re: Virginia’s Abortion Amendment Would Strike Down Statutory Rape Laws

quote:

---

That’s fair because that’s not what I’m saying. You’re making shite up trying to build a straw man.

---

Nope, I'm not making up anything. I even quoted you: "Atheists do have a rational basis for morality...Our morality is subjective..."

You literally denied (with a positive statement) that your morality is irrational and then admitted it's subjective. It's just as I said.

It seems you have a knee-jerk reaction to say "straw man" and "baseless" and other such words before understanding what is being said.

quote:

---

quote:

---

because if morality is subjective, then it's arbitrary by definition

---

No, it’s not.

---

It is. Arbitrariness exists when a claim is logically groundless, because it is contingent (it could be otherwise) and there is no reason internal to that standard that limits why the standard must be what it is rather than something else. Or in other words, the standard or claim is not constrained by anything but mere choice (someone just makes a decision) or preference (someone just likes it that way better than alternatives).

Subjective morality is based ultimately on arbitrary preference, because there is no constraining logical force that determines that a moral standard must be what it is.

For example, you said initially that "[a]n action is moral if it promotes wellbeing and/or happiness or if it minimizes suffering". You didn't ground that standard in anything logically necessary, so therefore it is just one standard among many. A moral standard could actually be the opposite of what you said, because there is no outside constraint that says that your definition must be the only option. One person my prefer to promote suffering and minimize wellbeing and/or happiness, and there is no outside logical constraint to say that such a moral definition is "wrong".

So again I say that subjective morality is arbitrary by definition, and your "no it's not" is not a sufficient response.

quote:

---

Sure. But subjective morality isn’t irrational. It is based on empathy, fairness, consequences of actions, well-being, and minimization of suffering. I’ve already explained this to you.

As conscious beings, we value well-being and happiness, and desire to minimize suffering. It’s innate and a foundational part of being a human. Morality based on using situational factors that consider those key innate characteristics of humans is not arbitrary.

---

I can tell you aren't getting it. What you just described is an arbitrary standard of value being assigned to positive well-being and happiness. You claim it's innate and foundational to humanity.

First, you described an "is", not an "ought". You didn't justify why morality ought to be based on innate human desires and preferences (which is what you're describing) regarding positive well-being and happiness, but just asserted that since humans feel this way, that grounds morality. That doesn't logically flow, even if it were true that all humans have such preferences. All that says is that humans have desires, not that morality should necessarily conform to those desires.

Second, while you're talking about broad human desires, it rejects the fact that not all humans operate that way, and not all humans actually believe morality should be based on those preferences and desires even if they have them. There are many humans that believe that human well-being is not important at all. Many are suicidal or apathetic about themselves and others. Other people may have a great desire for their own well-being and happiness while they don't care about others'. Most people are actually mixed on this, where they may not want others to suffer, but they generally don't care if they are "happy", or that they generally care about others' happiness and well-being so long as it doesn't conflict with their own, or the happiness and well-being of their particular loved ones. So no, it's not a blanket desire as you are trying to simplify it down to.

But more importantly, just because people may act consistently with their starting point of happiness and well-being, that's not actually what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the standard of happiness and well-being, itself, is arbitrary. You are focused on the application of the standard rather than the standard, itself, which tells me you aren't understanding my argument.

quote:

---

You can say that all you want, because you are hateful and psychopathic. I wouldn’t say that though.

---

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but that you can only logically say that according to your belief in subjective morality. You are acting inconsistently, and that's what I'm pointing out. You are not acting rationally because your standard is arbitrary, and therefore irrational. If you were consistent with what you profess to be true, you could only agree that morality is arbitrary and therefore irrational.

quote:

---

Such is moot. There is no Yahweh. But even if that deity existed, neither the existence of the deity nor the Bible we have today would provide a rational basis for morality. It doesn’t even agree with itself. It states children should carry the sins of their fathers… which is the basis for original sin and the need to atone for what Adam did. It also states children should not be responsible for the sins of their fathers. It’s inconsistent and contradictory and can’t be used in a rational discussion of morality.

---

I'm not going to argue this point with you right now, because you're blinded to the truth about it, and no matter of reconciliation of texts will persuade you.

All I'm going to say on this is that, logically, the Christian view of God (which you disagree with) provides a rational, objective basis for morality that does not exist without Him. You can disagree that He exists all you like (I'm not arguing for or against His existence at this point anyway), but His existence as Christians understand it (not how you understand it) does, from a human point of view, provide an objective moral standard that does not exist with moral subjectivity.

quote:

---

You’re confused or disingenuous. Most people agree we shouldn’t take candy from a baby. Feels like everyone should agree. Most people agree we shouldn’t kill babies. Feels like everyone should agree...

---

I'm not confused at all, and I'm not disingenuous. I'm explaining to you the logical outcomes of your own stated position. Whether you agree with my beliefs about the Bible or not doesn't matter. I'm arguing that your position is irrational, regardless of what I believe about God.

You affirm my statement that people act as if morality is objective even when it's not, based on their feelings. You said most people agree we shouldn't take candy from a baby, but your standard here is consensus and feeling. Not every society shares the same consensus view on morality, and not everyone "feels" that particular moral imperatives are accurate.

For example, what if your child was starving? Would you take candy from a baby in order to give it to your own if you thought it would provide some extra calories to keep your child from starving? I'd say many if not most would. Or what about the consensus that we shouldn't kill babies? The entire pro-life movement is predicated on the notion that babies in the womb are still babies and that they shouldn't be killed. We have a consensus in our society and in other western societies that killing those babies is acceptable, if not morally good.

Who is to judge? If morality is subjective, as you claim it is, then there is no outside standard to use to judge moral opinions, and that's my entire point.

quote:

---

This is how you made shite up:

quote:

---

You cannot claim that your morality is subjective and then deny that it's irrational, because if morality is subjective, then it's arbitrary by definition, and arbitrariness is irrational.

---

You’re confused or lying about the definitions of subjective and arbitrary. Making shite up as you go.

---

That's not made up. For all the talk of "baseless assertions" you like to do, you are fast and loose with the phrase "made up".

I'm not confused about the definitions whatsoever. You just haven't connected the dots yet, though I've been trying to help you. You keep talking about the connection between the standard and the reasonable application of the standard. Meaning, if you start with "consequences, fairness, well-being, minimizing of suffering, etc." as the standard, you can apply that standard rationally to various situations. You focus on that and think I'm nuts for saying you are being irrational. In fact, you aren't understanding what I'm saying at all.

I'm not saying your application of your preferred moral standard is unreasonable or irrational whatsoever. I'm saying that your preferred moral standard (consequences, fairness, well-being, minimizing of suffering, etc.), itself, is arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

It's irrational because it has no grounding to it, and it is chosen precisely because you have a preference for it; you like it better than other alternatives. Simply liking it better than others is not a rational basis for choosing it in the first place. That's my point.

quote:

---

When you make shite up and attempt to misrepresent by argument, that’s straw manning. When you make shite without supporting evidence, it’s baseless. Just like the existence of your deity - baseless.

---

1. I'm not making anything up. Nothing I'm saying originates with me. You never hearing it before or not understanding it doesn't mean it's made up by me.

2. I'm not misrepresenting your arguments at all. I'm telling you exactly why I'm interpreting your words the way I am. Your responses have been lacking, with mostly a "you made it up", and then move on. You aren't clarifying or explaining how I'm making something up, and when you do choose to further clarify, it's about something I'm not even talking about, such as the application of your arbitrary moral standard vs. the arbitrary standard, itself.

3. Even though I'm not arguing the existence of God right now, you saying His existence is "baseless" makes me think that you are the one who doesn't understand the terms you are using. Even the most militant atheists won't say there is no evidence for God. They may say the evidence presented is not compelling, but they won't say there is no evidence at all. That further shows that you either don't know what you're talking about, or you are so far into the fringe that you can't even agree with the vast majority of people on your side.

quote:

---

You keep saying it’s groundless and no reasons, but I’ve explained that to you already.

---

You keep talking about the application of the standard, not the standard, itself.

You haven't justified how your standard isn't arbitrary, while I have expended a lot of words to show you how it is.

quote:

---

Merriam-Webster:
Arbitrary - adj. chosen, decided, etc. seemingly at random or on a whim rather than in a reasoned or methodical way

Subjective morality considers consequences, fairness, well-being, minimizing of suffering, etc. and is reason and logic based, and isn’t random. Just quit saying subjective morality is not reason based or just completely random without a process.

---

First, I didn't say your standard is arbitrary because it's "random". I've explained exactly what I mean by arbitrary, speaking to contingency and the lack of logical necessity behind the standard you've chosen. You aren't interacting with any of that at all, and yes, I've noticed that.

Second, as I've already said several times now, "consequences, fairness, well-being, minimizing of suffering, etc." are characteristics of the standard you've chosen, but they are not a reason for the standard you've chosen. You are trying to go from an "is" to an "ought" without justifying it. You haven't shown why anyone must use "fairness" or "well-being" as the part of the standard for what is morally right. You've just asserted that people generally look for those things, so that's all you need. It doesn't explain why anyone should look for those things in the first place.

What you've explained is a combination of arbitrary preference (wanting fairness rather than selfish unfairness as the standard) and majority vote (most humans agree) to say that your moral standard is good. Aside from the fact that neither of those things are logically coherent reasons for truth claims, you can't even apply that "reasoning" consistently to get the same result.

For example, if a majority of a country prefers unfairness to other people groups and maximizing suffering of those other people groups, by your own statements, mass killing of the Jews by the Nazi state was morally good. They had a shared preferential standard that they could enforce, so that made the Holocaust morally good in their eyes, regardless of whether or not the minority in Germany disagreed, or whether or not the majority outside of Germany disagreed. For that society at that time, the Holocaust was morally good. That's the end result of your "reasoning" based on moral subjectivity.

quote:

---

People, as a whole, like being happy and healthy, and that is an objective fact. People value happiness and well-being. Application of a standard which seeks to maximize happiness and well-being isn’t arbitrary nor irrational.

---

You still aren't getting it. Your justification for why the standard you mentioned is rational is that a majority of people like it. What you just described is a personal preference shared by a majority of people. That isn't a logically-grounded reason for why morality is actually moral. As I mentioned, you can say the same thing about the majority of Germans during the Holocaust. All you are saying is that if you have a consensus about something within a particular society, that consensus becomes what is morally good. That means, for those Germans, it was morally good to kill off millions of Jews.

Again I say, your "objective fact" that people like to be happy and healthy does not translate to an objective moral standard. You're just talking about a subjective standard that many people sort of agree with. I say "sort of", because while it sounds nice to say that everyone likes to be happy and healthy, that isn't universally true, and even if it were, it doesn't mean they want everyone else to be happy and healthy. In other words, the "is" you are describing does not necessitate the "ought" of morality. Your position is irrational because it is based on arbitrary preference, like I keep telling you.

quote:

---

It could be that the reason you have so much trouble understanding the innate feature of sentient humanity which values happiness and wellbeing is because you are a psychopath.

---

I'm not having any trouble understanding the natural desires of humans to be happy and healthy. I actually have a biblical justification for why it is that way and why it actually is meaningful, even though you reject that. The problem doesn't lie with my ability to understand people wanting to be happy, but the problem lies with you not understanding basic logical propositions. You don't understand why even if every human being desired happiness and healthiness, that that doesn't necessitate it being an objective moral standard. You don't understand what is being meant by "objective" and "subjective".

I've said it many times to you, but you really need to pick up some books on logic. Your ignorance of it makes you sound ridiculous, which is probably why you keep trying to pivot to attacking the Bible rather than sticking to the topic of your irrational moral standard.

quote:

---

the majority of Germans during the Holocaust. All you are saying is that if you have a consensus about something within a particular society, that consensus becomes what is morally good. That means, for those Germans, it was morally good to kill off millions of Jews.

---

That’s subjective ethics. Moral relativism. Yes for some Nazi’s they believed it was morally good to kill Jews. Many disagreed even within the Nazi ranks. There is no objective moral standard.

quote:

---

Again I say, your "objective fact" that people like to be happy and healthy does not translate to an objective moral standard.

---

You straw manning mother fricker.

quote:

---

I'm not having any trouble understanding the natural desires of humans to be happy and healthy. I actually have a biblical justification for why it is that way and why it actually is meaningful, even though you reject that.

---

Yes I reject it. You are irrationally and arbitrarily asserting authority for no damn reason other than it’s your personal preference, and claiming you are following an objective standard that in actually contains no objectivity. Clown world.

quote:

---

You don't understand why even if every human being desired happiness and healthiness, that that doesn't necessitate it being an objective moral standard.

---

Dude you’re such a piece of shite straw manning mother fricker.

quote:

---

You don't understand what is being meant by "objective" and "subjective".

---

More projection.

quote:

---

I've said it many times to you, but you really need to pick up some books on logic. Your ignorance of it makes you sound ridiculous

---

You really need to quit being an obtuse psychopathic sack of shite, quit accusing me and others of your own faults, and quit misrepresenting the arguments and positions of me and others.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That’s subjective ethics. Moral relativism.

---

Exactly, and it's what you're proposing with your moral subjectivity. It's irrational, as I've explained, because it is arbitrary.

---

Subjective morality isn’t irrational and isn’t arbitrary as I’ve explained. You’re just either a complete idiot or an obtuse piece of shite. Maybe both.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes for some Nazi’s they believed it was morally good to kill Jews. Many disagreed even within the Nazi ranks. There is no objective moral standard.

---

So you admit that all subjective moral standards are irrational because they are all ultimately arbitrary?

---

No, stupid.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You straw manning...

---

I'm not. I'm further explaining what you are agreeing with, namely that your moral standard is subjective and therefore irrational.

---

You are. You insist (because of your own stupidity) that if morality is subjective then it is irrational, and then attempt to state that it is I who am making that argument, therefore misrepresenting- intentionally due to you being a piece of shite- my argument.

quote:

---

If God exists, then He exists necessarily rather than contingently, and therefore if morality is based on His character (as the Bible indicates), then morality also necessarily exists. It isn't arbitrary at all.

---

And here we have it folks, Foo’s arbitrary and irrational presuppositions.

Go ahead and reply and get your last word in on this but don’t expect a response from me, and don’t interpret a lack of response as me giving up and you winning.

Sounds better than murder