Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 04:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 03:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I know what you are getting at. It's a problem of what I thought, you really aren't going to any further step. It's a false situation you think you are trying to make; the problem is there is no definitive reason to accept the 1st element is anything that exists.

You don't know what I am getting it. And that's the problem with you. Is that you bring whatever sort of baggage you have with other theists, and tend to associate it with every theists you see. This tends to obscure your "mind reading".

I was never interested in arguing the validity of these supposed truth claims. And the only thing I was arguing is that, they are in fact truth claims.

The larger operative of this discussion was merely to point out, that your typical secular moral claims, are not truth claims, but rather in essence statements of taste.

I know that is what you are "Trying" to get at the whole time. This is irrelevant to theism. It's about some misnomer on what moral claims are.

I already explained this to you before when you were lingering around these points. It's not a equivalent to taste as you put it. It's just a matter of judging them based on social norms. The way that these concepts derive from the social contract and personal benefit in a grand scheme has already been mentioned to you. You choose to just ignore it and go on to this, but you aren't saying anything in contrast to it still.

My point of it being a false dilemma is because your saying secular moral claims aren't truth claims as if its a profound point. No, it isn't anything that matters. It's largely understood already as that in some philosophical views of morality... and it doesn't disregard anything about secular morality. This is why I keep being amused at your efforts here. You're arguing something I accept as if it's something you are leading me into oblivious to it.

"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
17-12-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 04:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 03:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I know what you are getting at. It's a problem of what I thought, you really aren't going to any further step. It's a false situation you think you are trying to make; the problem is there is no definitive reason to accept the 1st element is anything that exists.

You don't know what I am getting it. And that's the problem with you. Is that you bring whatever sort of baggage you have with other theists, and tend to associate it with every theists you see. This tends to obscure your "mind reading".

I was never interested in arguing the validity of these supposed truth claims. And the only thing I was arguing is that, they are in fact truth claims.

The larger operative of this discussion was merely to point out, that your typical secular moral claims, are not truth claims, but rather in essence statements of taste.
Truth claim is a semantics thing.
If you like green eggs it is a truth claim, in that it is true that you do so.
As for absolute truths! Do they exist....in what time frame? context?
As for Bertie's tea pot; if some believe such it is at least true to them.
'Truth' is very elusive despite logic and rationality,,,,in the big picture that is!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 04:54 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 04:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I already explained this to you before when you were lingering around these points. It's not a equivalent to taste as you put it. It's just a matter of judging them based on social norms. The way that these concepts derive from the social contract and personal benefit in a grand scheme has already been mentioned to you. You choose to just ignore it and go on to this, but you aren't saying anything in contrast to it still.

Okay, this is good point for discussion.

So when you say something is morally good or bad, are you stating a truth claim then? And not a statement of taste?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 04:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I already explained this to you before when you were lingering around these points. It's not a equivalent to taste as you put it. It's just a matter of judging them based on social norms. The way that these concepts derive from the social contract and personal benefit in a grand scheme has already been mentioned to you. You choose to just ignore it and go on to this, but you aren't saying anything in contrast to it still.

Okay, this is good point for discussion.

So when you say something is morally good or bad, are you stating a truth claim then? And not a statement of taste?

I don't think I would generally ever use the concept of good/bad in the moral sense. I would say it's neither, because I don't like your quirky distinctions.

To sum it up in a far too simple way that will come off as weird, in order to put it in a few sentences: A moral claim is a statement on whether something is beneficial/contrasting to the moral values that it effects. Whether it was a value of harm, purity, fairness, etc. And Peoples ideas of these moral values come from both their instincts/societal influence.

If you want to call it taste, by all means do so.

"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
17-12-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 04:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I already explained this to you before when you were lingering around these points. It's not a equivalent to taste as you put it. It's just a matter of judging them based on social norms. The way that these concepts derive from the social contract and personal benefit in a grand scheme has already been mentioned to you. You choose to just ignore it and go on to this, but you aren't saying anything in contrast to it still.

Okay, this is good point for discussion.

So when you say something is morally good or bad, are you stating a truth claim then? And not a statement of taste?
I would suggest that 'taste is more applicable to more mundane things......wine snobbery, gourmet food,fashion, as opposed to moral rights.
I see morality as ensconced in more serious human needs such as shelter, food, drink...basic sustenance, after which would come 'taste'.
Social norms may direct us to 'tastes', 'needs', for their own vested interests, not the more serious needs of humanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 05:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't think I would generally ever use the concept of good/bad in the moral sense. I would say it's neither, because I don't like your quirky distinctions.

To sum it up in a far too simple way that will come off as weird, in order to put it in a few sentences: A moral claim is a statement on whether something is beneficial/contrasting to the moral values that it effects. Whether it was a value of harm, purity, fairness, etc. And Peoples ideas of these moral values come from both their instincts/societal influence.

If you want to call it taste, by all means do so.

You wouldn't say something like the Peshawar massacre was an evil, or immoral act?

And if you would, you wouldn't believe this is either a statement of taste, or a truth claim?

If you do you think it's a evil, or an immoral act, what is that makes it so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2014 07:42 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 05:10 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I would suggest that 'taste is more applicable to more mundane things......wine snobbery, gourmet food,fashion, as opposed to moral rights.
I see morality as ensconced in more serious human needs such as shelter, food, drink...basic sustenance, after which would come 'taste'.
Social norms may direct us to 'tastes', 'needs', for their own vested interests, not the more serious needs of humanity.

When we use the statement of taste here, it means that in such statement one is expressing his own personal preferences. That saying an act is immoral, like eggs taste better scrambled than over easy, Is neither true or false, or put another way can be both true and false, because it's dependent on each individual person.

Unlike a truth claim, such as a teapot orbits the sun, even if unverifiable, can only be true or false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(18-12-2014 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 05:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't think I would generally ever use the concept of good/bad in the moral sense. I would say it's neither, because I don't like your quirky distinctions.

To sum it up in a far too simple way that will come off as weird, in order to put it in a few sentences: A moral claim is a statement on whether something is beneficial/contrasting to the moral values that it effects. Whether it was a value of harm, purity, fairness, etc. And Peoples ideas of these moral values come from both their instincts/societal influence.

If you want to call it taste, by all means do so.

You wouldn't say something like the Peshawar massacre was an evil, or immoral act?

And if you would, you wouldn't believe this is either a statement of taste, or a truth claim?

If you do you think it's a evil, or an immoral act, what is that makes it so?

It would boil down to the judgement of moral values of the case. I don't know what that massacre was/is.

Why do you value bland constructs that aren't deeply valuable. If you're not getting it, I'm not certain of any justification to accept any moral truth claims have any merit.

"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
18-12-2014, 07:30 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(18-12-2014 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When we use the statement of taste here, it means that in such statement one is expressing his own personal presences. That saying an act is immoral, like eggs taste better scrambled than over easy, Is neither true or false, or put another way can be both true and false, because it's dependent on each individual person.

Unlike a truth claim, such as a teapot orbits the sun, even if unverifiable, can only be true or false.

WTAF ???!!!

personal PREFERENCES.

Are you fucking kidding me ?

What is WRONG with this picture ? Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2014, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2014 07:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(17-12-2014 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 04:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I already explained this to you before when you were lingering around these points. It's not a equivalent to taste as you put it. It's just a matter of judging them based on social norms. The way that these concepts derive from the social contract and personal benefit in a grand scheme has already been mentioned to you. You choose to just ignore it and go on to this, but you aren't saying anything in contrast to it still.

Okay, this is good point for discussion.

So when you say something is morally good or bad, are you stating a truth claim then? And not a statement of taste?

You've already beat that dead horse to death again, and that question has already been answered here. Are you some sort of bot ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: