Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2015, 07:38 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 07:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake - everything about us is a product of evolution. All explanations must start with, and be consistent with, that fact.

I don't recall saying it wasn't. Extrapolating claims from a question I posed to Stevil, who tends to be a contrarian at every turn, is a bad habit.

I am extrapolating nothing. You said "If empathy is..." There is no 'if'.

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
14-07-2015, 08:01 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't recall saying it wasn't. Extrapolating claims from a question I posed to Stevil, who tends to be a contrarian at every turn, is a bad habit.

I am extrapolating nothing. You said "If empathy is..." There is no 'if'.

So from this question: "If empathy, that capacity to put ourselves in other people, is a product of Darwinian evolution, what particular survival benefit does it offer?"

You can extrapolate that I'm making a claim that "empathy is not a product of Darwinian evolution?"

You and the other individual seems to draw a variety of assumptions as to why I chose the word "if" when posing the question to Stevil, each of these assumptions is pulled out of your ass, and entirely wrong. Or to clarify if I were posing the question to you I might have avoid using the word "if", with Stevil I have to leave room for his contrarian beliefs. As we can see in his response, that empathy may merely be "a consequence of our evolved intelligence, "
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
14-07-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am extrapolating nothing. You said "If empathy is..." There is no 'if'.

So from this question: "If empathy, that capacity to put ourselves in other people, is a product of Darwinian evolution, what particular survival benefit does it offer?"

You can extrapolate that I'm making a claim that "empathy is not a product of Darwinian evolution?"

You and the other individual seems to draw a variety of assumptions as to why I chose the word "if" when posing the question to Stevil, each of these assumptions is pulled out of your ass, and entirely wrong. Or to clarify if I were posing the question to you I might have avoid using the word "if", with Stevil I have to leave room for his contrarian beliefs. As we can see in his response, that empathy may merely be "a consequence of our evolved intelligence, "

Your phrasing indicates non-certainty. If Stevil doesn't think it is a product of evolution, then your question is very poorly phrased. Why would he have an evolutionary explanation?

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
14-07-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 06:44 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 06:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm also curious if you also deny moral foundation theory:

http://www.moralfoundations.org
You should phrase that better.
Like "Do you support moral foundation theory?"
Or "Do you believe there is enough evidence/information for the moral foundation theory?"

Asking "Do you deny..." is already a loaded question, and assumes the premise.

That's how he communicates here constantly. There is nothing that seems to adjust it but it's a mannerism of assumptions that come out of him.

Grammatically the If x... statement is stating an acknowledgement of the alternative. And technically Tomasia doesn't believe in "Darwinian" evolution due to thinking there is some designed God influence.

"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
14-07-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 12:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Grammatically the If x... statement is stating an acknowledgement of the alternative.

It's important to note that I didn't make an if x statement, but posed an if x question, that allowed room for Stevil to offer an alternative, as he routinely does.

Quote:And technically Tomasia doesn't believe in "Darwinian" evolution due to thinking there is some designed God influence.

No, I'd fall into the category of a theistic evolutionist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2015 01:04 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 12:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your phrasing indicates non-certainty. If Stevil doesn't think it is a product of evolution, then your question is very poorly phrased. explanation?

Stevil, didn't seem to have an issue with the question at all. It was just folks for whom the question wasn't directed towards that did, folks who in fact don't even share stevil's views.

If I asked the question to you, then perhaps raising a big stink over it, might have been warranted. But it was directed towards someone who doesn't share your same sensibilities, and with whom you likely disagree with as much as I do on the topic of morality.

Quote:Why would he have an evolutionary explanation?

The real question to Stevil is not this, but how does he reconcile evolutionary explanations with his moral nihilism. Folks such as yourself, and other here tend to offer a variety of evolutionary explanation, which I think for the most part folks like Stevil and Matt tend to ignore, or brush them under the rug in one way or the other. And I think this has a great deal to do with why his views tend to be rejected by other atheists here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 12:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your phrasing indicates non-certainty. If Stevil doesn't think it is a product of evolution, then your question is very poorly phrased. Why would he have an evolutionary explanation?

Stevil, didn't seem to have an issue with the question at all. It was just folks for whom the question wasn't directed towards that did, folks who in fact don't even share stevil's views.

If I asked the question to you, then perhaps raising a big stink over it, might have been warranted. But it was directed towards someone who doesn't share your same sensibilities, and with whom you likely disagree with as much as I do on the topic of morality.

Because he doesn't care what you think or others think. It's not a matter of relevance then.

It's a problem of repeated behavior of making communication flubs. You do it so frequently and your defending yourself here like you are, is a flaw. you don't learn or grow from mistakes because you dig in and defend yourself like you're not doing stupid things. So you keep say things in stupid inaccurate phrasing manners.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
14-07-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 01:04 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Because he doesn't care what you think or others think. It's not a matter of relevance then.

But I care what he thinks, for reasons of my own curiosity, and that's all that matters I guess.

Quote:It's a problem of repeated behavior of making communication flubs. You do it so frequently and your defending yourself here like you are, is a flaw.

I'm the first to admit, that communicating with certain people, particularly the sort of atheists one finds readily on the internet extremely difficult. Sometimes it feels as if I'm surrounded by an audience who speaks an entirely different language, or a group of aliens. I can't say that I have these problems communicating anywhere else.

I spend a great deal more time here, trying to figure out why these barriers exist in the first place, not just in regards to myself, but even in watching exchanges by others, like stevil, tear, and Matt, vs everyone else. And I always find myself walking some middle ground between the two. Trying to figure out if my assumptions of what the problems here are accurate, or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 06:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So the best you can imagine is some role it might play in sexual attraction? But contemplating what roles it might play in child rearing, caring for one's children, and community, etc... that's all beyond your imagination?
If we are speculating about a possible evolutionary explanation then we must tie it into a reproductive advantage for the individual with the specific trait vs individuals without the trait.

Not all trait's are specifically selected for. Some traits are merely consequences as others e.g. placid (tamed) dogs tend to have floppy ears even though the humans selected for pacidness rather than floppy ears.
And with intelligent animals such as humans there are such things as memes/language/culture which are learned rather than biologically evolved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  with Stevil I have to leave room for his contrarian beliefs
I don't have beliefs BTW, I'm merely asking questions, challenging the moral beliefs of others.

My position isn't necessarily contrarian, it's just asking the question, "how can we discover if morality exists?" rather than just assuming it does due to personal experience or perceived intuition.

I'm not trying to go the opposite of what everyone else is saying, I'm just willing to hold a minority view in circumstances where my opinion differs from the majority.

It would seem odd to call an atheist who lives in a highly religious country a contrarian merely because they are atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: