist. I can accept that.

They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.

Then they aren't moral at all...merely pragmatic. And since they "evolve," why couldn't a moral imperative against abortion, or for war, or making prostitution and slavery "moral," also "evolve" out of them in the future? How do we know where this haphazard process of "moral evolution" is leading us, before we get there?

For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.

So...your theory is that a prohibition which almosts all ancient societies have, and is as near to universal as can be, is actually driven by the primitive native's awareness that it will produce birth defects? How would all these ancient societies even know about genetics?

The immorality of in-group violence is not based on human tastes but on the fact that in-group violence decreases group cohesion and harmony, nullifying the advantages of cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Then why is war one of the most persistent facts of history? That theory would suggest it would be the first thing to "evolve out" of our moral beliefs. But clearly, not only did that not happen, but it isn't even happening today...at least, not in Ukraine, Israel, Iran...

None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.

If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?

Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?

Such a tangle of claims. Can you sort it out for me?

[Age]

It is funny to watch and observe just how many people completely dismiss me here when I say I have the irrefutable facts or Truths. And, what makes this more funnier to play out is these people did this without ever challenging nor questioning me.

Can you state your irrefutable facts about free-will for the record?

I have done so a few times already but I can and will do so again now.

When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then both free will and determinism play more or less an equal part, in Life.

See, everyone is completely free to make decisions, but all can only make a decision upon a limited amount of choices, which all of, it could be said and argued, are pre-determined, from past experiences.

But, and obviously, absolutely no one can logically argue validly nor soundly against an already sound and valid argument.

Only what is not yet a sound and valid argument can be, logically, argued against.

Sure they can.

Because many arguments are not so binary and trivial that there is not some other way of thinking about them.

Either an argument is sound and valid, or it is not.

If an argument is sound and valid, then absolutely no one can logically argue against it, soundly and validly.

But, if you want to think or believe that it is possible to do so, then all you have to do is just provide one example, only.

Now, obviously you human beings can so-call 'argue' for, or against, just about any thing, as can be clearly seen throughout this forum for example, but only a sound and valid argument cannot be argued against, soundly and validly.

What a lot of the posters here had, still, not yet come to recognize and see is that just because they could so-call 'argue' some thing, that this does not mean that what they so-called 'argued' had any necessary bearing on what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

[Age]

Morality begins with the act.

I'm sorry -- I don't understand this claim. It might be right, in some sense, but it's too vague. Can you clear it up for me?

Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.

Okay; that means you're a moral objectivist. I can accept that.

They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.

Then they aren't moral at all...merely pragmatic. And since they "evolve," why couldn't a moral imperative against abortion, or for war, or making prostitution and slavery "moral," also "evolve" out of them in the future? How do we know where this haphazard process of "moral evolution" is leading us, before we get there?

For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.

So...your theory is that a prohibition which almosts all ancient societies have, and is as near to universal as can be, is actually driven by the primitive native's awareness that it will produce birth defects? How would all these ancient societies even know about genetics?

The immorality of in-group violence is not based on human tastes but on the fact that in-group violence decreases group cohesion and harmony, nullifying the advantages of cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Then why is war one of the most persistent facts of history? That theory would suggest it would be the first thing to "evolve out" of our moral beliefs. But clearly, not only did that not happen, but it isn't even happening today...at least, not in Ukraine, Israel, Iran...

And, it is certainly not happening in a lot of the so-called "christian mindset", neither.

None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.

If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?

Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?

Such a tangle of claims. Can you sort it out for me?

Why do you not ask "yourself" these types of clarifying questions "immanuel can"? After all you certainly do have a great deal of tangled contradictions and inconsistencies that you need to sort out as well.

Although you are not brave enough to even begin to try to clarify nor explain them.

[phyllo]

When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then both free will and determinism play more or less an equal part, in Life.

See, everyone is completely free to make decisions, but all can only make a decision upon a limited amount of choices, which all of, it could be said and argued, are pre-determined, from past experiences.

The free-will 'folks' claim that their decisions are not limited in this way.

You're basically describing compatibilism.

But, if you want to think or believe that it is possible to do so, then all you have to do is just provide one example, only.

Your irrefutable facts about free-will are an example.

Your opponents simply adopt a different meaning of free-will.

[Age]

When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then both free will and determinism play more or less an equal part, in Life.

See, everyone is completely free to make decisions, but all can only make a decision upon a limited amount of choices, which all of, it could be said and argued, are pre-determined, from past experiences.

The free-will 'folks' claim that their decisions are not limited in this way.

It is an absolutely impossibility to make a choice upon something not yet known, obviously.

You're basically describing compatibilism.

Maybe so. But, considering the fact that it is not 'one', or, 'the other', what I am describing might be 'louder' and 'brighter' than what some are 'seeing' and 'hearing' here.

But, if you want to think or believe that it is possible to do so, then all you have to do is just provide one example, only.

Your irrefutable facts about free-will are an example.

Your opponents simply adopt a different meaning of free-will.

My so-called "opponents" of 'what', exactly?

you seemed to have missed my points on both of these here.

Now, what I, clearly, said above here is that if you want to think or believe that it is logically possible to provide a sound and valid argument against a sound and valid argument, then just provide one example, only.

Until you actually do that, it will remain clearly obvious, that absolutely no one can logically argue soundly and validly against a sound and valid argument.

I will also note here, once more, that any argument that is not a sound and valid argument is not really even worth repeating. Unless, of course, it is done so to show and prove the useless of presenting such arguments.

[Age]

Your opponents simply adopt a different meaning of free-will.

'Adopting', having, and using different meanings for different words, as I have been pointing out and saying here is WHY you adult human beings have been arguing, bickering, in conflict, and even killing each other for thousands upon thousands of years 'now', when this is being written.

Until this is fully recognized, noticed, and 'understood', misunderstandings will continue, and thus so to will these most stupid of things called 'wars' will continue.

[phyllo]

It is an absolutely impossibility to make a choice upon something not yet known, obviously.

They are not claiming that.

Now, what I, clearly, said above here is that if you want to think or believe that it is logically possible to provide a sound and valid argument against a sound and valid argument, then just provide one example, only.

You don't want to admit that your irrefutable facts can be challenged.

[phyllo]

Your opponents simply adopt a different meaning of free-will.

'Adopting', having, and using different meanings for different words, as I have been pointing out and saying here is WHY you adult human beings have been arguing, bickering, in conflict, and even killing each other for thousands upon thousands of years 'now', when this is being written.

Until this is fully recognized, noticed, and 'understood', misunderstandings will continue, and thus so to will these most stupid of things called 'wars' will continue.

Words have ambiguity and a variety of meanings. That's just the way life is.

[Age]

It is an absolutely impossibility to make a choice upon something not yet known, obviously.

They are not claiming that.

you seem to be missing or misunderstanding what I was saying and claiming here. There is no 'they', as in any specific group.

Absolutely every human being can only make a choice upon a set of already existing thoughts.
All thoughts exist because of and from what the body has experienced.
It could be said and argued that all the thoughts/thinking, which one is able to choose from, is a limited number, or limited set, of thoughts, which all of were pre-determined by the actual past experiences of the body.

The following choices made, which is due to, the ability to choose,or 'free will', are made up on a set of thoughts, which were pre-determined, by past experiences, and thus which will pre-determine what 'the future' 'has in store', or 'will be'.

All of this will become much clearer if absolutely anyone is interested in this and wants to 'delve much deeper', as some would say here.

Now, what I, clearly, said above here is that if you want to think or believe that it is logically possible to provide a sound and valid argument against a sound and valid argument, then just provide one example, only.

You don't want to admit that your irrefutable facts can be challenged.

But they cannot be, actually, challenged. And, this will 'come-to-light' if absolutely anyone begins to try to challenge what I, actually, said and wrote above here.

1. Name and/or list what you perceive are the so-called 'my irrefutable facts' here.

Les 'us' see if you have got this part even Accurate and Right to begin with. Then we can proceed.

2. you seem to be missing the fact that if you want to think or believe that absolutely anyone can soundly and validly argue against a sound and valid argument, which by the way is a whole other matter here, then all you have to do to prove that this is an actual possibility, is just provide one example, only.

[Age]

Your opponents simply adopt a different meaning of free-will.

'Adopting', having, and using different meanings for different words, as I have been pointing out and saying here is WHY you adult human beings have been arguing, bickering, in conflict, and even killing each other for thousands upon thousands of years 'now', when this is being written.

Until this is fully recognized, noticed, and 'understood', misunderstandings will continue, and thus so to will these most stupid of things called 'wars' will continue.

Words have ambiguity and a variety of meanings. That's just the way life is.

Yes, obviously.

And this is the very reason why I said and wrote, 'When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then ...'.

I used the 'when' word for the very specific reason that words can have very different meanings. Some words even have exact opposite meanings, just to confuse things up more, for you human beings.

I am not sure how I could have been any more clearer here for you.

I specifically used the 'when' word because words have ambiguity and a variety of meanings, and I wanted to make what I said and wrote as clear as could be. This is why I also say and claim that what I write and say here is missed or misunderstood.

Did you understand the very specific reason why I used the 'when' word here before I explained it more in depth now?

[phyllo]

And this is the very reason why I said and wrote, 'When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then ...'.

I used the 'when' word for the very specific reason that words can have very different meanings. Some words even have exact opposite meanings, just to confuse things up more, for you human beings.

I am not sure how I could have been any more clearer here for you.

I specifically used the 'when' word because words have ambiguity and a variety of meanings, and I wanted to make what I said and wrote as clear as could be. This is why I also say and claim that what I write and say here is missed or misunderstood.

Did you understand the very specific reason why I used the 'when' word here before I explained it more in depth now?

Then you a created a bunch of exceptions. So you no longer have one unbeatable argument.

And you can always claim that nobody can argue against your "sound argument" because only you know when the word "when" applies and when it doesn't. You can't lose. Congrats.

[Age]

And this is the very reason why I said and wrote, 'When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then ...'.

I used the 'when' word for the very specific reason that words can have very different meanings. Some words even have exact opposite meanings, just to confuse things up more, for you human beings.

I am not sure how I could have been any more clearer here for you.

I specifically used the 'when' word because words have ambiguity and a variety of meanings, and I wanted to make what I said and wrote as clear as could be. This is why I also say and claim that what I write and say here is missed or misunderstood.

Did you understand the very specific reason why I used the 'when' word here before I explained it more in depth now?

Then you a created a bunch of exceptions.

A so-called 'bunch of exceptions' to 'what', exactly?

Other'# 'bunches of exceptions'? Or, something else?

So you no longer have one unbeatable argument.

Why, what is needed, exactly, for a so-called 'unbeatable argument'?

And you can always claim that nobody can argue against your "sound argument" because only you know when the word "when" applies and when it doesn't. You can't lose. Congrats.

See how simple and easy finding and revealing actual irrefutable Truths and facts is?