>Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of
>pedantry).

thats all you can do>
>
>>>For example, if a community is
>>>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>>>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>>>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive.
>>This
>>>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>>>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>>>emotional thing to do.
>>
>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>that
>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>
>
>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.
>

>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!

do you actually know anything?

>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>about
>>the perceived, not the perception.

What is the difference?

The desired outcome. Whether a subjective interpretation or a rational objective truth.


>>No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about
>>"whether the light was on or not". We are talking about
>the
>>perceived, not the perception.


>>No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than
>>changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is
>>objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.

there is nothing to perceive. To see whether this light is on or not requires nothing more than sensory perception and the neccessarily skills of language to say whether or not the light is on. its not a complex issue. Light On. Light Off. Your playing pedantic games.

I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>subjective concept.

Perceptions of reality are subjective. Reality is matter, material objects. I am real. You said it yourself I am an object. Do you dispute that fact?

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>moral
>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>is
>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>>He showed them.
>>
>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"

Your are making the mistake of believing that God is a: a subject in his own right and b:
>>
>>(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised,
>>that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of
>science
>>is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the
>>antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of
>>amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they
>>don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea
>>what they're talking about)
>
>
>This is the way I look at it.
>
>Faith and objectivity are bedfellows.
>

>The same applies to religion. Truth is defined by faith.
>
>But for me, objectivity is faith is dogma.

So scientists are dogmatists of objective reason then?