re after years can we say that christian morality is in article apr abo fi mandtbacka finabo abo fi mats andtbacka writes in r fpv p horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp writes in article apr abo fi mandtbacka finabo abo fi mats andtbacka writes ah that old chestnut your claim that moral objectivism scientific objectivism i don t agree with it now try proving through some objective moral test that my disagreeing is incorrect your claim which you have deleted now was not universal not objective i ve deleted it now in the interest of brevity go back a step and you ll see it was still in your post yes that was my claim if you can refute it then please do so firstly an apology you hadn t deleted your claim and i was mistaken in saying you had sorry for any offence caused secondly how can i refute your definition i can only point up its logical implications and say that they seem to contradict the usage of the word objective in other areas indeed by your definition an objective x is an oxymoron for all x i have no quibble with that belief other than that it is useless and that objective is a perfectly good word so what is objective not the age of the universe anyway as i show above how many ages can the universe have and still be internally self consistent i d be amazed if it was more than one how many different moral systems can different members of society have indeed single individuals in some cases and humanity still stick together begging the question people can have many opinions about the age of the universe and humanity can still stick together you are saying that the universe has a real age independent of my beliefs about it why the age of the universe like most scientific facts can be emirically verified through means that ll give the same result no matter who performs the testing albeit there are error bars that may be on the largish side this assumes that the universe has a real age or any kind of reality which doesn t depend on what we think why should an extreme biblical creationist give a rat s ass about the means of which you speak i ve heard of no way to verify morality in a consistent way much less compute the errors of the measurement care to enlighten me the same is true of pain but painkillers exist and can be predicted to work with some accuracy better than a random guess i wrote elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value if a moral system makes a prediction it will be better if that can be tested and is falsifiable in the same way as a prediction this drug will relieve pain people s ideas about the age of object x are not objective you can have any idea you like and i can t stop you universae and their ages is another ballgame they are what they are and if you dislike some detail of them that s a problem with your opinion of them sure assume an objective reality and you get statements like this i claim that morality is an opinion of ours and as such subjective and individual if i m wrong then some more or less objectively real thing exists which you label objective morality can you back up this positive claim of existence can you back up your positive claim above no that s because it s an assumption i make the same assumption about values on the basis that there is no logical difference between the two and the empirical basis of the two is precisely the same point morals are in essence personal opinions usually ideally well founded motivated such but nonetheless personal the fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question sometimes even for the same reason does not make morals objective it makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question which can be good for the evolution of a social species and if a real large lot nice phrase of people agree that there is a football on a desk i m supposed to see a logical difference between the two perhaps you can explain the difference to me since you seem to see it so clearly take a look on the desk i e perform a test if football then accept theory else do tell people they re hallucinating now take a look at morality see anything if so please inform me which way to look and why to look that particular way as opposed to some other get my drift no just look are you claiming never to know what good means science is a whole other matter altogether says you prove that those who disagree are wrong that s a simple matter of proving the track record of the scientific method i think it s great and should be applied to values i may be completely wrong but that s what i conclude as a result of quite an amount of thought frank o dwyer i m not hatching that odwyer sse ie from hens by evelyn conlon
