Which leads to an interesting conundrum…

Two different people have either different "data regarding the effect of a certain cause" or different “effects they wish to cause” and these differences lead them to different conclusions regarding whether an action is moral or immoral. In that case, we have an action that is both moral and immoral simultaneously and thus neither moral nor immoral. Which could lead one to conclude that any difference of opinion regarding the morality of any action is never really a moral issue at all but something else.

Just stirring the pot.

That's why subjectivism fails.

To be meaningful that is...

Pretty Cool post by Dr Novella.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2878#more-2878

In truth, no.




The terms "good and bad" are words that describe an opinion.

Hey JB.



If there is no absolute good and/or bad, does it not seem odd for us to hold that taking a hot poker and searing the closed eye of a new-born child is not absolutely bad?

I would agree, however, is it not the case - at times - when an opinion is grounded in fact(s). If an opinion can be grounded in fact, then an opinion about good and bad can be grounded in facts about good and bad.

It certainly seems like that is the case at times. The most sickening thing that came to mind(in my last post) stands as an example of that possibility.

I don't know about that post Bushido. Something seems off. We can discuss it further, if you want.

No it is not odd in the least for us to hold that opinion, but it is still an opinion.

We can all agree that something is a fact, and we can all agree that something is good or bad but these are still opinions and agreements.

In what situation would it be acceptable?

Whether or not something is a fact is not contingent upon mutual agreement. It is a fact that the world is not flat, although for a very long time everyone agreed that it was. That is because a fact obtains a state of affairs in reality.

Simply put it is a fact that the cat is on the mat if and only if the cat is on the mat. Not a matter of opinion nor agreement.

It would be "acceptable" when or if people accept it.

Nevermind.

Not true.

What if we discovered that the true reality was a flat surface that projected the illusion of a hologram and that hologram was made of light and energy and we called it "reality." What if we discovered that for a fact? How many people would agree or disagree that it was a fact?

Facts must be agreed upon to be elevated to the status of being called "fact."

But not only must facts be agreed upon, they must be placed into law by an authority. This way if anyone disagrees with the facts, they are overruled by the authority.

Double nevermind. Calling something a fact and a statement being a fact are two completely different things. The difference is that one obtains a state of affairs in reality, and the other is believed to. Failing to make and adhere to that necessary distinction inevitably results in calling every claim an opinion.

I'll not attend this matter any further. If you choose to believe that that is the case, that is your choice I suppose.

I am uninterested in arguing about completely uncontentious things.

Creativesoul, you are the one who ASKED for opinions. What are you wanting to accomplish?

You asked if there is any absolute good or bad. I said no.

If I had said "yes" you would have probably argued about that.

If you want to proceed on the assumption that there is an absolute bad or good, then everything would have to be defined or argued as either good or bad.

I am absolutely sure there are many different opinions on what is good and what is bad. They are opinions.

Therefore if you want an absolute answer or (an honest opinion)the fact is that "good and bad" are words that describe opinions.

Or would you want to argue that they are facts?

By describing a horrible example of an unspeakable act of violence on an innocent baby, you hope to prove some point that this particular example must be considered to be absolutely bad, for what else could it possibly be? Who in their right mind would disagree?

So what is your point? To prove or demonstrate that there are things that are in fact absolutely bad or good that everyone should agree upon?

Where then do you want the discussion to lead? What is good and what is bad? For what ultimate purpose?

I don't understand why you ask these things, and then say "nevermind." You don't like the way I play your game? Why?

Why do you run and hide from me? What would you have me say in response to your questions that would make you feel happy and satisfied? I don't get it.

If you are "uninterested in arguing about completely uncontentious things." what are you doing?

Tell me what you are interested in. Tell me what you are doing. Tell me what you are talking about.

Morals

I think "morals" are simply having a sense of what is right and wrong. It's not about having opinions of what is "good or bad" imposed upon us by others.

As a small child I 'felt' that killing an animal was wrong. Nobody told me it was. I lived on a farm and we had to kill animals because we ate chickens and rabbits etc. I had to learn that killing a chicken was "acceptable" because we had to eat. But my instinct and my feelings caused me to feel bad, sad, even horrified about it.

And of course I feel it would be pointless to suggest that "morals" might come from our spiritual side, our higher self, or from what we have learned from our many past lives, or from "God" or any such unprovable thing like that. I know where that conversation would lead because I have been down that road many times with both atheists and Christians.

Its all opinions anyway, and yes, everything pretty much is an opinion or point of view. That's just the way it is.