A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
What the contextual part of that example, that makes it contextually wrong? Matt's feelings of uneasiness?

You gave the context:
(03-01-2016 12:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... let's say your son is verbally abusing another child, ...

Therefore, by definition, not intrinsic.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-01-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 11:21 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If you had a point, you failed to make it.

I'm sure you are familiar with that feeling.

Quote:All you managed was the conveyance of the opinion that greed isn't negative in itself but only when acted on.

The same can be said of murder or rape or priveledge or any other negative thing that stems from greed in one way or another.

No, the same can not be said for murder and rape. Those are specific acts and are not the same as an abstract concept like greed. As for privilege, I have no idea how you think that is similar or why it would be classified automatically as a negative thing.

Quote:I am glad we are within some upstanding on one another on your other points.

I'm tempted to quote Jabberwocky but that actually makes more sense than whatever that was supposed to mean. What is "within some upstanding"?

Do you have anything yet that supports your claim of a universal morality? Or suggests that cetaceans never fight amongst themselves? Or how conscience affects brain chemistry? Or are you just going to continue to dodge?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 11:22 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Woe, with one another, not on.

Lol

So...
"I am glad we are within some upstanding with one another on your other points."

and you think that makes it clearer?
Facepalm

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 10:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does anyone disagree that torturing babies just for fun is wrong?
I would say that it is wrong, however I'm not savvy enough to argue and win that point in a philosophical debate. There are cultures now and have been in the past where torturing people of all ages was acceptable.

(03-01-2016 10:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But with religion out the picture how do we account for this nearly universal belief in objective morality? Could we say our biology led us to a set of false, but intuitive assumptions, that lead us to perceive our own moral intuitions as objective truths?

Biology led us to a belief in religion and that is false.

With religion out of the picture or at least moved to the side, then maybe we could focus our energies on working out a better system of morals or laws.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-01-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:41 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 07:16 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The f****** intent is for the continuation of f****** life. If that's a f****** deepity to you, which isn't a real word, then go end your life, because evidently, you feel that life isn't very significant, nor is the intent of it, which, by the way, is to continue.

I'm fairly certain jesus would not approve of this post...

Pops isn't a Christian though. He had some sort of personal delusion experience and has created his own personal theology.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:41 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I'm fairly certain jesus would not approve of this post...

Pops isn't a Christian though. He had some sort of personal delusion experience and has created his own personal theology.

So..... He's his own god? Blink

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
03-01-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 10:41 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 09:49 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  ps View the short videos I posted, I think it will make clear what we are trying to explain.

He doesn't watch videos. Facepalm

Doesn't watch videos? Pops told me a while back that virtually all of his scientific knowledge and education had come through watching TV specials and videos (as opposed to books or classrooms).

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:59 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I would say that it is wrong, however I'm not savvy enough to argue and win that point in a philosophical debate. There are cultures now and have been in the past where torturing people of all ages was acceptable.

But not because it was fun. In fact what you find in cultures that practiced such things as child sacrifices, is that these practices were often justified by lies, and delusions, like scapegoating. Their particular children, often handicapped, or impaired, were deemed cursed, and less than human. They often involved these elaborate and false justifications, to render the act palpable, to forgo any moral pangs, and confronting the reality of what they were doing.

Quote:With religion out of the picture or at least moved to the side, then maybe we could focus our energies on working out a better system of morals or laws.

I'm not sure how we're suppose to work out a better system of morals, by rendering morality as subjective.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:15 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:50 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
What the contextual part of that example, that makes it contextually wrong? Matt's feelings of uneasiness?

You gave the context:
(03-01-2016 12:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... let's say your son is verbally abusing another child, ...

Therefore, by definition, not intrinsic.

Thumbsup


I painted a situation, I didn't pass a moral judgment on it, nor did I provide the context that makes it wrong. I left that part open for Matt.

The situation I presented doesn't doesn't provide a context for why the act is immoral, you couldn't read the example and be able to answer the question as to why I believe it's wrong. It just paints a situation, but not a moral judgment.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:16 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:59 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I would say that it is wrong, however I'm not savvy enough to argue and win that point in a philosophical debate. There are cultures now and have been in the past where torturing people of all ages was acceptable.

But not because it was fun. In fact what you find in cultures that practiced such things as child sacrifices, is that these practices were often justified by lies, and delusions, like scapegoating. Their particular children, often handicapped, or impaired, were deemed cursed, and less than human. They often involved these elaborate and false justifications, to render the act palpable, to forgo any moral pangs, and confronting the reality of what they were doing.

Quote:With religion out of the picture or at least moved to the side, then maybe we could focus our energies on working out a better system of morals or laws.

I'm not sure how we're suppose to work out a better system of morals, by rendering morality as subjective.

You're not sure because you only accept truth through a limited perspective and require morality to be objective in order to be useful.

The simple observation that different societies have different sets of morals and that those morals evolve through time, is an indication that subjective and relative morality is a system that improves by evolving. But you can't see that because...god

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: