A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2015, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2015 07:07 AM by Ace.)
Video A Challenge for Moral Realists
ACX has challenegd theists to give him one actually objective moral duty/value




well he's gonna be waiting a really long time for an actual response since theists don't really have anything that hasn't been refuted


earlier video on the matter if you haven't seen it


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Ace's post
23-12-2015, 06:39 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
That 1st point by that theosophist on his podium is flawed and I don't get why that point gets skirted over so often. Glad that 2nd video actually points out there is serious flaws there.

There is no reason for these claims I see theists & even those talking against theism use of saying there can't be objective morals without god.

Not that I believe in objective morals, but there are atheists who do & it's not an impossible concept without a Deity/Being/Entity enacting them. They could exist like the electromagnetism exists or in holon form that the integral folks think. It may just exist like The Force, a essence of good & evil that doesn't need a "divine" creator. It just exists.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 07:32 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 06:39 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That 1st point by that theosophist on his podium is flawed and I don't get why that point gets skirted over so often. Glad that 2nd video actually points out there is serious flaws there.

There is no reason for these claims I see theists & even those talking against theism use of saying there can't be objective morals without god.

Not that I believe in objective morals, but there are atheists who do & it's not an impossible concept without a Deity/Being/Entity enacting them. They could exist like the electromagnetism exists or in holon form that the integral folks think. It may just exist like The Force, a essence of good & evil that doesn't need a "divine" creator. It just exists.

holon form ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 07:38 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 07:32 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 06:39 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That 1st point by that theosophist on his podium is flawed and I don't get why that point gets skirted over so often. Glad that 2nd video actually points out there is serious flaws there.

There is no reason for these claims I see theists & even those talking against theism use of saying there can't be objective morals without god.

Not that I believe in objective morals, but there are atheists who do & it's not an impossible concept without a Deity/Being/Entity enacting them. They could exist like the electromagnetism exists or in holon form that the integral folks think. It may just exist like The Force, a essence of good & evil that doesn't need a "divine" creator. It just exists.

holon form ?

It's just a philosophical concept of all things all being whole & continually apart of larger concepts compounded. It gets used in woo-explanations by people who believe some certain ideas of consciousness being a higher plane of existence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
The concept of objective morality is interesting.

Do we have objective morals? Are some actions always right/wrong?

Is that discussion worthy of a new thread or will this one do?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 07:50 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The concept of objective morality is interesting.

Do we have objective morals? Are some actions always right/wrong?

Is that discussion worthy of a new thread or will this one do?

No idea about your last question, as to the first two:
Depends on your assumptions. I tend to think that morals which lead to the extinction of the group that has them are invalid because then there would be no morals, so good would cease to exist which is a bad thing. Of course, bad would cease to exist, too, which is a good thing. Consider
If there are objective morals, I think they need to be very specific. That is, the situation has to be specific and you need to mention this is being held by creatures like us. Creatures that function in different ways will have different morals. We'd also need a definition of what it means to be moral, and this generally includes some form of obligation. To be obligated seems to me to imply some force of punishment, otherwise it's not an obligation. So that means 'might makes right' ultimately always wins, because whoever has the power in a group sets the rules, though there are always going to be fluctuations since, as humans, we have limited power over each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
It's a good challenge to an honest opponent, but unfortunately the people who support the moral argument are not honest opponents. They will "prove" one moral or another using logical fallacies or insane troll logic and declare victory.

One last qualifier that AnticitizenX should have put in: no tautological claims. For example, murder is wrong BECAUSE it is defined as a wrongful killing, with various individuals and legal systems then differing over what sort of killing is wrongful. Another example: theft is the wrongful taking of someone else's property. The wrongness of theft and murder are part and parcel of the claim of the act itself, and to show that it is theft and murder you must first show that (at least in someone's opinion, possibly the legal system's) the act is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 07:50 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The concept of objective morality is interesting.

Do we have objective morals? Are some actions always right/wrong?

Is that discussion worthy of a new thread or will this one do?

Here are 60 pages worth...
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ity--24277

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
23-12-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 10:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Here are 60 pages worth...

Shocking Holy shit...

Never mind.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 10:32 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 10:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Here are 60 pages worth...

Shocking Holy shit...

Never mind.

tl;dr version - That topic is worthy of discussion and the consensus seems to be all morality is subjective.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: