Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As for the breakdown of the video, "Morality is how one ought to behave" <- No.

So what is morality then? How one does behave?

I thought you read and understood arguments presented to you, but you are still asking about morality even though you've been told in how many threads by how many people?

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
26-06-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So what is morality then? How one does behave?

I thought you read and understood arguments presented to you, but you are still asking about morality even though you've been told in how many threads by how many people?

It's called not finding them convincing

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:26 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:25 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I thought you read and understood arguments presented to you, but you are still asking about morality even though you've been told in how many threads by how many people?

It's called not finding them convincing

Then he should stop asking for the exact same thing if he doesn't want the exact same answers to reject to preserve his preconceived opinion.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-06-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:12 AM)DLJ Wrote:  As others have pointed out more time times than is worth counting, atheism is a one-topic position.

The only problem is, that "one-topic" involves a great deal. The concept of God, even from a traditional theistic view, entails a great deal of things. It's cast a long shadow.

If I can highlight the leap you are making...

Belief in a god (note that I do not deny a 'concept of' god), you say, leads to a great deal of things. OK, fine. If you say so.

If I reject the claims about the existence of said god, why must I also reject all those other 'great deal of things'?

List them and (if I'm in the mood) I'll tell you which ones I reject / accept.

Aaaaannnd ... GO!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
26-06-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You reject counterpoints by any and everyone, but not based on actual rational or logical counterpoints. You disagree because if you were to agree, it would chip away at your theistic idiocy.

Ah, so by recognizing that Tears, Matt Finney, and the guy in the videos arguments for moral nihilism are sound, I'm supporting my theistic beliefs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You reject counterpoints by any and everyone, but not based on actual rational or logical counterpoints. You disagree because if you were to agree, it would chip away at your theistic idiocy.

Ah, so by recognizing that Tears, Matt Finney, and the guy in the videos arguments for moral nihilism are sound, I'm supporting my theistic beliefs?

You recognize them as sound, but reject them?

"I don't agree with them though, lol, since I'm not a moral nihilist."

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
26-06-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You reject counterpoints by any and everyone, but not based on actual rational or logical counterpoints. You disagree because if you were to agree, it would chip away at your theistic idiocy.

Ah, so by recognizing that Tears, Matt Finney, and the guy in the videos arguments for moral nihilism are sound, I'm supporting my theistic beliefs?

So their understanding of what "morality" means is the correct and proper definition of what morality means?

Or just like any defined term, is there interpenetration and philosophical differences on the subject.

My problem with the Stevils, others, and that video's concept is they declare "morality" means one NARROWLY proclaimed definition. Morality isn't just the idea of RIGHT/WONGS, Shoulds, Musts, or objective thoughts.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
26-06-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  If I can highlight the leap you are making...

Belief in a god (note that I do not deny a 'concept of' god), you say, leads to a great deal of things. OK, fine. If you say so.

If I reject the claims about the existence of said god, why must I also reject all those other 'great deal of things'?

List them and (if I'm in the mood) I'll tell you which ones I reject / accept.

Aaaaannnd ... GO!

I'm saying the concept of God involves a great deal of many things, that are all part of very meaning of God. Even when it comes to sayings God exists, the very meaning of existence here, is distinct than if one were to say a dodo exists. If I rejected God's existence, it wouldn't mean something along the lines of no longer believing there's an old man in the sky who grants wishes, it would entail a rejection of any sort of teleological conceptions of the world, any sort of goal oriented aspects to it, any sort of intrinsic meaning, or narrative arc to human existence, etc..

If you're saying you reject some concept of God, that's not connected to these beliefs, than I wouldn't even know what this concept you reject is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  My problem with the Stevils, others, and that video's concept is they declare "morality" means one NARROWLY proclaimed definition. Morality isn't just the idea of RIGHT/WONGS, Shoulds, Musts, or objective thoughts.

If morality is not about how one ought to behave, than what is it about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  If I can highlight the leap you are making...

Belief in a god (note that I do not deny a 'concept of' god), you say, leads to a great deal of things. OK, fine. If you say so.

If I reject the claims about the existence of said god, why must I also reject all those other 'great deal of things'?

List them and (if I'm in the mood) I'll tell you which ones I reject / accept.

Aaaaannnd ... GO!

I'm saying the concept of God involves a great deal of many things, that are all part of very meaning of God. Even when it comes to sayings God exists, the very meaning of existence here, is distinct than if one were to say a dodo exists. If I rejected God's existence, it wouldn't mean something along the lines of no longer believing there's an old man in the sky who grants wishes, it would entail a rejection of any sort of teleological conceptions of the world, any sort of goal oriented aspects to it, any sort of intrinsic meaning, or narrative arc to human existence, etc..

If you're saying you reject some concept of God, that's not connected to these beliefs, than I wouldn't even know what this concept you reject is.

You wouldn't HAVE TO BE rejecting these other teleological conceptions of the world like Oriented Goals, Intrinsic Meaning, this consciousness Arc concept.

I've given you multiple examples multiple times of there being legitimate, not ironic or dishonest, groups of atheists who have all those concepts. There are atheists with Objective morality, objective goals, and human significance in their belief! (It seems these elements are why they hold this belief) That's what Integral Theory is, it's the beliefs of some other groups like specific Buddhists, some Zen Buddhists have. Not the type of Buddhists like that guy here last week talking about rainbow bodies transforming into plates though.

You are simply, factually wrong here to say you'd give that up by not believing in a God. But you keep repeatedly holding that thought.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: