Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 01:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  People have a variety of personal moral prohibitions, some as difficult to transverse as going from liking the taste or chocolate to cow manure. Others not so difficult to transverse when tempted. In fact people do so all the time, and we can’t say they’re always plagued by guilt about it. There’s plenty of christians masterbating, cheating on their wives, hardly riddled with guilt about it.

*
trans·verse
/transˈvərs,tranzˈvərs/
adjective
adjective: transverse
situated or extending across something.
"a transverse beam supports the dashboard"
synonyms: crosswise, crossways, cross, horizontal, diagonal, oblique, slanted
"a transverse bar"

Maybe you should consider getting an education.

Your constant idiotic implication that "not liking chocolate" somehow equates to a moral or ethical stance is disingenuous in the extreme. It's OLD, and has been DEBUNKED.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-12-2016, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 01:57 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 01:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your constant idiotic implication that "not liking chocolate" somehow equates to a moral or ethical stance is disingenuous in the extreme. It's OLD, and has been DEBUNKED.

Not liking chocolate is subjective, according to many atheists morality is subjective as well.

Morality is as subjective as liking or not liking chocolate is subjective. Do you disagree?

If not, then substantiate the difference between one form of subjectivity, and the other form.

I've went point by point with pretty much every meaningful objection raised, to indicate why it's similarly subjective, even though different positive and negative feelings are involved.

But I will say there is a difference, the only one to actually point out, and that is that our moral language, and beliefs are dominated by those who don't believe morality is subjective, but believe it's objective. There's a variety of false objective beliefs, that make morality out to be something other than subjective, but stripped of this, there is no real difference between one form of subjective preferences, or other forms of subjective preferences, other than a difference in the sensations involved.

"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
28-12-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 01:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not liking chocolate is subjective, according to many atheists morality is subjective as well.

Morality is as subjective as liking or not liking chocolate is subjective. Do you disagree?

I already have substantiated the DIFFERENCE. The fact that two things can be labeled "subjective" does not IN ANY WAY equate their intellectual categorical equivalency. Do philosophers and ethicists study chocolate ?
No they don't. Your comparison is FALSE.
They DO study and move towards and reach ethical decisions and conclusions BASED ON STUDY and
principles, which not all people agree on. There is nothing objective about that.

"I've went" is improper English, Mr. Fake PhD. You're FAILED in your idiotic mission to demonstrate that morality is objective.

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
28-12-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 02:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I already have substantiated the DIFFERENCE. The fact that two things can be labeled "subjective" does not IN ANY WAY equate their intellectual categorical equivalency. Do philosophers and ethicists study chocolate ?

Chocolate connoisseurs do. Chefs do, Michelin critics do.

In fact there's a rich intellectual heritage regarding film preferences, musical preferences, fashion preferences, etc....

Pointing out that philosophers and ethicists don't study chocolate here, is like pointing out that music majors don't study film. Well duh.

And as a side note as pointed out to your earlier, most philosophers don't subscribe to a view of morality as subjective, only a fraction of them do, so you can't really appeal to them for support. In fact it can be said that moral philosophies are drowned by false beliefs in objective morality, which most philosophers subscribe to.

Quote:You're FAILED in your idiotic mission to demonstrate that morality is objective.

I though I was demonstrating that morality is subjective. While you want to argue that it's something other than whats commonly understand by the term "subjective". That subjective when it comes to morality, means something entirely different than when used in any other category like music, or film, etc...

"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
28-12-2016, 03:12 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Chocolate connoisseurs do. Chefs do, Michelin critics do.

They study what makes their qualities what they are. Not whether the preference for them is objective or self-evident. You' re dishonesty is SO obvious.

Quote:In fact there's a rich intellectual heritage regarding film preferences, musical preferences, fashion preferences, etc....

No in the way you're attempting to categorize them, and you fucking know it, you liar.

Quote:Pointing out that philosophers and ethicists don't study chocolate here, is like pointing out that music majors don't study film. Well duh.

No it isn't. and it's PERFECTLY applicable. YOU are the one who attempted to say that a taste for candy and ethical choices are equivalent, you dishonest fucker.

Quote:And as a side note as pointed out to your earlier, most philosophers don't subscribe to a view of morality as subjective, only a fraction of them do, so you can't really appeal to them for support. In fact it can be said that moral philosophies are drowned by false beliefs in objective morality, which most philosophers subscribe to.

I don't invoke "most philosophers" so your point is (as most) irrelevant and dishonest. I never "appealed to them"n for anything. Philosophers STUDY ethics. There is no question about that.

Quote:In fact it can be said that moral philosophies are drowned by false beliefs in objective morality, which most philosophers subscribe to.

Prove it.

Quote:I though I was demonstrating that morality is subjective. While you want to argue that it's something other than whats commonly understand by the term "subjective". That subjective when it comes to morality, means something entirely different than when used in any other category like music, or film, etc...

You've demonstrated nothing except you don't know shit, and you're a dishonest person.

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
28-12-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 03:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They study what makes their qualities what they are. Not whether the preference for them is objective or self-evident. You' re dishonesty is SO obvious.

If the moral philosophers and ethcisit were objectivist which most of them are, yes they would be a bit different than chocolate connoisseurs, and Michelin critics, primarily because they believe falsely that their values, and moral inclinations are objectively true. If they were subjectivist on the other hand, they would be indistinguishable between chocolate connoisseurs, Michelin critics, film critics etc….


Quote:No in the way you're attempting to categorize them, and you fucking know it, you liar.

Exactly the way I’m categorizing them, You’ve one who failed to draw a distinction, other than badly appealing to objectivist views, when we’re talking about subjectivist views.

Quote:No it isn't. and it's PERFECTLY applicable. YOU are the one who attempted to say that a taste for candy and ethical choices are equivalent, you dishonest fucker.

If it feels good to take your wallet, and I wasn’t bothered by the consequences associated with doing so, and did it. What would be the difference between this and choosing to eat candy a bar because it felt good, and not being worried about the consequences associated with it, such diabetes, etc..?

In terms of other biological creatures, non-human animals, is there a difference between the pleasure of eating food, and the pleasure of behaving nicely? Other than the pleasurableness feeling different.

"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
28-12-2016, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2016 04:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 04:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If the moral philosophers and ethcisit were objectivist which most of them are, yes they would be a bit different than chocolate connoisseurs, and Michelin critics, primarily because they believe falsely that their values, and moral inclinations are objectively true. If they were subjectivist on the other hand, they would be indistinguishable between chocolate connoisseurs, Michelin critics, film critics etc….

They would be indistinguishable only to idiots who are unable to think, and actually who have NEVER STUDIED ethics and Philosophy. Ethicists establish a foundational set of principles, that work for themselves, and then make judgments using these principles. They don't ever talk about your chocolate crap, or try to equate them, you fucking idiot. And yes, there is a profound difference between people who study ethics and evaluate chocolate. You would n't know what that is, as your head is SO far up your ass. They (chocolate eaters) don't decide what they LIKE on the basis of study and principles. They just like what they like. THERE's your fucking difference.

Quote:Exactly the way I’m categorizing them, You’ve one who failed to draw a distinction, other than badly appealing to objectivist views, when we’re talking about subjectivist views.

I drew the distinction. You just never studied Philosophy or ethics, so you don't get it. See above.

Quote:If it feels good to take your wallet, and I wasn’t bothered by the consequences associated with doing so, and did it. What would be the difference between this and choosing to eat candy a bar because it felt good, and not being worried about the consequences associated with it, such diabetes, etc..?

Yet MORE childish simplistic crap, and illegitimate comparisons. One is illegal. One is unethical because after STUDY and thought, one destroys the foundation of society and trust in others. Stop being such a fucking child.

Quote:In terms of other biological creatures, non-human animals, is there a difference between the pleasure of eating food, and the pleasure of behaving nicely? Other than the pleasurableness feeling different.

You tell me why is this a relevant part of this discussion, and maybe I'll answer. Seriously, you are a fucking broken record. Did you have to memorize this shit in your fake university ?

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
28-12-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(10-12-2016 04:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-11-2016 04:11 AM)Velvet Wrote:  Hey guys, I hope you are all felling wonderful today, especially Jenny Bowing, so, a couple weeks ago one of my students, knowing I'm an atheist as him, asked about the bases for our morality.

(Keep in mind that english is not my first language, and try to ignore any horrendous errors that you might find)

What he was actually after tho (he told me this week) was an answer to this video:


Here we see W.L. Craig raping an unprepared guy, following with some maieutic... (Look at the way he looks at the guy like he is a tasty prey)

Well, i'm not a philosopher so I thought it was wise to think and research a bit more on the topic... and I found some very interesting piece of paper: a letter from an atheist to W.L. Craig about this same issue.

Now, I don't know if this is a fake from Craig, and even if it isn't it could still be someone trolling Craig...

The letter talks about the moral implications of setting morality as a social/cultural or/+ evolutionary construct, in which one who understands that both of those (or any combination of those) would not be objective, and ultimately, not meaningful as a basis for any moral judgment.

As a honest thinker, one is forced to apply skepticism to his moral intuitious, and until he is able to find rational justification he shouldn't regard them as anything more than his personal opinion, maybe learned from culture or "infused" by natural selection.

Then, now basically a Nihilist, one is unable to dish any moral judgment, and is rendered incapable of honestly telling why we shouldn't torture a child.

There is any validity to refer to right and wrong using bases of actions that maximize humanity's long term survival? Why it would be the case?

There's any validity to refer to right and wrong using bases of actions that minimize human suffering?

I'm interested in knowing you guys take on this subject, have you ever thought about it? What are your basis to say action X is wrong?

As an atheists, as someone who doesn't believe in objective morality. You have no basis to claim that action X is wrong, beyond stating your own personal preference. More equivalent to stating that that top doesn't go well with that skirt, than a truth statement.

Atheist tend to frame it as matter of harm. But even then, when stating x is wrong, they're merely suggesting that it's wrong for you to hurt others, because they personally don't like it when you do.


Found it. Here's where you began flogging the dead horse.

You sure do place a lot of stock in handing out moral condemnation, don't you? Meh, when I've been wronged I'm far more interested in what the justice system can do for me than I am getting the offender to agree with my negative assessment of his actions.

Can you say anything about what the rest of us are missing out on? Is pointing that finger and dishing the indignation really such a rush? And even if it is, what good does it do if the transgressor laughs at your objectively held morals the same way they do my subjectively held ones?

Personally I think your concept of morality is pretty impoverished. But if you care to defend, knock yourself out.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 04:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They would be indistinguishable only to idiots who are unable to think, and actually who have NEVER STUDIED ethics and Philosophy. Ethicists establish a foundational set of principles, that work for themselves, and then make judgments using these principles. They don't ever talk about your chocolate crap, or try to equate them, you fucking idiot. And yes, there is a profound difference between people who study ethics and evaluate chocolate

Well of course philosophers and ethicists are not prone to equate morality to other subjective preferences, that because most of them don’t believe morality is subjective. For the same reason most theologians, and religious philosophers are not likely to equate believing in God with a belief in fairies, or leprechauns lol.


Quote:One is illegal.

Irrelevant. Abortion might be illegal, gay marriage is illegal in a variety of states, etc… doesn’t mean it’s immoral.

Quote:One is unethical because after STUDY and thought, one destroys the foundation of society and trust in others.


Perhaps for those whose moral outlook is based on the effects any particular action might have to the foundations of society, those who hold to a consequentialist outlook. But not to to those who are moral nihilist.

After study and thought would the moral nihilist recognize that stealing is immoral?

How about those who hold Nietzsche’s moral outlook, see good as that which is beneficial to me. With such an outlook stealing your wallet may be a good thing. If after study and thought would he recognize that his actions are immoral?

People have their own particular criterea of what constitutes as good food, bad food, good music, bad music, good and bad behavior, now clearly the criteria for good food, doesn’t mirror the criteria for a good film.

You hold morality is subjective, and claim that stealing your wallet is morally bad.

Why should anyone not translate this akin to you saying that The Passion of the Christ is a bad movie? That you’re just appealing to your own subjective criteria of what constitutes as a good and bad (movie/behavior), and expressing it to me?

Appealing to the fact that your moral outlook involves a different criteria than your view of films, doesn’t work, because all subjective categories involve different criterias. Your appeal to illegality and social harm is merely your own personal criteria, in fact not all moralist criteria requires a consideration of social harm, or legality.

So try harder this time. Why should it be translated any differently?

"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
28-12-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(28-12-2016 05:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well of course philosophers and ethicists are not prone to equate morality to other subjective preferences, that because most of them don’t believe morality is subjective.

You keep saying that. You never studied ethics or Philosophy. How would you know ? Prove what you claim, or STFU.

Quote:One is illegal.

Quote:Irrelevant. Abortion might be illegal, gay marriage is illegal in a variety of states, etc… doesn’t mean it’s immoral.

And becuase you're a dishonest cunt, you left off the part where I TOLD YOU WHY it is both.

Quote:Perhaps for those whose moral outlook is based on the effects any particular action might have to the foundations of society, those who hold to a consequentialist outlook. But not to to those who are moral nihilist.

Hey dumbshit. You actually think THEY want their wallets stolen / Fuck you're a dumbshit.

Quote:After study and thought would the moral nihilist recognize that stealing is immoral?

I don't know and I don't care. I don't have to answer for anyone.

Quote:How about those who hold Nietzsche’s moral outlook, see good as that which is beneficial to me. With such an outlook stealing your wallet may be a good thing. If after study and thought would he recognize that his actions are immoral?

I never said all moral systems are EQUAL, you dishonest cunt.

Quote:People have their own particular criterea of what constitutes as good food, bad food, good music, bad music, good and bad behavior, now clearly the criteria for good food, doesn’t mirror the criteria for a good film.

There you go again. Equating food and ethics. God you are stupid.

Quote:You hold morality is subjective, and claim that stealing your wallet is morally bad.
Why should anyone not translate this akin to you saying that The Passion of the Christ is a bad movie? That you’re just appealing to your own subjective criteria of what constitutes as a good and bad (movie/behavior), and expressing it to me?

I've answered this now at least three times.

Quote:Appealing to the fact that your moral outlook involves a different criteria than your view of films, doesn’t work, because all subjective categories involve different criterias. Your appeal to illegality and social harm is merely your own personal criteria, in fact not all moralist criteria requires a consideration of social harm, or legality.

It doesn't work for you because you dishonestly make FALSE comparisons, and NEVER EVER studied ethics and Philosophy.

Quote:So try harder this time. Why should it be translated any differently?

It's not going to make any difference, Tomato.
You've already demonstrated you are incapable of critical thought about ethics, as you have no education in the subject. You think it's the same as chocolate.

Fuck.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: