beyond Objective and Subjective: God.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Unfortunately, I am not even making a claim, I am simply saying that it is possible to believe in another philosophical position than the one that you are posting. You are the one that is making a claim, and failing to back it up in anyway.

So you're just trolling? Gotcha.

If you'd actually like to engage with our attempts to back this up, I'd be glad to.

I am not, I am simply stating that you are all repeating opinions that are not backed up in anyway and proclaimed as truth that we are to accept. Simply stating that "Morals are subjective/social construct/objective/real/whatever" as if it were the truth is not an argument.

[Twilight Imperium]

So you're just trolling? Gotcha.

If you'd actually like to engage with our attempts to back this up, I'd be glad to.

I am not, I am simply stating that you are all repeating opinions that are not backed up in anyway and proclaimed as truth that we are to accept. Simply stating that "Morals are subjective/social construct/objective/real/whatever" as if it were the truth is not an argument.

The Nation-States definition of trolling usually involves getting involved in these things without actually posting an opinion. As for the "not backed up part", we've provided several things to back it up, whereas you've simply reiterated that we haven't.

I agree that it's possible to hold other worldviews than mine. I'd love to hear about them. Please provide one.

Off-topic a bit: I do love philosophical threads. Nowhere else do you get "but what does debate mean, really?" and pages of arguing about arguing.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Unfortunately, I am not even making a claim, I am simply saying that it is possible to believe in anothe philosophical position than the one that you are posting. You are the one that is making a claim, and failing to back it up in anyway.

I have not provided one philosophical position aside from empiricism.
do you know what the difference between objective and subjective is?

morality is a social construct, thus subjective.

This statement is already a philosophical position that isn't even remotely argued, as in, at all.

It assumes, first, that Morality is a Social Construct, and therefore subjective, without proof as to why it is a social construction, or how that entails that it is subjective.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Off-topic a bit: I do love philosophical threads. Nowhere else do you get "but what does debate mean, really?" and pages of arguing about arguing.

I am pointing out that no debate is occuring because there is no arguments being made. There is only statements of opinion.

[Twilight Imperium]

Edited the post. Have a look?

[Camicon]

Evil, unjustness, stupidity, and power, are all social constructs. They do not have objective limits.

So, why are we to take your opinions as fact? Why are we to simply call everything a social contruct? You can, I think you have, extended this to all idea.

That wasn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality. Social constructs - such as the concepts of evil, justice, stupidity, power, or morality - only exist within society.

[Twilight Imperium]

So, why are we to take your opinions as fact? Why are we to simply call everything a social contruct? You can, I think you have, extended this to all idea.

That wasn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality. Social constructs - such as the concepts of evil, justice, stupidity, power, or morality - only exist within society.

But what is reality? Does it exist?

Also, even if we were to accept that these concepts can be pinned down, dissected, optimized within an inch of their lives and then applied to an imaginary deity, it wouldn't matter because it's still an imaginary deity. That's where this really falls flat, as far as I can see.

[Sociobiology]

I have not provided one philosophical position aside from empiricism.
do you know what the difference between objective and subjective is?

morality is a social construct, thus subjective.

This statement is already a philosophical position

no, it is an empirical position.

It assumes, first, that Morality is a Social Construct,

which is backed up by by all relevant science. It is not an assumption, it is the position of science after decades of study.
hell the TERM social construct was invented as a scientific label for things that only exist because people behave as if they do.

or how that entails that it is subjective.

do you know what the definition of subjective is?
all social constructs, by definition, are subjective.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So, why are we to take your opinions as fact? Why are we to simply call everything a social contruct? You can, I think you have, extended this to all idea.

That wasn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality. Social constructs - such as the concepts of evil, justice, stupidity, power, or morality - only exist within society.

That there is an invisible pony with wings that watches over every one of us like the ancient greek Daimons isn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality.

Replace that with any number of statements of the fact and reality of various things, and you still are simply stating an opinion.

[The Rich Port]

That wasn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality. Social constructs - such as the concepts of evil, justice, stupidity, power, or morality - only exist within society.

That there is an invisible pony with wings that watches over every one of us like the ancient greek Daimons isn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality.

Replace that with any number of statements of the fact and reality of various things, and you still are simply stating an opinion.

Can you demonstrate that?

Because demonstrating a lot of things in reality is actually rather simple.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

no, it is an empirical position.

It is a philosophical one, it is a position on the metaphysical position of concepts such as "the good" and "justice", one that, in your mind, is more founded in science.

which is backed up by by all relevant science. It is not an assumption, it is the position of science after decades of study.

Simply saying that science is on your side doesn't make it so.

do you know what the definition of subjective is?
all social constructs, by definition, are subjective.

I do, but you have yet to show how saying that "morality is a social construct" makes it "relative to the single subject".

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That there is an invisible pony with wings that watches over every one of us like the ancient greek Daimons isn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality.

Replace that with any number of statements of the fact and reality of various things, and you still are simply stating an opinion.

Can you demonstrate that?

Because demonstrating a lot of things in reality is actually rather simple.

No, it is only to point out that making grand statements like "This is real, to deny it is to be wrong" doesn't make an argument, and can be replaced with almost anything, such as God, or, in this case, an invisible pony with wings.

[Twilight Imperium]

No, it is only to point out that making grand statements like "This is real, to deny it is to be wrong" doesn't make an argument, and can be replaced with almost anything, such as God, or, in this case, an invisible pony with wings.

That's true, which is why I expanded on it with examples and reasoning when I mentioned it. Are you just being contrary for the sake of it, NPR, or do you have something to contribute here?

[Twilight Imperium]

For the record...

Well, the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place wasn't observation of the natural world. You can't go out and mine a vein of unjustness, or look at evil particles under a microscope. Therefore, they came from somewhere else. The most likely candidate is a social construction.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I am not, I am simply stating that you are all repeating opinions that are not backed up in anyway and proclaimed as truth that we are to accept. Simply stating that "Morals are subjective/social construct/objective/real/whatever" as if it were the truth is not an argument.

The Nation-States definition of trolling usually involves getting involved in these things without actually posting an opinion. As for the "not backed up part", we've provided several things to back it up, whereas you've simply reiterated that we haven't.

There is an opinion, it is that you are simply making claims that are not back up in any sense of the word. I am more than ready to be convinced by any arguments you have on the subject, just that you are not providing one.

I agree that it's possible to hold other worldviews than mine. I'd love to hear about them. Please provide one.

I provided several possible opinions that I do not personally hold.

Off-topic a bit: I do love philosophical threads. Nowhere else do you get "but what does debate mean, really?" and pages of arguing about arguing.

Only there is no argument being presented, only statements of opinion.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

For the record...

Well, the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place wasn't observation of the natural world. You can't go out and mine a vein of unjustness, or look at evil particles under a microscope. Therefore, they came from somewhere else. The most likely candidate is a social construction.

With no reason why "the most likely candidate is a social construction". All you have establish is that concepts such as evil, good, justice, etc. are not material in the same way the idea of a circle or a 30-60 triangle is not material.

[Twilight Imperium]

If they are not material, then they are immaterial. Of the mind, or the spirit. Divine inspiration could be one source, social construction another. Most these days reject the divine explanation, and accept the social one. It may not be 100% indisputable fact, but many people find it good enough to go on, and it's also not what the thread is about. If we have to define all our terms and re-prove them every time we use them, discourse would be nearly impossible.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

See previous post.

Which states nothing but that evil, good, and injustice is not material. The concept of a circle, while it does describe materials in the form of a circle, is not, in itself, an actual material object.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

For the record...

Well, the ideas had to come from somewhere, and that place wasn't observation of the natural world. You can't go out and mine a vein of unjustness, or look at evil particles under a microscope. Therefore, they came from somewhere else. The most likely candidate is a social construction.

Actually, you can get ideas from observation.

It's kind of why we have social constructs in the first place. Not the natural world per se, but human interaction. Unless you are discounting humans are part of nature and you're the kind of person who believes in human exceptionalism.

[Norstal]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

That being sounds like it would be meaningless. A rock could definitely hold all those values.

[Sociobiology]

no, it is an empirical position.

It is a philosophical one, it is a position on the metaphysical position of concepts such as "the good" and "justice", one that, in your mind, is more founded in science.

than what guess work, sure.
The brain actually exists therefore fall under science. everything that exists in the universe falls under science. And yes that includes social constructs, which exist as behaviors.

which is backed up by by all relevant science. It is not an assumption, it is the position of science after decades of study.

Simply saying that science is on your side doesn't make it so.

would you like a link to a sociology textbook? how about an anthropology one?
your are arguing with a statement equivalent to the luminiferous aether does not exist.

do you know what the definition of subjective is?
all social constructs, by definition, are subjective.

I do, but you have yet to show how saying that "morality is a social construct" makes it "relative to the single subject".

what does that even mean?
why would I try and show it?

[Camicon]

That wasn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality. Social constructs - such as the concepts of evil, justice, stupidity, power, or morality - only exist within society.

That there is an invisible pony with wings that watches over every one of us like the ancient greek Daimons isn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality.

Replace that with any number of statements of the fact and reality of various things, and you still are simply stating an opinion.

Does the word "factual" mean anything to you?

[Twilight Imperium]

For the record...

Actually, you can get ideas from observation.

It's kind of why we have social constructs in the first place. Not the natural world per se, but human interaction. Unless you are discounting humans are part of nature and you're the kind of person who believes in human exceptionalism.

True, but that's kind of what a social construct is. It's not unreal or irrelevant, but it is defined by human culture and what we do with it. There's no empirical maximum to it.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

That being sounds like it would be meaningless. A rock could definitely hold all those values.

It was a response to this argument by the OP:

Gaunilo’s argument, thus, proceeds by attempting to use Anselm’s strategy to deduce the existence of a perfect island, which Gaunilo rightly views as a counterexample to the argument form. The counterexample can be expressed as follows:

It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
A piland exists as an idea in the mind.
A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist).
But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.
Therefore, a piland exists.

Notice, however, that premise 1 of Gaunilo’s argument is incoherent. The problem here is that the qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities. No matter how great any island is in some respect, it is always possible to imagine an island greater than that island in that very respect. For example, if one thinks that abundant fruit is a great-making property for an island, then, no matter how great a particular island might be, it will always be possible to imagine a greater island because there is no intrinsic maximum for fruit-abundance. For this reason, the very concept of a piland is incoherent.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That there is an invisible pony with wings that watches over every one of us like the ancient greek Daimons isn't my opinion, that's fact. To disagree is to deny reality.

Replace that with any number of statements of the fact and reality of various things, and you still are simply stating an opinion.

Does the word "factual" mean anything to you?

You can claim anything to be factual, but without acutal evidence and arguments for its factuality, there is no reason to accept your claims.