NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D1Tremere" data-source="post: 7747085" data-attributes="member: 61148">To have a debate ( in the technical sense) you need to establish and argument or refute one.The idea of objective good/evil is itself a positive claim. In order to  make a positive claim you must have evidence to support it. There is no  evidence to support objective good/evil.To my knowledge, no one has ever produced a true objective criteria for morality."Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. Objective morality also entails that these truths are universal.""A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is  bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the  person who is stating them. Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value  statements are clearly subjective: "Tabasco flavored ice cream tastes  good" can be true for me, but false for you." -Alexander S. King"For morality to be objective, it  must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and  it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus,  it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human  thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral  issue that meets those requirements." -Scott MartinWithout invoking a deity there is no circumstance where a moral claim is both universal and constant. You can generalize elements of a moral claim to make it appear more universal, but the details still differ. If not killing is a universal objective good, for example, then it would always be bad to kill. There are some who think this, but killing in many circumstances is often necessary and excused due to judgement of circumstance. Also, without invoking a deity, there is no universal and objective consequence to morality. Doing something bad at one point does not necessarily change anything, and indeed even the memory of such an event is not inviolate.All attempts to argue moral objectivity fail to get away from subjective judgement (including Kant, who proposed a system for avoiding subjectivity that is itself subjective).That is why people argue, but not debate this issue. Much like proving god, it cannot be done without making a positive claim that has no evidence to support.</blockquote>

Verification