Challenge to proponents of objective morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2017, 12:07 PM
Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 02:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nice strawman, I never claimed there’s only a single objective truth.


And now you’re claiming there are many objective truths, which is a bit different then claiming there is no objective truth.

If your argument is that there are many objective truths, I have never argued otherwise. And your attempts to drag me into that argument involves one huge strawman.

They are only "objective" truths because we define them to be. Axioms are by definition "objective", there is no need to state it. The whole purpose of the definition itself is to remove any subjectivity from it.

"Given a line and a point not on the line, it is possible to draw exactly one line through the given point parallel to the line." is an axiom in Euclidean geometry.

The contradictory "There exist two lines parallel to a given line through a given point not on the line." is an axiom in Lobachevskian geometry

They are a contradiction but both are nonetheless objectively true. In fact, they are both as objectively true as you can possibly get. So I don't know where you think you're going with this concept of "objective truth" but it is elementary to show it will lead exactly nowhere except forcing you to accept contradictions and throw away the Aristotelian logic you so clearly depend on.

You seem to be working off of one immense strawman. I never claimed that objective truths can’t be contradictory, can’t be relative, or conditional.

So whoever you’re imagining yourself as arguing with here, is clearly not me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
07-09-2017, 02:15 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
I've been thinking about the definition of morality, as it relates to religious theists. It seems that most of them, at least the ones that aren't hardcore fundamentalists, try to imply that morality is ultimately about acting in peoples' best interests.

I can see this making sense when people are preaching, and using whatever tactics they can come up with to try and convert people. If they sincerely believe that we are headed down a path which is going to be really harmful to us, it is reasonable that they make some attempt to warn us. I see it as them shouting to us as we walk towards the edge of a cliff that we're unaware of. There is a balance of how far it is reasonable to go in such situations, of course. Continuing the metaphor, would you physically restrain someone who is about to walk off a cliff? What would you do if they continued to walk towards it even after you grabbed them and pulled them back?

What doesn't make any sense though is killing people for religious reasons. Of course, you'd hope non-fundamentalists would never condone this anyway. This can't be in their best interests, because you're assuring they go down that wrong path, with no chance to turn back. It's the equivalent of pushing the person off a cliff.

How does shunning and otherwise inconveniencing people fit in? Maybe it could be argued that this is ultimately an attempt to make the person want to rejoin the group, and that it's in their best interest to try, even if it amounts to blackmail.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2017, 04:52 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(07-09-2017 02:15 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  How does shunning and otherwise inconveniencing people fit in? Maybe it could be argued that this is ultimately an attempt to make the person want to rejoin the group, and that it's in their best interest to try, even if it amounts to blackmail.

It works both ways. It is simultaneously pressuring them to come back if they still have some residual belief, and keeping them away to protect the group if they don't. People are conflicted, so you are encouraging one side and discouraging the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: