A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 03:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 04:32 AM)Ace Wrote:  ACX has challenegd theists to give him one actually objective moral duty/value

I guess I'll bite. It's objectively wrong to torture babies just for fun.

God bashed them against rocks. Wonder if that was fun for him.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 03:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 04:32 AM)Ace Wrote:  ACX has challenegd theists to give him one actually objective moral duty/value

I guess I'll bite. It's objectively wrong to torture babies just for fun.

No more so than stealing wheel chairs out from underneath the people who are in them!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2015, 11:21 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 10:24 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm still not sure where your barrier is of sticking to the argument of it having to be an illusion opposed to social construct.

I don't a think a belief in objective morality, or a perception of objective morality is any more a social construct then a belief in free-will is.

And in the same way, if objective morality isn't real, it would be an illusion in much the same way we could say of free-will.

"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
24-12-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 08:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The real argument, and I think moral reflective atheists philosophers are aware of this, is not whether morality is objective or subjective, but whether morality is truly objective, or just an illusion, like we might say of free-will.

And I'd say the evidence of things that are an illusion, and evidence for things that are real, have a great deal of parallel. That it doesn't take much to accept it as real, over an illusion.

Again, watch the first video, this time for comprehension. (The second one isn't really the challenge, the OP just threw it in as window dressing.) The real argument is whether or not the moral argument for the existence of a god is complete garbage, in the larger context of a debate over whether a god exists. But this challenge isn't about whether or not a god exists. This is about whether or not a particular line of reason purported to show that a god exists is sound. The existence of objective morals is one of the two premises of that argument. If even the argument's proponents can't demonstrate (not just claim, but demonstrate) even a single example of objectiveness in morality, then the argument is unsound before we even get to the other premise (which is also rubbish, but that's fodder for another debate). Since people employing the moral argument are trying to use the proposition of objective morality as a basis for deriving something else, the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate it, rather than others to disprove it. If I were attempting to construct some sort of proof or argument that relied on morality being subjective, then it would instead be my burden to show it subjective. ACX is calling out proponents of the moral argument for never having done the legwork for establishing this premise, and challenging them to show their work.

Also, what you're talking about, ambiguity? In those circumstances it also doesn't take much to accept it as an illusion rather than real. In other words, calling it one way or another is just guessing, and will remain just guessing in the absence of additional evidence. There's another option than just guessing true or false, and that option is reserving judgement while you seek out some stronger indication of which is the case... or break down the question and discover it's nonsense.

You see, part of the ambiguity is that in both the case of objective morality and in the case of free will, the terms lack clear, coherent, widely-utilized definitions. In both cases people are pretty flexible about how they use the terms, employing them in one way one moment and another way the next. Absent the clarity provided by a working definition (which is sometimes provided, but is not provided the same way all the time), the terms' lack of definition make objective morality and free will fall into the category of incoherent claims. They are too ill-defined to earn the label true OR false. I might as well claim that sneebles zark, when I have no definition of what the words mean.

Honestly, my own position on the question of objective versus subjective morality is one of complete and total apathy. I have yet to find or be shown a single reason why anyone should CARE. But since people get all worked up about the question, and bring so many of their false beliefs into it, it's a lovely way to troll those false beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
24-12-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
I'm bringing this up since its being mentioned here
ACX talks about free will being ambiguous and challenges free will proponents to prove it



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 12:03 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  ]ACX is calling out proponents of the moral argument for never having done the legwork for establishing this premise, and challenging them to show their work.

Sorry, I just finished the first video, ACX’s arguments seem confused lol.

For one he conflates moral realism and moral absolutism. Consequentialism, nor does Moral Relativism negate Moral Realism, they do negate Moral Absolutism.

Secondly Craigs arguments aren’t addressed to individuals who believe in subjective morality, but at those who already subscribe to moral realism. In fact, even though most professional philosophers are atheists, most philosophers subscribe to moral realism.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...s-believe/

Craig argument is primarily addressed to such folks, it’s primarily one which claims atheism and moral realism are incompatible.

When it comes asking someone to prove moral realism, the problem here would be similar to a sophist asking you to prove a reality outside of their mind exists. Or someone who believes that all truth is subjective, asking you to prove that objective truths exists. The task of proving this is sort of a fools errand.

What I would say is that those that argue that morality is subjective, often parallel the argument of those that believe truth is subjective. And further more, if moral realism is not true, this doesn’t mean that morality is subjective, it would mean that it’s false. Just like if there is no free-will, this doesn't mean free-will is subjective.

The claim that it’s wrong to torture babies just for fun, from a realist perspective, is either true or false. You can’t reduce an objective claim, true or false, into a subjective one. To make a subjective moral claim, would involve seeing it as something quite different than our prevalent moral language allows.

"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
24-12-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 03:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
I guess I'll bite.
...

And so begins yet another 400-post thread.

Rolleyes

(23-12-2015 03:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
It's objectively wrong to torture babies just for fun.

And I can think of example where it would be the right thing to do.

Next?

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
24-12-2015, 04:38 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 03:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-12-2015 12:03 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  ]ACX is calling out proponents of the moral argument for never having done the legwork for establishing this premise, and challenging them to show their work.

Sorry, I just finished the first video, ACX’s arguments seem confused lol.

For one he conflates moral realism and moral absolutism. Consequentialism, nor does Moral Relativism negate Moral Realism, they do negate Moral Absolutism.

Secondly Craigs arguments aren’t addressed to individuals who believe in subjective morality, but at those who already subscribe to moral realism. In fact, even though most professional philosophers are atheists, most philosophers subscribe to moral realism.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...s-believe/

Craig argument is primarily addressed to such folks, it’s primarily one which claims atheism and moral realism are incompatible.

When it comes asking someone to prove moral realism, the problem here would be similar to a sophist asking you to prove a reality outside of their mind exists. Or someone who believes that all truth is subjective, asking you to prove that objective truths exists. The task of proving this is sort of a fools errand.

What I would say is that those that argue that morality is subjective, often parallel the argument of those that believe truth is subjective. And further more, if moral realism is not true, this doesn’t mean that morality is subjective, it would mean that it’s false. Just like if there is no free-will, this doesn't mean free-will is subjective.

The claim that it’s wrong to torture babies just for fun, from a realist perspective, is either true or false. You can’t reduce an objective claim, true or false, into a subjective one. To make a subjective moral claim, would involve seeing it as something quite different than our prevalent moral language allows.

Reduces things down to simple matters of black and white with regard to morality, despite the hundreds of posts pointing out such simplistic thinking is incorrect.

Yep, he's a moron and a theist, but I repeat myself Laughat

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
24-12-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 03:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  And I can think of example where it would be the right thing to do.

I gotta ask...

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
25-12-2015, 01:01 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 04:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-12-2015 03:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sorry, I just finished the first video, ACX’s arguments seem confused lol.

For one he conflates moral realism and moral absolutism. Consequentialism, nor does Moral Relativism negate Moral Realism, they do negate Moral Absolutism.

Secondly Craigs arguments aren’t addressed to individuals who believe in subjective morality, but at those who already subscribe to moral realism. In fact, even though most professional philosophers are atheists, most philosophers subscribe to moral realism.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...s-believe/

Craig argument is primarily addressed to such folks, it’s primarily one which claims atheism and moral realism are incompatible.

When it comes asking someone to prove moral realism, the problem here would be similar to a sophist asking you to prove a reality outside of their mind exists. Or someone who believes that all truth is subjective, asking you to prove that objective truths exists. The task of proving this is sort of a fools errand.

What I would say is that those that argue that morality is subjective, often parallel the argument of those that believe truth is subjective. And further more, if moral realism is not true, this doesn’t mean that morality is subjective, it would mean that it’s false. Just like if there is no free-will, this doesn't mean free-will is subjective.

The claim that it’s wrong to torture babies just for fun, from a realist perspective, is either true or false. You can’t reduce an objective claim, true or false, into a subjective one. To make a subjective moral claim, would involve seeing it as something quite different than our prevalent moral language allows.

Reduces things down to simple matters of black and white with regard to morality, despite the hundreds of posts pointing out such simplistic thinking is incorrect.

Yep, he's a moron and a theist, but I repeat myself Laughat

is Tom's posts supposed to be like spaghetti logic ? because I can't make any sense from them
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: