Lets define ownership: is stealing food – not stealing?

Lets define ownership: is stealing food – not stealing?


Hey guys, I got some interesting feedback on my last article Lets define ownership: a lesson in morality and logic

Jeff from the caveat lector thinks there are problems in my argument and he disagrees with my point. You can read his response to my original post here Jeff’s response.

Now you can go on and read the Jeff’s response and my responses on Jeff’s post, to it; but for the sake of you guys, I thought I’d share this with you too. I am just going to copy past a few lines from Jeff’s response which I believe are his main points, you can read the rest yourself.  I believe Jeff made two points.

1. You provide an example of a morally normative statement: stealing is not good.

Next, you provide an example of what you call stealing: “taking, because you are starving, food you do not own”.

For the sake of it, I will agree that stealing is not good. However, I will disagree that “taking, because you are starving, food you do not own” is not an example of stealing.

Therefore, we have differing definitions of stealing.

and

2. In your post, you aim to use the law of non-contradiction to demonstrate that subjective morality is illogical. However, you do this by implicitly positioning your definition of stealing as the objectively accurate definition of stealing. Upon doing so, you then claim that my definition contradicts yours, breaking the law of non-contradiction and showing that objective morality is true.

My argument is that this is begging the question. You are placing objectivity in your premise to come to the conclusion of objectivity. This would be fallacious.

Here’s my response.

Hey Jeff, thanks for clearing things up. I don’t suppose we’ll agree on all things but still…anyway to get to the point.

I don’t rally think you disagree with me, in fact I’d say we agree agree on the act of stealing but not the motive. My position is that the motive for stealing has no effect on the act.

Stealing is simply “taking another’s property without his consent”. I don’t think there is any definition which basically differs from this. karen’s argument only holds when you introduce things like “pleasure or whim”. Else it doesn’t and is internally inconsistent.

Taking food and taking food without the person’s permission to whom that food belongs, are two different things.

When someone say “I stole because I was hungry”, right there, they agree with me. They stole. To bring the motive with it, is extra luggage right here. I can understand why someone stole food. I can also see why that is “not bad” for those who are starving. But to say that stealing food is not stealing food, is again violation of the law of NC. Stealing is stealing because you took something which is not yours and that too without the owner’s consent.

I work for people in labor camps around Pakistan, very poor people. I hope I post photos sometime soon, you might like to see our work but anyway, a lot of people are desperate and sometimes some people steal, some tell me fake stories and ask for money. There are times when I know they are really not telling the truth but I still give them that money because I know they are in need. And yet, their lie does not become the truth just because they are in need.

You can say stealing food is not stealing food when you are desperate, I would disagree. I do not think that it is a stable consistent logic.

As I said earlier my point was never that there are no subjective realities, there are. I just do not think they are consistent and good grounds for stable definitions.

****
On a side note. Until your last post, I guess the definition of stealing was pretty obvious, I didn’t know you would disagree. I mean if you are going to go with your argument then I would just say that the “question begging fallacy” point would cut both ways. I can say that you are presuming subjectivity to begin with and then proving it all the same. See…:)

Anyways, thanks and I hope we discuss more.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Lets define ownership: is stealing food – not stealing?

  1. Morality or ethics is always subjective (tied to the observer’s frame of reference point) and it is always context sensitive (each observer need not have the same frame of reference). This discussion is not properly setting the frame of reference, at least your argument is not. You are using a universal or objective frame of reference.

    That simply is not the case in the real world. For instance, the socialist and the capitalist have very different frames of reference as to what is community property and what is not, who owns what and who can own what. What you are suggesting is that there is a universal view of what can be owned and how.

    To test that, ask yourself who owns responsibility for feeding the hungry? Is the correct answer ‘the hungry people’ or is it ‘we all do’ or is it something in between those two? Now pick one frame of reference and ask yourself about stealing to feed your family. Now pick another frame of reference and ask the question again.

    For two people to share a moral judgement requires that they both have the same frame of reference AND have the same subjective view of right and wrong. Such is not impossible but IS improbable that it will continue to happen continuously for any non-trivial length of time.

    Nothing in the real world or human experience suggests that objective morality is true. You mistake a coincidental sharing of frame of references over time as objectivity. It is demonstrably wrong to do so, in my opinion.

    Hey, wait. Isn’t my statements defining morality only subjective? Isn’t it then impossible for me to define morality if not everyone shares my frame of reference? I did not define morality as confined by a frame of reference, only that it is defined by the observers frame of reference. My definition holds for every observer despite morality being different for every observer.

    If your frame of reference says that stealing to feed your starving child is wrong, does your frame of reference also say that it is wrong for someone to have food and not feed the starving children? Do two wrongs balance out? Do we forgive the one while we forgive the other?

    Objective morality does not exist. Your insistence that it does is nothing more than you insisting that we all use your frame of reference because you think you’re right and we’re wrong. Well, you’re wrong. Why yes, yes I can say that. If it offends you I suggest you go get another frame of reference.

    1. Gah, I hit the button too soon.

      Let’s say that you and I share a common frame of reference: Christianity as defined by the KJV. You then tell me that slavery is wrong and I say that it is not wrong. Is that subjectivity or a difference in frame of reference? We’re both KJV Christians yet hold differing views on slavery. Where is the objective morality?

      Oh wait, are you going to tell me that I’m interpreting it wrong? I say that everyone who claims there is objective morality is unable by their own ‘objective’ morality to show that it exists.

      1. About slavery…

        well, first of all I would say that we throw the Bibles aside. Morality does not originate from the Bible. It is referenced in the Bible but it originates with God. And that’s the problem with people on both sides, they just cite verses and think they are right. Well that does not help. And its the wrong way to use it. The O.T is filled with subjective morals too because they were given to Israel alone, not the whole world.

        Objective morality may or may not exist, that we still have to find out…but get this, subjective morality simply sucks. And because it sucks, I think being logically consistent demands that objectivity must exist. How’s that for a frame of reference. 😉

        1. Okay, so you’re saying that we can’t have the same frame of reference because morality comes for god. Whose god? Your god? That other guy’s god? Allah? How does that help anything here? Are you saying that morality hinges on your interpretation of what you think you god says is moral? Talk about inconsistent. Unless I’ve totally misunderstood you, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

          “…that’s the problem with people on both sides, they just cite verses and think they are right”

          But isn’t this exactly what you have done when you say

          “well, first of all I would say that we throw the Bibles aside. Morality does not originate from the Bible.”

          This is the same as saying you’re version of morality is wrong because I interpret the source of morality differently than you.

          Aren’t you simply proving that morality is always subjective?

          You say that the OT was given to Israel but doesn’t apply to anyone else. Does the Jesus story say that he came to change the law or that he came to fulfil it and that not one iota of it will change until all has come to pass? So there we are, your interpretation of scripture is more right than anyone else’s … isn’t that how it goes?

          Subjective morality does not suck. Existence sucks. People suck. Anyone that doesn’t agree with me sucks.

          Who. Told. You. That. Life. Is. Fair. ???

          Logical consistency does not demand that objective morality exists.

          Subjective morality produces inconsistent results but is not itself inconsistent. First apply a frame of reference, then apply a set of facts with regard to context. If we two share a frame of reference and a consistent set of facts with regard to context we will find morally equivalent judgements. If any of the context or frame of reference contains differences the result will be different. Moral judgements are not the simple application of simple rules and that is where you mess things up. Life is neither simple nor fair.

          Subjective morality is a consistent process. It is the inputs to that process which are inconsistent and which necessitate inconsistent results. Objective morality fails because it cannot account for inconsistent inputs.

          Objective morality says it is always wrong to kill. Unless god says to kill. This simply means that morality is subjective but that all humans are subject to your god’s subjective morality so it seems objective as we all then share a frame of reference and ignore the context.

          Anyone who claims that there is objective morality does not show consistency in their explanation of it. That includes you.

          1. I did not bring religion into this. You did. I simply said that within Christian theology, objective morality does not originates with the Bible, but from the concept of God – it was necessary to make that distinction, since you assume too soon too often.

            This argument is philosophical, my original post does not say, objectivity exists because God does, I said, objectivity exists because logically the laws of logic demand it.

            And by the way, calm down. No reason to be so excited. There is nothing ground breaking that you bringing here. The debate you are participating in is very old and has been debated by great minds for thousands of years.

            All of your post shows one thing, that you subjectively think that subjectively morality exists. If that is so then why should I treat your opinion as “Objective”…meaning you can be wrong too. Hey, it’s subjective right? It self destructs. If there is nothing really true about your statement than relativity then its subjective and I may indeed reject it on all grounds.

            You can not prove subjectivity while appealing to subjectivity also. It is internally inconsistent.

          2. Do you even realize what you are saying here. You can take your time to analyze what you write.

            “Logical consistency does not demand that objective morality exists.”

            If there is no opposing truth to a proposed truth then the proposed truth is objective because nothing negates it.

            “Subjective morality produces inconsistent results but is not itself inconsistent.”
            This is the biggest oxymoron I know of.

            “Objective morality fails because it cannot account for inconsistent inputs.”
            Where it was inconsistent, it was subjective, and if you do not have an objective, how do you even know its subjective? How do you know life is not fair, what is fair? How did you make a comparison? is it not an objective thought of fair and happiness that you are comparing it too.

            How do you know when someone lies about something? because you know the opposite to be true.

            I have seen people who say we never landed on the moon, you can not say objective facts do not exist because some people will always give the wrong facts. But this is exactly what you are doing here. You are saying just because some people violated objective morality, means it does not exist. I see no warrant for such a claim.

            1. I compose both replies in this one:

              ==objective morality does not originates with the Bible, but from the concept of God==
              The concept of god is a subjective thing. Whose god? What version of that god? Who said that gods can exist? Prove that gods could exist, then prove that your god exists, then we can talk.

              ==This argument is philosophical==
              Aren’t all arguments philosophical in the end?

              ==objectivity exists because logically the laws of logic demand it.==
              No they do not. Prove it. Logic does not demand that all contexts be the same, nor that all people see the facts in the same light/context. So different people using the same logic principles do not need to come to the same logical conclusion. Logic does not demand objectivity. Logically we can objectively say that all actions have a result. We cannot say that all actions have a good or a bad result. The judgement of good/bad is subjective.

              ==And by the way, calm down. No reason to be so excited. There is nothing ground breaking that you bringing here. The debate you are participating in is very old and has been debated by great minds for thousands of years.==
              So what? Are you saying that I cannot possibly have a new insight? Is such a thought logical?

              ==All of your post shows one thing, that you subjectively think that subjectively morality exists. If that is so then why should I treat your opinion as “Objective”…meaning you can be wrong too. Hey, it’s subjective right? ==
              I have not said that I’m absolutely right. I’ve said that objective morality does not exist. But you conflate moral judgement with logical truth. In this you are wrong. They do not have to be the same thing. If you say that logically harming another life is bad, it is a moral judgement. It works in some cases but not all. Shooting someone in the head is bad. Shooting someone in the head who is trying to rape your wife/daughter/son is not bad. Logically, you have harmed a life. Morally you have not done wrong. Logic and morality are not the same thing.

              ==It self destructs. If there is nothing really true about your statement than relativity then its subjective and I may indeed reject it on all grounds.==
              You can make as many subjective judgements as you wish. This does not prove that objective morality exists. Your rejection of subjectivity does not infer, never mind prove, that objective morality exists, and is in fact a subjective statement.

              ==You can not prove subjectivity while appealing to subjectivity also. It is internally inconsistent.==
              I do not find it internally inconsistent. I did not prove that subjectivity exists. I said it is what is left when there is no proof for objectivity. There is a huge difference. Without proof of objectivity we are left with subjectivity… unless you have another option(s).

              ==If there is no opposing truth to a proposed truth then the proposed truth is objective because nothing negates it.==
              This statement is neither logical nor true. It assumes that a thing/truth is either objective or it is false. To be true we have to define truth. Good luck with that one. The statement “the Mona Lisa is a great painting” is both true and false. If no one says that it is not a great painting does not make it objectively a great painting. We have not defined what a ‘great painting’ is in this case. The statement is subjective even without opposing truth.

              ==“Subjective morality produces inconsistent results but is not itself inconsistent.”
              This is the biggest oxymoron I know of.==
              Your knowledge is not the sum total of all knowledge. Your judgement is not equal to truth. It is subjective, not objective.

              ==“Objective morality fails because it cannot account for inconsistent inputs.”
              Where it was inconsistent, it was subjective, and if you do not have an objective, how do you even know its subjective? How do you know life is not fair, what is fair? How did you make a comparison? is it not an objective thought of fair and happiness that you are comparing it too.==

              I am not the one who decided that a thing is either objective or subjective. It is a definition. If a thing is not objective it is subjective. For anything you can say is objective, I can show it to be not objective and therefor subjective. Even universal agreement among humans about a thing does not guarantee that it is universally agreed among all life. I do not require, nor do you, an objective value system to survive and thrive. I need only to have a value system. Without proof of an objective value system all values are subjective. I do not think there is a definition for anyting in between objective and subjective. I’m not saying that because some things are subjective all things are… I’m saying that there is no proof that anything is objective.

              ==How do you know when someone lies about something? because you know the opposite to be true.==
              What does this have to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity?

              ==You are saying just because some people violated objective morality, means it does not exist. I see no warrant for such a claim.==
              What then do you define as objective morality? Is it not a morality that exists for all life, in all places, at all times? If it is not universally true for all life in all places and in all times, is it objective? Are we to have this discussion based on your subjective definitions of things?

            2. ***I compose both replies in this one:

              ==objective morality does not originates with the Bible, but from the concept of God==
              The concept of god is a subjective thing. Whose god? What version of that god? Who said that gods can exist? Prove that gods could exist, then prove that your god exists, then we can talk.

              ==This argument is philosophical==
              Aren’t all arguments philosophical in the end?

              ==objectivity exists because logically the laws of logic demand it.==
              No they do not. Prove it. Logic does not demand that all contexts be the same, nor that all people see the facts in the same light/context. So different people using the same logic principles do not need to come to the same logical conclusion. Logic does not demand objectivity. Logically we can objectively say that all actions have a result. We cannot say that all actions have a good or a bad result. The judgement of good/bad is subjective.***

              Prove it? I think you get the wrong impression. There is no such thing as a definitive proof for either case. The question is far from settled. Can you prove morals evolved without speculation and just evidence? You can not. Neither can I.

              All arguments may be philosophical in the end but this one has nothing to do with God. I never took credence on my original statement from God. So I suggest just we get back to the point and not be de-railed. My argument here has nothing to do with God.

              **So what? Are you saying that I cannot possibly have a new insight? Is such a thought logical?**
              You can, though I haven’t seen one yet.

              **I have not said that I’m absolutely right. I’ve said that objective morality does not exist. **

              Then be consistent and admit that you can wrong here too.

              **But you conflate moral judgement with logical truth.**
              Define logical? define truth? define moral? and how do you know these terms do not mean something different that what you hold to.

              **In this you are wrong.**
              May be…but I have yet to see how.

              They do not have to be the same thing. If you say that logically harming another life is bad, it is a moral judgement. It works in some cases but not all. Shooting someone in the head is bad. Shooting someone in the head who is trying to rape your wife/daughter/son is not bad. Logically, you have harmed a life. Morally you have not done wrong. Logic and morality are not the same thing.**

              I never said they are the same thing.

              **You can make as many subjective judgements as you wish. This does not prove that objective morality exists. Your rejection of subjectivity does not infer, never mind prove, that objective morality exists, and is in fact a subjective statement.**

              And when you say “objective morality does not exist”, is that an objective statement or subjective one?

              **This statement is neither logical nor true. It assumes that a thing/truth is either objective or it is false. To be true we have to define truth. Good luck with that one. The statement “the Mona Lisa is a great painting” is both true and false. If no one says that it is not a great painting does not make it objectively a great painting. We have not defined what a ‘great painting’ is in this case. The statement is subjective even without opposing truth.**

              2+2=4, is not a matter of opinion.

              let me ask the question again
              Is it wrong to torture babies for fun? is this true always?
              if yes why? if no, why not?

              **Your knowledge is not the sum total of all knowledge. Your judgement is not equal to truth. It is subjective, not objective.**

              Is that you subjective knowledge making a statement here?

              **Are we to have this discussion based on your subjective definitions of things?**
              If its all subjective, I do not see any reason why I should prefer your definitions upon mine. care to disagree?

    2. Why on earth would it offend me? I suggest, neither you be offended because that will just waste my time and yours.

      Appealing to society is not going to help you much. I mean, people may have differing beliefs. yet there is such a thing as true and false. Either 2+2=4 or it is not, it can not be both. I mean there are people out there who think the earth is flat would you allow your reference frame point to be taken as valid in that case as well? Now don’t revert to the “these are facts” card, cuz if you do, I suggest then you also open up a dictionary and see whats written below the word “theft”.

      On the contrary, humans beings routinely show that they understand that objectivity exists, they just don’t admit on its origins.
      Is it fun to torture infants? Ask yourself this, if this happens in the world, anywhere, cuba, jamaica, england, india, would you find it wrong in all instances? regardless of who does it or where it is done?

      You have not defined morality you have just reiterated how morals can be relative. I am not saying they can not, I am only saying that subjectivity is not consistent. Subjective frame of reference even if that sounds all warm and good, is still wrong. Go ahead, you can disagree but that does not change the idea that stealing is stealing. No matter how noble one’s motives are, two wrongs do not make a right.

      Tell me this, would like this explanation of yours, be used by a burglar who robs your home, in his defense?

  2. Hi John,

    Thank you for the continued discussion.

    I think you are focusing on the wrong part of my response. In your initial post, you said, “I think objective morality exists because the simple rules of logic, by deductive reasoning, demand it.”

    My response was that you did not successfully defend this statement because the argument you made for this statement begged the question. It used circular logic. It assumed the conclusion in the premise.

    It is important to note: the part of your initial post that discussed whether or not stealing food to feed your starving family was wrong preceded the statement I have taken issue with.

    Regarding stealing food, I certainly understand the point you made in your original post. There was nothing controversial about it: let’s assume stealing is objectively wrong. If we define stealing as “taking another’s property without his consent,” then taking food without permission (even for the understandable reason of avoiding starvation) is stealing and wrong.

    So, let’s set that aside. Again, the statement I have taken issue with is “I think objective morality exists because the simple rules of logic, by deductive reasoning, demand it.”

    Your argument in support of this was:

    I will propose an objective moral–> Subjective morality says that this moral can be good and not good at the same time–> This breaks the Law of Non-Contradiction–> Therefore objective morality must be true.

    The reason I argue that you have proposed an objective moral, even though you said that you were scrapping objective and subjective, is that you insist on an objective definition of this moral. So, insert any moral you want. When you insist it has an objective definition, you are establishing objectivity in your premise. Once you do this, you cannot argue from this objectivity to the existence of objectivity. You’ve already assumed it in your premise.

    Here, in this post, you have noted “You can say stealing food is not stealing food when you are desperate, I would disagree. I do not think that it is a stable consistent logic.” In my hypothetical alternative definition, you quote me with, “taking, because you are starving, food you do not own is not an example of stealing.” You will note, I did not say “stealing food is not stealing food when you are desperate.” I said, “taking, because you are starving, food you do not own is not stealing.” So, no matter how intuitively similar these two definitions are, you cannot insist that my hypothetical definition of stealing is the same as your definition of stealing unless you are appealing to an objective definition of stealing.

    The point to focus on is: “unless you are appealing to an objective definition of stealing.” I am not trying to quibble on definitions of stealing. My proposed definition of stealing only serves the purpose of establishing another definition of stealing. I proposed it to demonstrate how you are insisting on an objective definition. I am not suggesting it because I think it is how we should define stealing.

    I need to establish that you are insisting on an objective definition because this is what I claim makes the argument you used to defend the statement “I think objective morality exists because the simple rules of logic, by deductive reasoning, demand it” circular and fallacious.

    You cannot start from an objectively defined form of stealing (or any moral that is objectively defined) to prove that objectivity exists. You have already assumed it in your premise. This is logically fallacious.

    Hopefully this clarifies my response.

    Regards,
    Jeff.

    1. Yes it does and thank you too for clarifying it in detail.

      To be honest, I think I made it clear how I ended up at that conclusion, when I said, lets start from zero. But let me try again.

      When we scrap aside, objectivity and subjectivity. any proposition, either mine or yours, is neutral and must be either true or false. Why I think so? because I think universal truths exist and truth can not be plural about contradictory propositions.

      This line of thinking represents the law of Non-Contradiction. I derived my conclusion from this. I am not injecting objectivity here. The law of NC demands that we be logically consistent about which ever approach we take. if my proposition is true, then it is true all the way, if its false, its false all the way. Take your pick.

      If you pick the “true” line of thinking then stealing is wrong, and it is wrong in all scenarios.

      If stealing not wrong, and you pick the “false” state of my proposition then stealing is never wrong. Because with in each line of thinking you have to be consistent or the rule of logic is violated.

      Practical world is far from perfect but we still recognize oppression and terrorism and hunger and famine as bad, universally. Why? what is inherently wrong with all these things.

      Do you think the Holocaust was bad? I am sure you do, but the Nazi’s thought otherwise, yet everyone would agree that despite what the Nazi’s thought we know something was indeed wrong about the Holocaust and the Nazi’s definition and defense of it does not convince us.

      To be honest I do not think we should mix epistemology and ontology here. Frankly I see people often who claim that morality is subjective and yet support objective notions.

      For example, is it wrong to torture babies for fun? in any given scenario?

      Please allow yourself to indulge this question for a while and please tell me that you would agree that it is wrong? If you do, please tell me, why do you think it would be ALWAYS wrong? You will see why I am saying so.

      Thank you and have a good day Jeff.

  3. Can’t some things be more right (or good) or more wrong (or bad), than others?

    *Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to an objective morality.*

    For example, would you agree that it would be “good” of me to spend an hour feeding the homeless at a local shelter? Would it be more good if I donated $1 million for the purpose of building a number of new shelters?

    Conversely, it would be “bad” if I punched you in the face, unprovoked. It would much more bad if I murdered you unprovoked.

    So, is stealing “wrong.” Yes, in the sense that it is not a desirable occurrence as it forcibly takes something from its owner without the owners consent. However, I think there’s a gradient scale of the wrongness of theft. If I steal bread from a grocery store to feed my family, it is wrong but it is justifiable. If, as the financial guy at my local church, I embezzle thousands of dollars because I want to golf more…that’s a different scenario.

    1. Andrew, I am not negating that subjectivity or relativity does not exist, I am saying, in principle this is unstable and unreliable.

      I have asked this question to everyone since morning who has advocated a case for subjective morality and no one has given me an answer.

      Is it wrong to torture infant babies for fun? is this true always, in any universe, in any world, any time?
      if yes why? if no, why not?

      Since you also subscribe to subjective morals, how do you see this?

      1. I can only comment on our world and our universe, in the context of mankind (humans). I cannot begin to conceive how an alternate or separate universe may function.

        However, within our own universe…yes, it is wrong to torture infant babies for fun.

        To borrow an analogy from Sam Harris, the “wrongness” or “rightness” we ascribe to various behaviors is linked to suffering or joy, respectively. His analogy illustrates that this is why we do not have a moral obligation to rocks.

        Infants can feel pain. Poke a baby with a pointy object and the nerves will transmit signals to the brain that are perceived as pain. We can agree that pain is an undesirable condition to experience. Now, some twisted people enjoy pain. The difference between them and the baby is consent. The baby cannot consent to being tortured, which means the torturer is inflicting unwelcome pain on another human.

        In summary, on Earth, among mankind, it is always true that torturing babies is wrong, for the reasons I illustrated above.

        Going out on a limb here…but if intelligent life does indeed exist somewhere else in our universe, it is probably not human life. They’re entire function may not even be recognizable to us, which is why we can’t ascribe blanket rights and wrongs to encompass all things.

        Another analogy here on Earth. Is it wrong to eat an entire pizza and puke it into your child’s mouth for the purpose of feeding it? Of course. Yet other species do precisely that.

  4. John,

    We ran out of reply links, so here is the latest.

    Let me quote you:

    “…but get this, subjective morality simply sucks. And because it sucks, I think being logically consistent demands that objectivity must exist. How’s that for a frame of reference. ”

    “well, first of all I would say that we throw the Bibles aside. Morality does not originate from the Bible. It is referenced in the Bible but it originates with God.”

    and again:

    “All arguments may be philosophical in the end but this one has nothing to do with God. I never took credence on my original statement from God. So I suggest just we get back to the point and not be de-railed. My argument here has nothing to do with God.”

    Just because you think it sucks does not make it false. The truth hurts. Speaking of truth you have offered nothing in support of your argument that refutes what I’ve said. You’ve simply repeated yourself, contradicted yourself, and given me the literary equivalent of sticking your tongue out at me. You have tacitly acknowledged my point that morality is subjective and relies on both a frame of reference and context but continue to ignore the point with regard to defending your statements. Subjective morality does not suck. It simply is. Your subjective opinion is that it sucks, perhaps. But that is all. You continue to make no point, offer no argument, and seem interested only in arguing. I don’t think you actually have any form of argument to make. You seem to just be whining that you don’t like subjective morality. Get over it.

    Oh yeah, the torturing babies thing. Well, remember my claim about frame of reference and context? What kind of babies? Does life start at conception? What constitutes torture in this case? Depending on your answer, no, torturing babies is not wrong. I like them tortured with heat/fire, sometimes two or three a day … they’re tasty and I would argue nutritious.

  5. ==Your subjective opinion is that it sucks, perhaps. But that is all. You continue to make no point, offer no argument, and seem interested only in arguing. I don’t think you actually have any form of argument to make. You seem to just be whining that you don’t like subjective morality. Get over it.==

    Is that your subjective opinion or objective one?

    You know, I am glad you vented out at last, must have given you great comfort to have the last word, huh? enjoy it, might help you sleep better. I lost interest in your replies a bit earlier. The only one who seems to be taking it personal is you. If you can not control your anger or frustration, why argue in the first place?

    And about having no point, well I guess, the reason is that you had no answer for my questions. It is very easy to back out, spew hate and then avoid questions. You do it with rugged charm.

    Subjectivity still has problems, like it or not.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s