great to have you both, thanks! looking forward to this debate :)
Great to be here!
very interesting point about morality being developped for survival reasons
of course it's immoral to rape children.
HEHE bring the dog to the debate
What was morally acceptable two hundred years ago is not morally acceptable today. Therefore, is that not proof that morality is not objective?
Age has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false. A close study of history shows very clearly that moral principles have remained the same, but to who they apply has changed.
It's always been wrong to rape, murder, or steal, but who shouldn't be raped, murdered, or stolen from has varied.
female genital mutilation is not moral in most countries, but it is moral in countries where they still do it. doesn't that make it not objective?
(P.S I agreed with many points made by @woodox87 just don't think morality is universally objective for several types of actions)
Agreed. another example of how an action can be universally 'ok' for some people with no exception. @woodox87 see also below comment from me.
But life is not black or white, the two extremes..it's a wide range of outcomes and possibilities so objectivity should be used to describe the majority of cases. Otherwise we would never use this word, it's almost impossible to have no exceptions
I feel like @theantifeminist has read exactly one book on every subject he debates and his only play is blindly ripping arguments out of it and throwing them at his opponent.Good job beating Sam Harris, @woodox87
If you have nothing of value or constructive to say, just keep it to yourself. The salty and bitter comments towards me based in your confident ignorance are more than unnecessary.
Seems I hit a sore spot.
Unwarranted logical fallacies always do.
Which logical fallacy did I employ? Or did you just use the phrase "logical fallacies" because it was in Harris' book?
I guess there's that question answered
That could be seen as a circumstantial ad hominem. You didn't attack his points per se, but rather the motivation behind his points.
An ad hominem fallacy is one in which I attack the source instead of the argument to conclude that the argument is wrong. I have not concluded that the argument is wrong or even made an argument. What you are seeing here is just an insult, which is not a fallacy.
I feel insults should always come with valid criticisms.
Well, that may or may not be true, and I feel my book criticism was valid, but regardless it is not a fallacy. It may be wrong and you may oppose my use of these insults philosophically but I have not done so fallaciously
If you don't think insults should be paired with valid criticisms of a claim, then what is the use of an insult on it's own? I think your insult has a subtext about his argument being faulty.
After watching this, apart from loosing faith to humanity, I might have to admit that there are no objective moral values...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4054312/Jihadi-parents-teach-young-daughters-suicide-bombers-kiss-goodbye-startling-footage-shortly-seven-year-old-walked-Damascus-police-station-blown-remote-detonator.html
I replied below.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4054312/Jihadi-parents-teach-young-daughters-suicide-bombers-kiss-goodbye-startling-footage-shortly-seven-year-old-walked-Damascus-police-station-blown-remote-detonator.html@woodox87by the way, this is from the DailyMail, but you'll see the same video on every news network.Point is - these are fathers and mothers murdering their own children 8 year old children in order to murder others. Murder is no longer about who is murdered, murder itself has lost any moral definition regardless of who. You may say they're psychopaths (of course they are), but there are tens of thousands of them. If given enough power, they can turn many more to their sick ideologies but at which point do we stop calling it 'sickness' and instead call it 'ideology of some people', which is no different from a culture or a society. I guess what i'm trying to say is, even murder can be considered moral especially when mothers kiss their own 8 year old children goodbye before sending them to suicide terrorist attacks.
Objective moral values do not mean absolute moral behavior. It does not follow that objective moral standarders mean that there is absolute adherence. You can know the right thing and not do it. Even in a world where right and wrong are clearly defined, as free agencies, there would be no governance on an individual level. Knowing what is right, doing what is right, and there being a right thing to do, are all independent of each other. Objective moral values do not mean you cannot do otherwise, but that you shouldn't do otherwise. You are obligated to do the right thing, but not forced to.
but in the case of ISIS and the video i shared, not only are they doing the immoral thing, they don't actually think it is immoral. they're bombing their own kids and proud of it, not bombing their own kids and saying "oh well, it's murder and it's bad, but fine..." they don't find actually find the murder of their own children to be immoral.
This debate had me talking with my friends about this topic for hours. @woodox87 awesome presentation of ideas and @theantifeminist this is the first time I've agreed with you on certain points! @woodox87 you really convinced me
It's amazing how little Atheists know about religion. Just picking up the bible isn't enough. They should read Thomas Aquinas and/or Augustine of Hippo. Many of the points they have were addressed by these two- especially how to rectify materialism and their faith.