Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2015, 06:00 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
morality fallacy.

That's a good name for a rock band. Certainly better than Lamb of god. Lamb of god? I mean honestly!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:08 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 05:29 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  My name is chas. I have nothing to offer in the discussion, so I'm simply going to claim intellectual superiority.

No, i am offering an evolutionary basis for morality which you are too fucking ignorant to understand. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-07-2015, 06:08 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 05:31 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:29 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  My name is chas. I have nothing to offer in the discussion, so I'm simply going to claim intellectual superiority.

Chas is dishonest, and so are you. Facepalm

Go fuck yourself. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-07-2015, 06:09 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 05:37 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:35 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Can you show where I have been dishonest?

Using an argument from morality fallacy. Morality doesn't determine truth.

I'm not sure you understand my position. I'm a moral nihilist, I don't believe that moral truths exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:10 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 05:37 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:35 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Can you show where I have been dishonest?

Using an argument from morality fallacy. Morality doesn't determine truth.

That may be the first sensible thing you have ever posted here. Well done.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:09 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:37 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Using an argument from morality fallacy. Morality doesn't determine truth.

I'm not sure you understand my position. I'm a moral nihilist, I don't believe that moral truths exist.

Then why are you using morals to argue against evolution? Huh

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:15 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:37 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Using an argument from morality fallacy. Morality doesn't determine truth.

That may be the first sensible thing you have ever posted here. Well done.

I know, right? I did a double-take and hit 'like'.

Blink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 04:19 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 11:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Is question:
Are symbiotic relationships more akin to contracts or to mutual enslavement?

I don't know.

(05-07-2015 11:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Is question:
Ought question:
Do you think that it is a worthwhile goal, to work towards building a society that embraces equality?

Yes, but no more worthwhile than to work towards a society that embraces inequality. (our current society seems to embrace wealth inequality, who am I to say that that's the wrong way to do it.) As long as I'm on the winning end, I tend to be more tolerable of inequality.

Fascinating.

[Image: mr-spock-fascinating-o.gif]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:37 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Using an argument from morality fallacy. Morality doesn't determine truth.

That may be the first sensible thing you have ever posted here. Well done.

Then why do you guys keep using that fallacy? Huh

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:22 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 03:34 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You do not need to invoke a magical god with magic rules imprinted onto the hearts of humans, you do not need to invoke an evolved (but thus far undiscovered) evolutionary moral sense in order to explain human behavior.

These wild speculations are unnecessary.

Let’s just a nip something in the butt here. I didn’t invoke magic or god at any point. And judging that you confessed previously to being bewildered by religious language and meanings, anytime make assumptions about my religious beliefs, it’s likely to elicit a facepalm. I’m not particularly interested in your misconceptions about what my religious beliefs are. Earlier Clydelee suggested that one could hold a teleological view of the world, like many buddhist do without evoking a God, my merely believing this is the way things are. And I can’t say that I particularly disagree with this. So magic, nor God is not necessarily required here.

Secondly, you should cut the crap, all of us are doing the same exact thing here. Someone appealing to evolution is no more wildly speculating than you are when you're appealing to “social conditioning”, and perhaps they’re even less speculative than your suggestions.

Quote:It is easy (although apparently too simple in your mind) to see that parents use the "good" meme to incite their kids to behave a certain way. If you are a good girl you get to eat ice cream etc. They keep it simple so that children can understand. They use the terms "good" and "bad". They encourage and reward "good" behavior and punish "bad" behavior.
Why don't they want their children to be "bad" you say? Surely there must be a god that has imprinted this onto them. Well this is a childish way to think of it.


It is a childish way to think, too childish even for children, lol. You seem to imagine that your typical parents draws these connections for the children. I don’t know about your upbringing, how you raise your children, but this doesn’t really seem to be the case.

If a child treated his sister, or a classmate poorly, a parent or teacher, might ask him in one form or the other, how would you feel if this was done to you? A child can understand the wrongness of his actions just by reflecting in such away. No child ask the following question acknowledging that he wouldn’t like to be treated that way, but why is it wrong to treat others that way? The child already has an intuitive knowledge of this. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this besides probably you and some nihilist of course. At best you’d have to appeal to some evolutionary explanation about this intuitive understanding. But anyone should be able to recognize the inadequacy of trying to resort to explaining it by social conditioning.

Quote:We don't kill and rape each other because we would then show everyone that we are dangerous and then others would retaliate on us, not because we are immoral, but because we are dangerous.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense. That I don’t go around raping and killing everybody because of fear of retaliation. That I don’t beat my wife, because I’m afraid she’s gonna stab me if I do. Please.

A while ago I remember watching the Religulous movie, and there was a mother being interviewed, who said she basically believed the Genesis account of creation, and passed this along to her children, and her reason was because it was simple.

And I’d say that a desire for a simple explanation is what fuels your views or morality than anything else. You probably don’t recognize how often you have to cover your ears, ignore a variety of what should be obvious factors, to make it work. It works for you primarily because it allows you to eliminate those ambiguities, those uncertainties, those inabilities to account for it all, that plagues others. You continually appeal to fear of retaliation, or fear of harm, etc.. to account for our moral responses, avoiding the factors everyone else in the room acknowledges as crucial components of it, like empathy. Why? Because empathy is a messy word for you, it makes things too complicated, not too simple. You have to contort yourself in a variety of ways to defend of your simplistic and crude view of things, such as claiming that you avoid cheating on your wife, for fear of getting stds.

Everyone here knows your views are a farce, and I think you at some level even you know that too. When you learn to be more insightful, more forthcoming, these conversations might be interesting, when you avoid doing so, it shouldn’t be surprising why others don’t take your views all that seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: