There are Objective Moral Facts

[Peter Holmes]

"because an action consistent with a goal can be morally right or wrong."

Subjectively!

Okay, in a way. But if nothing 'is' objectively morally right or wrong, then it makes no sense to say things 'are' subjectively morally right or wrong. Moral subjectivism need be nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism, just as atheism need be nothing more than the rejection of theism. No positive claim is entailed.

[Advocate]

If morality exists, there are truths about it.

[Redacted by iMod]

[bobmax]

"because an action consistent with a goal can be morally right or wrong."

Subjectively!

Okay, in a way. But if nothing 'is' objectively morally right or wrong, then it makes no sense to say things 'are' subjectively morally right or wrong. Moral subjectivism need be nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism, just as atheism need be nothing more than the rejection of theism. No positive claim is entailed.

And this is nihilism.

Which, however, is based on a misunderstanding.

Because subjectivism is inseparable from objectivism.
One cannot do without the other.
There is no purely objective truth, as well as no purely subjective reality.

So is existence, original subject-object splitting.

And yet atheism understood as a rejection of theism is still a child's game.

Because true atheism, also called mystical atheism, has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of the entity God.
True atheism is the thought that Good is not!

[popeye1945]

"because an action consistent with a goal can be morally right or wrong."

Subjectively!

Okay, in a way. But if nothing 'is' objectively morally right or wrong, then it makes no sense to say things 'are' subjectively morally right or wrong. Moral subjectivism need be nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism, just as atheism need be nothing more than the rejection of theism. No positive claim is entailed.

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." Billy Shakespeare

"To god all things are right and good, only to man, somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus

[popeye1945]

Subjectively!

Okay, in a way. But if nothing 'is' objectively morally right or wrong, then it makes no sense to say things 'are' subjectively morally right or wrong. Moral subjectivism need be nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism, just as atheism need be nothing more than the rejection of theism. No positive claim is entailed.

And this is nihilism.

Which, however, is based on a misunderstanding.

Because subjectivism is inseparable from objectivism.
One cannot do without the other.
There is no purely objective truth, as well as no purely subjective reality.

So is existence, original subject-object splitting.

And yet atheism understood as a rejection of theism is still a child's game.

Because true atheism, also called mystical atheism, has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of the entity God.
True atheism is the thought that Good is not!

bombax,

Nihilism can be thought of in two ways, the reality that the physical world in and of itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious being, or the mental state of an individual who finds no value in continuing their life. The first is undeniably true and the second could be true to that particular individual if values are deemed to be found out there, and not through the creative processes of the individual himself.

The only thing that could be considered objective is the energies of the cosmos themselves and this is not what most people consider objective. Besides these objective energies, there is only the subjective for it is these energies affecting one's biology that creates apparent reality or the world as object. When you say that subjectivism and objectivism are inseparable there is some confusion there, for it has long been understood that there can be no separation between subject and object but this is only true where the energies of the cosmos are considered that which is objective, ultimate reality is a place of no things---- only energies in other words. It is the union of subject and object which is apparent reality through biological interpretation. So, the opposite of what you've stated is true, existence is the relation between subject and object and that knowledge is the sole property of the conscious subject.

Atheism is not a game. it is you might say the refusal to play a game. Since when is belief in something without evidence reasonable? Nothing mystical about practical reason and critical thinking.

[bobmax]

Okay, in a way. But if nothing 'is' objectively morally right or wrong, then it makes no sense to say things 'are' subjectively morally right or wrong. Moral subjectivism need be nothing more than the rejection of moral objectivism, just as atheism need be nothing more than the rejection of theism. No positive claim is entailed.

And this is nihilism.

Which, however, is based on a misunderstanding.

Because subjectivism is inseparable from objectivism.
One cannot do without the other.
There is no purely objective truth, as well as no purely subjective reality.

So is existence, original subject-object splitting.

And yet atheism understood as a rejection of theism is still a child's game.

Because true atheism, also called mystical atheism, has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of the entity God.
True atheism is the thought that Good is not!

bombax,

Nihilism can be thought of in two ways, the reality that the physical world in and of itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious being, or the mental state of an individual who finds no value in continuing their life. The first is undeniably true and the second could be true to that particular individual if values are deemed to be found out there, and not through the creative processes of the individual himself.

The only thing that could be considered objective is the energies of the cosmos themselves and this is not what most people consider objective. Besides these objective energies, there is only the subjective for it is these energies affecting one's biology that creates apparent reality or the world as object. When you say that subjectivism and objectivism are inseparable there is some confusion there, for it has long been understood that there can be no separation between subject and object but this is only true where the energies of the cosmos are considered that which is objective, ultimate reality is a place of no things---- only energies in other words. It is the union of subject and object which is apparent reality through biological interpretation. So, the opposite of what you've stated is true, existence is the relation between subject and object and that knowledge is the sole property of the conscious subject.

Atheism is not a game. it is you might say the refusal to play a game. Since when is belief in something without evidence reasonable? Nothing mystical about practical reason and critical thinking.

Popeye1945,

in your interventions it seems to me that you have faith in the Truth.
And this pushes you forward.

However, it seems to me that with this objective "energy" of yours you try to avoid the Nothing.

Because this is what we are talking about, the Nothing.

Don't you see the contradiction of a conscious being to give meaning to what in itself has none?

And atheism, why remain in the sterile denial of the existence of a God being?

Affirming or denying an entity God is only a child's play. It is the Good that really matters.

And it is the questioning of the Good that is true atheism.

Sooner or later the children's game ends and you have to face the Truth.

[Skepdick]

Nope. Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of behaviour.

Which is what I keep telling you, but you are too fucking stupid to understand.

Morality is precisely about the rightness and wrongness of the behaviour of ALL physical matter (which, by definition - includes the behaviour of humans).

If there exists a correspondence-relation between rightness, wrongness ( as we, humans, use those words) and particular matter behaving in a particular way then the correspondence theory of truth holds and we have ourselves a fact.

Example: Does a correspondence-relation exist between wrongness; and a tree (physical matter) falling on top of (behaviour); and kills a mother and her child?

Pick a random human being on Earth and ask them whether they think that particular behaviour is right; or wrong and you shall establish that the corresponde-cenrelation between "wrongness" and the behaviour exists.

If the correspondence theory is satisfied then the wrongness of the behaviour is (by definition) a fact.

[popeye1945]

And this is nihilism.

Which, however, is based on a misunderstanding.

Because subjectivism is inseparable from objectivism.
One cannot do without the other.
There is no purely objective truth, as well as no purely subjective reality.

So is existence, original subject-object splitting.

And yet atheism understood as a rejection of theism is still a child's game.

Because true atheism, also called mystical atheism, has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of the entity God.
True atheism is the thought that Good is not!

bombax,

Nihilism can be thought of in two ways, the reality that the physical world in and of itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious being, or the mental state of an individual who finds no value in continuing their life. The first is undeniably true and the second could be true to that particular individual if values are deemed to be found out there, and not through the creative processes of the individual himself.

The only thing that could be considered objective is the energies of the cosmos themselves and this is not what most people consider objective. Besides these objective energies, there is only the subjective for it is these energies affecting one's biology that creates apparent reality or the world as object. When you say that subjectivism and objectivism are inseparable there is some confusion there, for it has long been understood that there can be no separation between subject and object but this is only true where the energies of the cosmos are considered that which is objective, ultimate reality is a place of no things---- only energies in other words. It is the union of subject and object which is apparent reality through biological interpretation. So, the opposite of what you've stated is true, existence is the relation between subject and object and that knowledge is the sole property of the conscious subject.

Atheism is not a game. it is you might say the refusal to play a game. Since when is belief in something without evidence reasonable? Nothing mystical about practical reason and critical thinking.

Popeye1945,

in your interventions it seems to me that you have faith in the Truth.
And this pushes you forward.

However, it seems to me that with this objective "energy" of yours you try to avoid the Nothing.

Because this is what we are talking about, the Nothing.

Don't you see the contradiction of a conscious being to give meaning to what in itself has none?

And atheism, why remain in the sterile denial of the existence of a God being?

Affirming or denying an entity God is only a child's play. It is the Good that really matters.

And it is the questioning of the Good that is true atheism.

Sooner or later the children's game ends and you have to face the Truth.

bombax,

You need to find a church basement for this sort of shit!

[bobmax]

bombax,

You need to find a church basement for this sort of shit!

Not at all.

This is philosophy, the only perennial philosophy.

On the other hand, even those who blather about conscious energy have a church.

[popeye1945]

What is objective, the most obvious inference is that objects are as the term implies objective manifestations, this is a general understanding. Thoughts, feelings, and intentions are not objects in the physical world, thus not objective manifestations, The only way the world comes to be known is through the subjective biological consciousness of a subject, the experience of which is meaning and knowledge. All meaning, all knowledge is the sole property of the conscious subject and never the property of the physical world until meaning is bestowed upon it by the said conscious subject. Modern physics tell us that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality our everyday experience, is a place of no things, just energies. If one is to accept this, one must then ask one's self, where then do objects come from. My answer is. objects are the biological reactions of the subject giving the subject the subjective experience of apparent reality. So, not only is there not objective moral facts, there is indeed nothing which is objective. Apparent reality is biological reaction and all creatures are reactionary creatures. The fact that all organisms are reactionary creatures makes evolutionary development possible, as well as the workings of disease and all bodily functions. Our life support system is thought of as the physical world but, link it back one more link, and it becomes known as the energy of the cosmos, and this is cause to all reactive organisms.

[Agent Smith]

It's quite obvious what's going on - we're either clueless or we have on our hands a false lead.

[Skepdick]

What is objective, the most obvious inference is that objects are as the term implies objective manifestations, this is a general understanding. Thoughts, feelings, and intentions are not objects in the physical world, thus not objective manifestations.

The fuck?

Your thoughts, feelings and intentions don't exist? Mine do!

What do you think caused this very post to appear on your screen if not my thougts, feelings and intentions?
How could something without an objective manifestation cause your objectively manifested screen to configure itself into English words?

[popeye1945]

What is objective, the most obvious inference is that objects are as the term implies objective manifestations, this is a general understanding. Thoughts, feelings, and intentions are not objects in the physical world, thus not objective manifestations.

The fuck?

Your thoughts, feelings and intentions don't exist? Mine do!

What do you think caused this very post to appear on your screen if not my thougts, feelings and intentions?
How could something without an objective manifestation your objectively manifested screen to configure itself into English words?

I didn't say your thoughts and feelings do not exist. I stated your thoughts, feelings and all meanings belong to a conscious subject and never, read never to the object or the world as object until you as a conscious subject bestow said meanings upon a meaningless world, meaning the world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject.

[Skepdick]

What is objective, the most obvious inference is that objects are as the term implies objective manifestations, this is a general understanding. Thoughts, feelings, and intentions are not objects in the physical world, thus not objective manifestations.

The fuck?

Your thoughts, feelings and intentions don't exist? Mine do!

What do you think caused this very post to appear on your screen if not my thougts, feelings and intentions?
How could something without an objective manifestation your objectively manifested screen to configure itself into English words?

I didn't say your thoughts and feelings do not exist. I stated your thoughts, feelings and all meanings belong to a conscious subject and never, read never to the object or the world as object until you as a conscious subject bestow said meanings upon a meaningless world, meaning the world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject.

You said exactly what you said. Which is...

Thoughts, feelings, and intentions are not objects in the physical world, thus not objective manifestations.

How can thoughts, feelings, and intentions which are NOT objects in the physical world, and thus LACK objective manifestation affect objective manifestations (screens) ?

All the other jazz about subjects, objects and meaning is irrelevant noise. I am only talking about causality.

[popeye1945]

Tell me, in the absence of a conscious subject, what meaning would the world have? Meanings are the biological reactions of an organism which when experienced it then bestows upon a meaningless world, as the world has that meaning to the subject in question. In this way, an organism constructs its own context out of the energies of the cosmos.