A perfect god can not exist?

That means that there is no use arguing about matters of taste. So, if whether chocolate ice-cream tastes better than vanilla is a matter of taste, then there is no use arguing about it. That means, I suppose, that there is no right or wrong about it. But is whether torturing babies is wrong a matter of taste? That's the question. What makes you think that it is?

If it weren't a matter of taste, what would it be a matter of? The height of the Statue of Liberty isn't a matter of taste, it's a matter of fact. Is morality a matter of fact?

You are assuming that either something is a matter of taste, and so there is no right or wrong about it, or something is a matter of fact.

Maybe matters of morality constitute a third category.

Is it a fact that the apple is red? Well yes. But is it a fact like the fact that the apple weighs so many ounces. Well no, it isn't. The redness of the apple is a kind of joint product between the apple and the person who perceives it.

No, I'm not. I offered those as two alternatives and asked if you had anymore. Please try to pay attention since I was careful not to imply that. I anticipated your pedantry but as usual, you were already on course to make your forced point. Either way, I don't want to get bogged down in what I said or didn't say. You've already forced the topic so let's get to it.



Maybe it is. I did ask you if it's not a matter of taste then what is it a matter of? I solicited you for alternatives. That's kind of the point of my asking.



So what about people with inverted spectra? They see green instead of red and so on. Are they wrong because they are in the minority? Argumentum ad populum? Or are they wrong because they aren't natural? Naturalistic fallacy?

That apple maybe really is red to you. But it also might really be green to me. That doesn't sound like objectivity. That sounds rather subjective.

if morality is relative then can you say that we've progressed morally at all since the time of slavery or barbarism? Heck can you even say you've progressed? You were right yesterday because you thought X was good and today you're still right because now you think X is false.

It would seem to me that anyone believing in the law of bivalence would see this cannot be so.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to espouse moral relativity. It seems quite obvious to me that some thing really are wrong all the time and some things really are right. Regardless of what society says or not

I suppose you can talk about moral progress relative to a particular society, but not universally, if moral relativity is true. Can't you?

What makes you think that bi-valence applied to good and bad, or right and wrong, just because it applies to true and false?

I suppose that someone might want to espouse moral relativity because they do not have the same moral intuitions you have. And what seems obvious to you does not seem obvious to him. Isn't that a possibility?

it wouldn't be moral "progress" it would simply be moral "difference" or moral "change"

progress implies a moving forward, an advancing, being better than it was.

relativity would suggest they were just as right as we are. There is no such thing as "progress" for a moral relativist.

Because morality can be stated in the form of a proposition.
P1. Rape is always wrong.

Yes that is possible. But why would someone having a different moral intuition necessarily mean they would espouse moral relativity? I know there are people who have different moral intuitions than myself, and I also understand that either I or they are wrong since we can't be on opposite sides(of such a proposition) and both be right.

Eating ice-cream is neither right nor wrong.

isn't it though Ken.....isn't it?

if eating ice-cream is wrong I don't wanna be right

---------- Post added 04-22-2010 at 01:51 PM ----------

I still don't think it could be classified as progress. Change, yes. Progress, not so much. You were right when you felt slavery was right....you were also right when you felt it was wrong. Also one cannot judge another society because of these differences, but I posit that one cannot even judge one's self, nor ones own culture. Since any difference between you ''now'' and you ''then'' can be seen as ''you'' being a different person, if you will; same for one's own culture.

I also don't think anyone would state such a proposition about ice-cream(it wouldn't make sense to say eating ice-cream is right....would it?) but still. I also think that bivalence clearly states that ALL propositions must necessarily either be true or false....not neither and not both. If a proposition is not "wrong" then it must necessarily be right according to bivalence or vice versa.

Then I agree a person might

---------- Post added 04-22-2010 at 02:03 PM ----------


of course I suppose it's possible that such moral statements may not be classified as a proposition but as an opinion like saying today is a nice day. But I'm not schooled enough in such matters to know for sure

Today is a nice day is either true or false.

"today is a nice day" would not be classified as a proposition therefore. Correct? Rather, "today is a nice day", is not a proposition....right?

But why not? Today is a nice day. The sun is shining. It is in the high 60's. It is a true proposition.

I'm saying I don't know....I just looked something up on the web, becasue I don't know and it said that the sentence "Today is a nice day" is NOT a proposition. That's why I was asking. If it is then, fine. But if it is then it must necessarily be either true or false and cannot be both and cannot be neither. And it cannot change its value

Yes, I think that is right. What would that have to do with the sentence, torturing children is wrong, though?

You are trying to use something that is testable towards reality. Obviously a shape of something can be determined. However; moral objectiveness can not be determined because moral values are completely subjective. The same goes for you name example. You can test such a theory through questioning the person, their name, however; once again with moral values you can not determine their objectivity because they are not objective truths.If they are objective, prove it to me. You say the burden is on me, I say you are equally required to do so or state the case that moral values are objective truths.

I was simply critiquing my OWN viewpoint.

I said that since propositions are bivalent it must follow that morality is objective.

Because if I formulate a proposition:

P: Rape is always wrong.

Well not according to the bible. It says that you can rape a woman, so if it is clearly wrong, why does it promote it?

You are just begging the question. You say, "You cannot test their objectivity because they are not objective truths." That's not an argument. That's another logical fallacy.

Empirical testability is not a necessary condition for claim to have a truth-value.

You can't test the hypothesis you were once born, but does that mean there is no fact of the matter about your being born? No.

"Torturing babies is morally wrong" is not empirically testable, but it is more likely to be true than false--

So the burden is certainly on you to show otherwise. So far I haven't seen any arguments whatsoever. You just irrationally stipulate morality is subjective.

That means that there is no use arguing about matters of taste. So, if whether chocolate ice-cream tastes better than vanilla is a matter of taste, then there is no use arguing about it. That means, I suppose, that there is no right or wrong about it. But is whether torturing babies is wrong a matter of taste? That's the question. What makes you think that it is?