Again with the condescension. My main reason for stating that morality is subjective is the fact that it has changed over the years, while always being broadly consistent within the realm of society at the time. So what’s the most rational conclusion to draw, other than that morality reflects Zeitgeist?
Oh, ok. So mutual disagreement in any area is **evidence **that the claims made in that area are all
subjective and that there is no truth about the matter to be found. Scientists have disagreed for centuries, therefore scientists are making subjective claims about the world as if they were claims about which flavor of Ice-Cream was the best flavor. Lol! Therefore, we have no reason to believe that there is any objective fact of the matter corresponding to the claims that they DO make?
I would have expected better of you than to ask me to prove a negative, given your apparent grasp of logic.
Hahaha! “Morality is Subjective” is not a “positive” claim? All of the following are positive claims:
Morality is subjective
Morality is not objective
Morality doesn’t exist.
We lack evidence for the existence of morality
If we lack evidence for the existence of morality, then morality does not exist.
If people have disagreements about objective morality, then there is evidence that morality is subjective.
If people have disagreements about morality, then there is no reason for thinking objective morality exists.
But watch out what you claim since,
“If people have disagreements about which scientific theory is true, then there is no reason for thinking there is any true theory,”
would be equally plausible to believe if you think *disagreement *is evidence that what those disagreements are about no longer have any fact of the matter about them (or objectivity).
But none of these claims above are unfalsifiable or beyond the ken of empirical evidence and logical demonstration. Are you this presumptuous to think your own beliefs are immune from criticism?
If “Morality is Subjective” is not your claim, then tell me what your claim actually is, Sherlock, so I don’t get accused of putting words into your mouth again. This will involve expression your claim in the form of a definite and truth-valuable proposition so that we have no disagreements about what it is, exactly, that you are claiming. You are claiming something aren’t you?? Or are you not claiming anything at all??
Still, once a theist, always a theist, I suppose.
Once a Sherlock always a Sherlock, I suppose.
It’s generally accepted that ‘observation’ of a phenomenon includes observation of the effect of that phenomenon. So my position is entirely consistent.
Although we can’t see gravity, we understand how it works and to what extent, and we can apply this predictively to reaffirm our theory. We can glean enough evidence to make a correct prediction about the phenomenon, which enforces our theory.
Ok, but let’s take that further. The same evidence supports Newtonian Theory of Gravity too, and this theory makes equally accurate predictions based on that evidence. But Newton’s theory has been
falsified by further evidence. So again, if it is highly likely that STR and GTR are false too, what justification do you have for believing that the scientific method has anything to do with to pointing to the true nature of things? On what ground do you think scientific activity is even reliable in the first place???
You could take some of your own advice… Sherlock. Your arrogance shines through, and if ever something made someone look like they’re covering a lack of intelligence, it’s arrogance.
Oh yeah, and you’re Ghandi. Take the plank out of your own eye before taking the moral high-ground, Sherlock.
