A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 03:14 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Where did I ever say that morality is "what anybody wants it to be?"

Your straw men are idiotic. Maybe you should pray for a brain.

When you claim that morality is subjective"

Subjective:
"Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view"

Keep cherry picking to try and make your straw men less stupid.

Subjective:
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

I've been explicit about what I mean and your straw man is fucking moronic.

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
03-01-2016, 03:18 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But it does pose and interesting conundrum about what to do when living in a society that governs in a way that you deem immoral. Who is correct? Society or the individual?

Is one of them correct?

If a group of people think U2 is the greatest band ever, and one lone individual thinks they suck. Is one of them any more correct than the other?

"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, 03:20 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But it does pose and interesting conundrum about what to do when living in a society that governs in a way that you deem immoral. Who is correct? Society or the individual?

Is one of them correct?

If a group of people think U2 is the greatest band ever, and one lone individual thinks they suck. Is one of them any more correct than the other?

Or neither of them are correct. Stop painting things as black and white (another good example of you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't call morality complex and then expect binary answers. Twit)

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
03-01-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As long as the parents are doing what God wants, it's moral. Right Tomasia?

Without immoral institutions like religion and corrupt governments (judging them as such from my moral perspective), we would be a lot better off as a species.

Well according to you morality is whatever anyone wants it to be. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. At best it amounts to swinging popular opinion in your favor, endorsing laws and positions favorable to your individual palette. Ain't that right?
Tomasia, quite often what people deem to be "morality" isn't just arbitrary opinion (which it appears that you are making it out to be). Quite often moral language is used to describe something else. Generally a person's safety within society, plus also maybe a compassion for the plight of other people.
So for example they may determine that killing people and thieving from people is wrong, but they might determine that killing pigs isn't wrong or thieving from bees isn't wrong.

Rather than to try and tell them that their morals are arbitrary it might be best to ask them from what basis is their own morality built upon.
You will find that the "moral" system of atheists is built upon much more reason that that of theists.

For theists it is often like a child, we don't do X because it is wrong, it is wrong because dad (god) said so. This approach would make morality out to be arbitrary based on the whims of dad (god).

But of course it isn't as simple as that either.
You guys read the bible and interpret it through your own personal moral beliefs. In the bible it says the if a man lies with another man then he should be put to death. But of course through the lens of your own moral beliefs a perfect and just "god" wouldn't murder people so you interpret this passage to mean something other than what it actually says.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
03-01-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When you claim that morality is subjective"

Subjective:
"Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view"

Keep cherry picking to try and make your straw men less stupid.

Subjective:
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

I've been explicit about what I mean and your straw man is fucking moronic.

Oh okay, so morality is subjective, but it's not a a matter of a subject's personal perspective, or feelings?

Can you provide something analogous here, that's subjective in the way morality is?
It seems you're using the word subjective a bit differently then we would when speaking of other subjective things like musical taste, or fashion preferences?

When you say that morality is subjective here, you don't mean the same thing by subjective here, as someone who says that fashion is subjective? Is that right?

"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, 03:27 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Keep cherry picking to try and make your straw men less stupid.

Subjective:
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

I've been explicit about what I mean and your straw man is fucking moronic.

Oh okay, so morality is subjective, but it's not a a matter of a subject's personal perspective, or feelings?

Can you provide something analogous here, that's subjective in the way morality is?
It seems you're using the word subjective a bit differently then we would when speaking of other subjective things like musical taste, or fashion preferences?

When you say that morality is subjective here, you don't mean the same thing by subjective here, as someone who says that fashion is subjective? Is that right?

Holy fuck. I gave you the definition of subjective I'm using. Do you read?

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
03-01-2016, 03:35 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Some moral questions are difficult to answer, often involving a wide variety of considerations, some are less so. No one is going to debate whether or not torturing babies just for fun is immoral or not.
So? "No one"* is going to debate sufficiently egregious violations of sufficiently widely held notions of heinousness. Which you seem to think is some kind of point when you admit yourself that we're talking about no-brainer clear harms. In fact that your concocting an extreme edge case based on cruelty to children is no surprise because failure to nurture and protect the young is arguably one of the greatest ways to undermine a society that you can imagine.

* You should really say "Virtually no one" because somewhere, someplace, I can just about guarantee that right now a baby is being tortured for the fun of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
03-01-2016, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 03:49 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Tomasia, quite often what people deem to be "morality" isn't just arbitrary opinion (which it appears that you are making it out to be). Quite often moral language is used to describe something else. Generally a person's safety within society, plus also maybe a compassion for the plight of other people.
So for example they may determine that killing people and thieving from people is wrong, but they might determine that killing pigs isn't wrong or thieving from bees isn't wrong.

Do you have a moral system? Do you subscribe to the same moral system often subscribed to by other atheists, but you just don't label it as a moral system? Is your quibble with atheists who subscribe to some form of morality, a matter of word choice? Is you're particular system, though you might not label it as a moral one, derived by a consideration of a persons safety within society, plus also a compassion for the plight of other people?

Quote:You will find that the "moral" system of atheists is built upon much more reason that that of theists.

Yet, you don't believe in such a system? You think they're reasonable, but not reasonable enough to be believed? And which atheists, atheists who believe in moral realism, or believe that morality is subjective? While most professional philosophers are atheists, most professional philosophers subscribe to moral realism. Is this the position you find reasonable?

Quote:For theists it is often like a child, we don't do X because it is wrong, it is wrong because dad (god) said so. This approach would make morality out to be arbitrary based on the whims of dad (god).

And you're clueless when it comes to theists, they might as well be a life from another planet as far as you're concerned. The extent of your interactions with theists likely doesn't go beyond the internet.

Quote:In the bible it says the if a man lies with another man then he should be put to death. But of course through the lens of your own moral beliefs a perfect and just "god" wouldn't murder people so you interpret this passage to mean something other than what it actually says.

I don't know who you're talking about. The passage you seem to be referencing means exactly what it means, that the writers of the particular passage, and the community in which he belonged to advocated putting to death the homosexuals among them.

"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, 03:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:23 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Fatbaldhobbit,

Direction of gr8 is in know eat m nuts to me nor am I a mediator.

WUT?

Careful now, that's what god told him. Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
03-01-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:54 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Fatbaldhobbit,

I wouldn't say "speaks" per say, as it is not within the traditional audible realm that comes from the ear.

That's a meaningless distinction. You are asserting that communication took place.

(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I know it wasn't/ isn't mental illness because it positively affected my productivity and abilities within society and habitat as opposed to making them worse.
That does not follow. Although most forms of mental illness inhibit social interactions it is not always the case.

A false belief can still have a positive effect. (JT Eberhard has a good speech on this.) But its still a false belief.

(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Prior to my salvation and even after I have had much experience with negativity and evil on many many varied and vivid levels, none of which or at all confusable with the intent of GOD. Simply put; one is forward and outwardly bebefitial to all involved, the other is hidden, invidious, greedy and causes only negativity when observed truthfully.
Countless atrocities have been done in the name of god. When was the last war fought in the name of satan? How many suicide bombers yell "satan rocks" when they go boom?

(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If a task was ever easy then it never did get my attention or motive me. Patience, and perceverance will guide me by God's will and time and grace regardless of my general inability to covey any specific message or act any certain way.
If an all-powerful god had an all important message to convey to beings he loved then it is the responsibility/obligation of that deity to do so.
And he does, by his understanding and time, for our sake. Just because we may not be able to fully perceive the scope of the work of God doesn't mean it isn't evident.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: