Logical Syllogism for the objectivity of morality

1) If some area of life is not objective, then that area of life cannot be said to progress.

2) Morality can progress

3) Therefore Morality is objective.

I am using the word in progress in the sense to make something better or closer to truth. So for example Science can progress as it gets closer to more correct description of reality. Mathematics progresses as we get closer to the correct answer of a math problem. Morality progresses when get closer that which is actually Right or Good. I have just started playing with this syllogism. i know its form is good, but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
1) If some area of life is not objective, then that area of life cannot be said to progress.

2) Morality can progress

3) Therefore Morality is objective.

What an absolute load of crap!
There is no 'logic' in a mind all infected with 'beliefs'! The more/stronger 'beliefs', the less cognitive ability! It's symptomatic!
Claiming 'objectivity' is akin to "everyone does it", which didn't work for mommy and don't work for anyone capable of thought!
It is a pathetic attempt to distance you from the responsibility of your sin!

There is no such thing as 'objectivity', and as for your disgusting 'morality';

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!

You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"

You have problems making friends. Don't you?

Didn't work for mommy? Does that mean she died giving birth to you or from an overdose? You seem angry.
a reply to: namelesss

a reply to: DickBrisket

You sound the angry one when one cant point to the ludicrous hypothesis of the thread subject. First you have to establish that the Matrix of our reality that keeps the demiurge in business is Mankind's biggest threat.

After you remove your blinkers then you may just for a moment allow some light in as to acknowledge nameless is pretty much clued up in his critique.

a reply to: namelesss

Claiming 'objectivity' is akin to "everyone does it", which didn't work for mommy and don't work for anyone capable of thought!
It is a pathetic attempt to distance you from the responsibility of your sin!

No that is no where near what most people mean when they say objectivity. Most people dont mean something everyone does or agrees to. What they mean is something that is a certain way independent of human opinion. For example, 2+2=4 independent of human opinion or the physical layout of Washington D.C.

What about speaking of an objectively good and bad values is an attempt to distance one from sin? It isn't until one recognizes that there is a Moral Law that one can even understand the concept of sin, and why oneself would be classified as such. You throw the word logic around, but you are not using it..

a reply to: DickBrisket

He does seem rather hostile for what I thought was a polite simple post asking people for their opinions.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Just because measuring suffering objectively is hard for humans do not mean there is not right or wrong answers. Some people try to make morality all relative since they do not want to be measured based on a real morality scale and come up short. Some souls go the other way and do everything they can to measure as much as possible to not cause harm.

Both moral relativism and subjective morality without measurement lead to blindness instead of awareness.

It is like driving a car where the road in not straight while keeping your eyes closed. The ones who do not see (measure) where they are on the road will fall of the road.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I would call this a lesson in objective thinking vs subjective thinking. Removing ones plank in the own eye to measure what is before you say "what is". There are also reference to "the mirror" and how things will be reflected.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: DickBrisket

He does seem rather hostile for what I thought was a polite simple post asking people for their opinions.

I agree with both your starting post and this answer.

Do not let them bother you. Nameless does that to anyone who say one view is more correct than another and cannot handle that one view can be right and anyone else be wrong. Do not work well with logic or math.

Nameless have a long history of posting on the subject of objectivity/subjectivity and he do not accept that objectivity exist and instead invented that all subjective answers are equally true. We should tolerate that all views are equally true while at the same time not tolerate that all view cannot be equally true. Complete Cognitive dissonance.

From my point of view there is only one single all spanning truth that includes all information on what was/is/will be including the information on how souls viewed/view/will view creation that can change in real time. Measuring is the way to verify false subjectivity and move towards objectivity.

originally posted by: DickBrisket
You have problems making friends. Don't you?

Didn't work for mommy? Does that mean she died giving birth to you or from an overdose? You seem angry.
a reply to: namelesss

Gee Dick, if you have something to say, let's hear it.
So far, making unhappy mewling sounds of displeasure is not an 'argument'.
It is, rather, an affirmation!
You sound sad, and devoid of intelligent argument...
Have a nice night.

...

originally posted by: LittleByLittle

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: DickBrisket

He does seem rather hostile for what I thought was a polite simple post asking people for their opinions.

I agree with both your starting post and this answer.

Do not let them bother you. Nameless does that to anyone who say one view is more correct than another and cannot handle that one view can be right and anyone else be wrong. Do not work well with logic or math.

Nameless have a long history of posting on the subject of objectivity/subjectivity and he do not accept that objectivity exist and instead invented that all subjective answers are equally true. We should tolerate that all views are equally true while at the same time not tolerate that all view cannot be equally true. Complete Cognitive dissonance.

Is it safer for you to talk about me rather than offer what intellect that you might possess in furtherance of an argument or refutation?
When did I settle your hash that you need to ambush me?
How pathetic...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: namelesss

Claiming 'objectivity' is akin to "everyone does it", which didn't work for mommy and don't work for anyone capable of thought!
It is a pathetic attempt to distance you from the responsibility of your sin!

No that is no where near what most people mean when they say objectivity. Most people dont mean something everyone does or agrees to. What they mean is something that is a certain way independent of human opinion. For example, 2+2=4 independent of human opinion or the physical layout of Washington D.C.

Typical example of so called 'objectivity', but not so!
2 + 2 ONLY equals 4 under very specific conditions!
Under other conditions, 2+2 = other answers.
For example, only in BASE TEN does 2+2=4!
So, once again, it is up to unique Perspectives as to what is the 'locally correct' answer to what is 2+2?

What about speaking of an objectively good and bad values is an attempt to distance one from sin?

Since you asked the question, I'll answer it (even you go on to answer it yourself;
Saying that 'everyone does it' is an attempt to distance you from individual responsibility for your actions!
Capisce'?
"Don't judge your friends, Johnny!"
"But mom, everyone does it!"
Every individual Xtian is told not to judge others and the responsibility is uniquely individual.
Even saying that everyone in the Universe does it will not absolve one...
What is the Forbidden Fruit?
It is the 'Fruit' from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!
Every time you so judge others, you are taking a fresh bite of (biblical) sin, and nailing up Jesus again!
To say that everyone does it is futility, and untrue.
For anything to be 'objective' it would have to be the absolute totality of Universal Reality, and there is no eye that can see that, no individual unique Perspective that can ever perceive that!
All there is left are unique 'subjective' Perspectives of subjectively perceived bits and pieces of Reality!

It isn't until one recognizes that there is a Moral Law that one can even understand the concept of sin, and why oneself would be classified as such.

The 'moral law' is that morality itself is the sin, as I have shown!
As a Xtian, you are not to 'judge', you are supposed to Love!
Want to argue that?
Want to argue for the practice of nibbling on your Forbidden Fruit?
Going to stun me with your 'believer logic'?

(I understand how that Truth gets some panties all awad, but that's... tough! *__- )

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: LittleByLittle

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: DickBrisket

He does seem rather hostile for what I thought was a polite simple post asking people for their opinions.

I agree with both your starting post and this answer.

Do not let them bother you. Nameless does that to anyone who say one view is more correct than another and cannot handle that one view can be right and anyone else be wrong. Do not work well with logic or math.

Nameless have a long history of posting on the subject of objectivity/subjectivity and he do not accept that objectivity exist and instead invented that all subjective answers are equally true. We should tolerate that all views are equally true while at the same time not tolerate that all view cannot be equally true. Complete Cognitive dissonance.

Is it safer for you to talk about me rather than offer what intellect that you might possess in furtherance of an argument or refutation?
When did I settle your hash that you need to ambush me?
How pathetic...

In an ambush stealth is used. There is no stealth involved since I was sure you would read it. But I already know that logical direct communication with you is futile since you are more interested in arguing your view than listen to people who point out flaws in your ideas. You have already made clear that to you all things are subjective so objectivity do not exists. And when a person view is that something do not exists it can never seek to understand it.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I would say morality is objective from a religious dogma point of view (which could also be argued as a subjective point of view), but progressive, no...I would say 'stagnant'.

Is it moral objectivity for the Roman Catholic church to continually disallow women equal rights to become priests, bishops, and, yes, ultimately a pope?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

while inductive reasoning will almost always end in the revelation of truth. Syllogism reasons but comes to conclusions that are not based on validity or truth.

It is like fake news, it has things in it that may be true and one uses Syllogism in understanding it ends up allowing their personal objectiveness to cloud out the truth or the validity or non validity to the story. Usually concluding the story is true even if the facts don't support it. i.i trumps so called golden showers.

a reply to: namelesss

Typical example of so called 'objectivity', but not so! 2 + 2 ONLY equals 4 under very specific conditions! Under other conditions, 2+2 = other answers. For example, only in BASE TEN does 2+2=4! So, once again, it is up to unique Perspectives as to what is the 'locally correct' answer to what is 2+2?

It is a typical example because it is simple. This objection does nothing to show that mathematics is not objective. First, all bases start off with n^0 which gives you the ones place. So what base you are working in is irrelevant with a simple math problem involving two single digit numbers. Second, if math were not objective you would not be able to realize that certain problems would have different answers if you were to change the base of the numbers.

Since you asked the question, I'll answer it (even you go on to answer it yourself; Saying that 'everyone does it' is an attempt to distance you from individual responsibility for your actions! Capisce'?

Saying everyone is sins is honest.

For anything to be 'objective' it would have to be the absolute totality of Universal Reality, and there is no eye that can see that, no individual unique Perspective that can ever perceive that!

"Absolute totality of Universal Reality," there you go redefining what most people mean by objective. For something to be objective reality simply has to be that way independent of human opinion. Math is this way. Changing the base of the number changes how the sign vehicles are read but the new reading is still just as objective.

You seem to consider me judging myself and introspecting within my own life and experiences and coming to the conclusion that there is a real moral law is judging others in some way.

I don't really describe morality as being very objective, other then focusing on the Golden Rule. I still feel like measuring our selves, and working on behaving better has it's rewards.

I guess I objectify this perspective by looking at practicing the virtues as a way to up your hp/mp in a role playing game....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Saying everyone is sins is honest.

then there is no meeting of minds...you started with morality and the meaning of truth...but couldnt wait to throw in "sin".

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: namelesss

Typical example of so called 'objectivity', but not so! 2 + 2 ONLY equals 4 under very specific conditions! Under other conditions, 2+2 = other answers. For example, only in BASE TEN does 2+2=4! So, once again, it is up to unique Perspectives as to what is the 'locally correct' answer to what is 2+2?

It is a typical example because it is simple. This objection does nothing to show that mathematics is not objective. First, all bases start off with n^0 which gives you the ones place. So what base you are working in is irrelevant with a simple math problem involving two single digit numbers.

You are quibbling to distract from the subject.
And in 'base 16', '10' = '16'!
So telling me that 2=2 always equals 4, in any corner of the Universe, at any moment, is simply incorrect.
One pile of sand + another pile of sand added to it produced one pile of sand.
Take three piles of sand from one pile of sand, what's left?
One pile.
Or none.

For something to be 'objective', it would have to be seen to be true from all Perspectives.
Besides, it is still true that 'morality', the fine sinful art of judging other people, has NO Universal pretense as even in the bible (that which you seem to accept as Universal), whether of the new or the old testaments, we are specifically warned against the vanity of such egoic judgments.
Although the new testament shows us the 'new' direction to head where the 'old' defines the behavior not to engage in, it doesn't go into the fruits thereof, but it goes into the (Forbidden) Fruits to avoid!

"Absolute totality of Universal Reality," there you go redefining what most people mean by objective. For something to be objective reality simply has to be that way independent of human opinion.

Whereas each and every human, every Perspective, every Soul, at every moment, is "unique",
Whereas not anything is perceived to exist without the observation by Perspective of Consciousness,
Whereas every mystic has known and modern science (quantum mechanics) has demonstrated that the "observer" (the unique individual Perspective) and the "observed" are inherently one and the same thing!
That the 'subjectivity' of a valid unique Perspective is the only way that (anything) We/the Universe/ God, can be Known!

The bottom line remains, of course;

When all that possibly can exist, be Reality/Truth, is 'God/Self!' (One! Omni-!), Whom, exactly, are you 'judging' (rather than Loving)?

Of course, that goes as well for 'oneSelf'! *__-

"What a man loves, he is. If he loves a stone he is that stone, if he loves a person he is that person, if he loves God - nay, I durst not say more; were I to say, he is God, he might stone me. I do but teach you the scriptures." - Meister Eckhart

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
But I already know that logical direct communication with you is futile since you are more interested in arguing your view than listen to people who point out flaws in your ideas.

Hey brother, here I am!
Please, point out what you consider 'flaws' in my 'argument', and I can see how well you understand what I say.
Do I get to elucidate you if I see that you do not understand something as I meant, or shall I silently condone such ignorance? *__-

You have already made clear that to you all things are subjective so objectivity do not exists. And when a person view is that something do not exists it can never seek to understand it.

Oh no, I said that everything exists!
And can demonstrate that.
'Objectivity'