A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[seer]

For me to count anything as evidence, it has to be an objective fact.

Does that include the above statement?

[Teallaura]

At long last...

Bias is always subjective but subjectivity isn't necessarily bias.

Yes. I see what you are getting at. .

My question was were you speaking of a preference (bias) or of a formal case? It sounded like the former - mostly because 'absolute objectivity' only makes sense from perspective. An objectively real thing doesn't get any more or less real so 'absolute' would be a strange adverb in that sense. But the next line you're talking about the formal argument which is based on the reality and not the perception.

Consistency and morality becomes enforceable. If morality depends solely on the decision of the group then its enforcement is necessarily arbitrary - there is no authority and/or objective reality upon which the standard is based.

Bob's is just as good as Mary's (this problem is particular to relativism - a subjective system would have similar issues but without relativism's uniform values) so the enforcement comes down to 'might makes right' and not 'Bob's system is better'.
Consistency is fleeting - the group can change tomorrow what it enforces today, making the system arbitrary. Arbitrary justice systems are necessarily unfair.
In an objective system, morality exists independent of the group - e.g. murder is always wrong no matter what the group thinks because it is objectively wrong. Because the standard is objectively real it can be fairly enforced.
Does that help?

[Doug Shaver]

For me to count anything as evidence, it has to be an objective fact.

Does that include the above statement?

It would, if I were offering it as evidence for anything.

[seer]

It would, if I were offering it as evidence for anything.

Ok, so you believe some things to be true apart from evidence.

[Doug Shaver]

For me to count anything as evidence, it has to be an objective fact.

Does that include the above statement?

It would, if I were offering it as evidence for anything.

Ok, so you believe some things to be true apart from evidence.

That does not follow from what I said. I said that E implies F and that S is not an instance of E. No matter what I might assert about what E implies, to assert that some S is not an instance of E is not to assert anything about whether all S's require E.

[seer]

That does not follow from what I said. I said that E implies F and that S is not an instance of E. No matter what I might assert about what E implies, to assert that some S is not an instance of E is not to assert anything about whether all S's require E.

Is this pig Latin?

[Doug Shaver]

Is this pig Latin?

No, it's logic. But that's probably Greek to you.

[Tassman]

That is fine, the point was that your definition of "evidence" was completely arbitrary. And therefore your question to me was meaningless.

Hence, what you have repeatedly presented is NOT "evidence" to anyone except yourself. It is your personal testimony regarding beliefs pertaining to the cultural deity of Judeo/Christianity and his alleged messengers and prophets. ALL religions have their devout adherents and sacred writings, why should yours get preferential treatment?

And how do you know that the prophets of old, the New Testament writers, of even Christ Himself were delusional? And Tass, I don't expect you to believe anything:

Why would you nothttp://ancienthistory.about.com/od/g...dgoddesses.htm

No, it's logic. But that's probably Greek to you.

To seer

Chortle!

[Tassman]

But you only pushed the problem back one degree. If "Natural Law" dictates behavior then the atheist is in the same boat.

To shunyadragon.

[seer]

No, it's logic. But that's probably Greek to you.

I bow to your superior wisdom Doug, so in plain English, you said: For me to count anything as evidence, it has to be an objective fact.

Do you believe that statement is true? If yes, then you do believe things to be true apart from evidence - correct?

[seer]

But Tass, you agree that my experience of having tea the other morning was evidence for that event. But that would not live up to your "dictionary" definition. So you actually agree that "dictionary" definition is arbitrary, or at least it is terribly restrictive. BTW - being in the dictionary does not make it any less arbitrary.

Hence, what you have repeatedly presented is NOT "evidence" to anyone except yourself. It is your personal testimony regarding beliefs pertaining to the cultural deity of Judeo/Christianity and his alleged messengers and prophets. ALL religions have their devout adherents and sacred writings, why should yours get preferential treatment?

I'm not telling you to prefer anything.

Goodness no, the point of the quote was to confirm you in your atheism.

Chortle!

You don't even want to go there. How many times has Leonhard (who understands the intricacies of the laws of logic better than you or I) pointed our your logical blunders?

[shunyadragon]

But Tass, you agree that my experience of having tea the other morning was evidence for that event. But that would not live up to your "dictionary" definition. So you actually agree that "dictionary" definition is arbitrary, or at least it is terribly restrictive. BTW - being in the dictionary does not make it any less arbitrary.

The experience of drinking tea, would be testimony, yes testimony is a form of evidence, but not easily verified unless of course we perform an autopsy soon after the tea has been consumed. The results of the autopsy would be verifiable evidence.

[seer]

The experience of drinking tea, would be testimony, yes testimony is a form of evidence, but not easily verified unless of course we perform an autopsy soon after the tea has been consumed. The results of the autopsy would be verifiable evidence.

I'm not dead yet! But, you would not necessarily know when I actually I drank the tea, the actual hour. The point is, whether it is verified or not my tea drinking event is a much a fact of history as any other fact of history.

[rwatts]

Hello Teallaura,

It was a biggie. No wonder "phew".

It will take me a few days to respond. Rather than doing a point by point, which will simply blow everything out well beyond the posting limit, I'll talk to the notion as per the title (namely that it is not necessarily a good thing, it can be harmful). That is, I'm looking at the practical outcomes of the concept.

By way of doing so, I'll cover several important points you make.


Regards, Roland

[Teallaura]

Cool. Take as long as you need.