Marriott tells desperate evacuees: Eff off, you aren't getting on our boat

[RandomGuy]

...

[RandomGuy]

You don't understand the definition of the term objective and you certainly don't understand the implications of having objective morality. If objective morality exists then there's a right and wrong even if everyone on the planet disagrees with it. That means there's a divine edict dictating right and wrong.

You really need to more clearly define your terms. I think you're being wishy-washy about it and trying to use the term objective to mean generally agreed upon.

You're also confusing a philosophical question with a scientific one. Morality is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

I understand the implications of objective morality. It doesn't mean that there is a divine edict. Again, that doesn't follow.

Morality is where philosophy and science occasionally overlap.

We have to have some means of determining what is real and what isn't.

(shrugs) provide a definition of "objective".

[DMC]

I understand the implications of objective morality. It doesn't mean that there is a divine edict. Again, that doesn't follow.

Morality is where philosophy and science occasionally overlap.

We have to have some means of determining what is real and what isn't.

(shrugs) provide a definition of "objective".

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

If you accept that definition, then explain how morality meets that criteria. If you don't agree with it, then how are you defining it in the way you're using it?

[spurraider21]

I don't think you could objectively say life is better than death. It's pretty nonsensical. I'm what way or what standard are you measuring "better"

To a lion, his prey is much better dead.

And if you ask a given organism what it prefers for itself, you are by definition inserting bias and are thus straying from objectivity

[SnakeBoy]

Thanks for the moral support. Those posters who continuously ridicule the Apollo-hoax proof and the proof that 9/11 was an inside job* are paid sophists** who know that Apollo was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job. They're trying to create the illusion of wide support on the internet to sway the viewers' opinions. I don't know how they can sleep at night.

Well you just got keep posting away to spread the message just like advertisers do. Don't let them box you in with logic, some sheeple just don't want to wake up.

[SnakeBoy]

I don't think you could objectively say life is better than death. It's pretty nonsensical. I'm what way or what standard are you measuring "better"

To a lion, his prey is much better dead.

And if you ask a given organism what it prefers for itself, you are by definition inserting bias and are thus straying from objectivity

If only we could find out what rocks think. I'm pretty sure they'd be objective.

[DMC]

I don't think you could objectively say life is better than death. It's pretty nonsensical. I'm what way or what standard are you measuring "better"

To a lion, his prey is much better dead.

And if you ask a given organism what it prefers for itself, you are by definition inserting bias and are thus straying from objectivity

You cannot objectively say anything is better than anything else, because there has to be an opinion involved. You can say "If more = better, then 4 is better than 3" but you cannot accurately say "4 is better than 3" or "more is better" objectively.

But thanks Philo, for piling on after the debate has pretty much ended. Way to put your neck out there.

[spurraider21]

You cannot objectively say anything is better than anything else, because there has to be an opinion involved. You can say "If more = better, then 4 is better than 3" but you cannot accurately say "4 is better than 3" or "more is better" objectively.

But thanks Philo, for piling on after the debate has pretty much ended. Way to put your neck out there.

We can't all be on F5 duty

[spurraider21]

If only we could find out what rocks think. I'm pretty sure they'd be objective.

People can be objective. Opinions and preferences though? No.

[DMC]

We can't all be on F5 duty

[DMC]

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

If you accept that definition, then explain how morality meets that criteria. If you don't agree with it, then how are you defining it in the way you're using it?

Someone abandoned ship without ever saying goodbye.

[RandomGuy]

Someone abandoned ship without ever saying goodbye.

Been busy.

Lunch hours have been spent on training for volunteer work. (look up Team Rubicon, fascinating organization)

[DMC]

Been busy.

Lunch hours have been spent on training for volunteer work. (look up Team Rubicon, fascinating organization)

If true then kudos to you - honestly.

[RandomGuy]

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

If you accept that definition, then explain how morality meets that criteria. If you don't agree with it, then how are you defining it in the way you're using it?

Ok then, is the truth of life being preferable to death a question that can be answered outside of biases?

What bias could effect answering such a question?

[spurraider21]

Ok then, is the truth of life being preferable to death a question that can be answered outside of biases?

No, imo.

What bias could effect answering such a question?

Personal bias

[DMC]

Ok then, is the truth of life being preferable to death a question that can be answered outside of biases?

What bias could effect answering such a question?

The term "preferable" instantly creates subjectivity. It's an objective truth that death is an inevitable conclusion to life, but preferences are always subjective to the one who prefers, even if everyone on the planet agrees.

Otherwise, even if everyone on the planet disagreed and preferred death over life, the objective truth (life is preferable to death) would overrule them - ergo divine edict.

If you had statistics showing that people prefer life over death, your stats would be objective.