You need to understand the purpose of morality to arrive at an objective moral standard and objective virtues. Morality is objective.
You need to understand the purpose of morality to arrive at an objective moral standard and objective virtues. Morality is objective.
arguing with relativists is pointless. not having the constraints of logic allows them to make up anything they want. the conflation of logic as a dynamic derived from natural law, and the internal logic of a system constructed of subjectivity seems to be the crux of this. the intellectually honest will eventually see the truth. the rest will believe whatever they want. true believers are not to be convinced otherwise.
What the fuck you are talking about?
How can you be absolute in a world you can barely understand of even grasp? Do you think philosophy is just shoving your head up your ass the being absolute about things? Almost everything you know and understand comes from another source. Every single input comes from sources beyond your control that begins with your genes and ends with your limited senses.
The intellectually honest accept ignorance since day by day what you know as true changes. If you dount any of this check history.
You are the true believee. The absolutist, the "objectivist" that does not allow room for doubt.
i wasn't trying to be a jerk. i probably failed. i'm good at that.
@mughat
-1-People understand the same purpose differently based on their own unique perspectives.
-2-Nothing is objective in this world. I dare you to find one thing that is objective.
-3-Virtues are not objective (e.g being fat for some is not a virtue, for others it is).
Again. the fact that we disagree proves my point.
"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.
The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html