Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Moral Realism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    No these are all theories that attempt to describe physical qualities in the universe, and can be demonstrated, to degrees. Completely unlike your moral realism.
    By your logic, all of those positions are wrong, because they don't perform the ridiculous uses you want to put them to.

    And in any event, your mistake has been addressed to death:
    Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      OK, a moral theory that has no practical use. I get it. At least cell theory has some practical use.
      Only a willfully dishonest person would continue to pretend that the following has not been explained to them (especially pretending by cutting it out of their post):
      Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers

      OK, why is it true?



      And how do you demonstrate that your moral views are not simply the expression of your desires or psychology?
      Sorry, but I'm not interest in the evasions from you, and your moving the goalposts. I said this to you:
      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      By the way, you never supported that false claim of your's, even though I explained to you why it was false. Instead, you, once again, conveniently claimed to not be able to follow the English language.
      You had no meaningful response, beyond acting that "objective" and "subjective" meant something other than what they did I rebutted with that. You didn't deal with the rebuttal.

      Feel free to actually deal with the rebuttal, without your usual moving the goaposts. I'll repeat this as many times as it takes for you to produce an honest response.
      Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 01:09 AM.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Remember my questions in the OP: The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?

        As far as I can tell even with all your wrangling you have not answered these questions.
        And in your OP you made up the following false claims:

        I said this in response:
        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        By the way, you never supported that false claim of your's, even though I explained to you why it was false. Instead, you, once again, conveniently claimed to not be able to follow the English language.
        You had no meaningful response, beyond acting that "objective" and "subjective" meant something other than what they did. I rebutted with that. You didn't deal with the rebuttal.

        Feel free to actually deal with the rebuttal, without your usual moving the goaposts. I'll repeat this as many times as it takes for you to produce an honest response.
        Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 01:08 AM.
        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          First, I'm not conveniently doing anything.
          No, you are. When there's a point you can't address, you conveniently lose the ability to understand the English language. That way you can act as if you don't understand the words that were written, and thus avoid acknowledging the point you can't address.

          So why does it follow that Sam is a morally bad person because he is callous?
          Same answer I gave JimL: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...734#post218734

          What if his callousness actually helped gain wealth and position for him and his family. Is it not then a good thing - for them?
          Tell me when you finally acknowledge the difference between "egoism" and "morality". You don't seem to recognize a difference, as I explained to you before:
          As you've been told, might does not make right, even though you think otherwise. So the mere fact that some powerful being would punish me for not obeying it, hold me accountable for what it says, etc., does nothing to show that what that being says in morally right, morally good, etc. Nor does it show that moral statements are true in virtue of what that powerful punisher says.

          In all honesty, you seem to have child-like view of meta-ethics and ethics.. except even children know better than to accept the position you do. Basically, you seem to think that ethics and meta-ethics only matter if you're rewarded and punished for obeying some authority figure. Which is pure egoism on your part. It'd be like saying it's only morally right to give to charity, if a powerful being will punish you for not doing it or reward you for doing it; screw how giving to charity helps other's since that doesn't matter. Even children know better than that. For example, even children will thinking hitting other's for fun is morally wrong, regardless of what an authority figure like God says. And that's because children (unlike you) know better than to think morality boils down to doing whatever the powerful say.


          And I keep asking Jichard, even if your position is correct - of what use is it?
          Same old fallacious appeal to consequence. Only a willfully dishonest person would continue to pretend that the following has not been explained to them:
          Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            By your logic, all of those positions are wrong, because they don't perform the ridiculous uses you want to put them to.

            And in any event, your mistake has been addressed to death:
            Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers
            Nonsense, Cell Theory is useful since it helps us understand something physical - cell biology. What physical quality does moral realism help us understand? If not your comparison is apple and oranges.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
              Sorry, but I'm not interest in the evasions from you, and your moving the goalposts. I said this to you:
              No you have no answer. You said that God's law is subjective since it was based on His desires. Fine - do you have something better? A moral system that is not, at bottom, based on desires or preferences? A system that can be demonstrated, one that is not subjective.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                Yes I see that you arbitrarily stop the justification process when it is convenient for you.


                Tell me when you finally acknowledge the difference between "egoism" and "morality". You don't seem to recognize a difference, as I explained to you before:
                [INDENT][URL="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6655-Moral-Realism&p=218905#post218905"]As you've been told, might does not make right, even though you think otherwise. So the mere fact that some powerful being would punish me for not obeying it, hold me accountable for what it says, etc., does nothing to show that what that being says in morally right, morally good, etc. Nor does it show that moral statements are true in virtue of what that powerful punisher says.
                I did not once say that might makes right. But the fact is, in your universe there is no ultimate justice. What use is a moral system without justice?



                Same old fallacious appeal to consequence. Only a willfully dishonest person would continue to pretend that the following has not been explained to them:
                Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers
                Again this is a pure assertion on your part. We can demonstrate that cell theory is useful for understanding cell biology. You have not demonstrate, on any level, that moral realism is useful or even true.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  No you have no answer. You said that God's law is subjective since it was based on His desires. Fine - do you have something better?
                  Do you admit you were wrong when you wrote this?:
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                  If not, then why not.

                  Because I said this to you:
                  Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                  By the way, you never supported that false claim of your's, even though I explained to you why it was false. Instead, you, once again, conveniently claimed to not be able to follow the English language.
                  You had no meaningful response, beyond acting that "objective" and "subjective" meant something other than what they did I rebutted with that. You didn't deal with the rebuttal.

                  Feel free to actually deal with the rebuttal, without your usual moving the goaposts. I'll repeat this as many times as it takes for you to produce an honest response. And I won't deal with the rest of whatever else you post, until you address this (given your penchant for evading).
                  Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 12:40 PM.
                  "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Nonsense, Cell Theory is useful since it helps us understand something physical - cell biology. What physical quality does moral realism help us understand? If not your comparison is apple and oranges.
                    Once again, you're conveniently acting as if you don't understand the English language. The point of the comparison was not that moral realism answers questions about physics. It's instead that just as Cell Theory answers particular types of questions (biological questions), moral realism answers particular types of questions (meta-ethical questions). Anyone who can read English should be able to figure that out, based on what I wrote:
                    Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers

                    So Cell Theory answers biological questions, just like mathematical theories answer mathematical questions. Similarly, moral realism answers meta-ethical questions. Thus your response was as ridiculous as objecting to a mathematical theory, by claiming it doesn't answer questions about physics.


                    Anyway, do you admit you were wrong when you wrote this?:
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                    If not, then why not.

                    Because I said this to you:
                    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                    By the way, you never supported that false claim of your's, even though I explained to you why it was false. Instead, you, once again, conveniently claimed to not be able to follow the English language.
                    You had no meaningful response, beyond acting that "objective" and "subjective" meant something other than what they did I rebutted with that. You didn't deal with the rebuttal.

                    Feel free to actually deal with the rebuttal, without your usual moving the goaposts. I'll repeat this as many times as it takes for you to produce an honest response. And I won't deal with the rest of whatever else you post, until you address this (given your penchant for evading).
                    Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 12:39 PM.
                    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                      Once again, you're conveniently acting as if you don't understand the English language. The point of the comparison was not that moral realism answers questions about physics. It's instead that just as Cell Theory answers particular types of questions (biological questions), moral realism answers particular types of questions (meta-ethical questions). Anyone who can read English should be able to figure that out, based on what I wrote:
                      Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers

                      So Cell Theory answers biological questions, just like mathematical theories answer mathematical questions. Similarly, moral realism answers meta-ethical questions. Thus your response was as silly as objecting to a mathematical theory, by claiming it doesn't answer questions about physics.
                      Right this is like pulling teeth. How does moral realism answer meta-ethical questions? How does that show that there is anything "objective" here? Or why we should accept moral realism as true? And again, at least cell theory corresponds to something real, tangible. Cell theory can be demonstrated via cell biology. How do you demonstrate your position?


                      Anyway, do you admit you were wrong when you wrote this?:
                      If not, then why not.

                      Because I said this to you:
                      You had no meaningful response, beyond acting that "objective" and "subjective" meant something other than what they did I rebutted with that. You didn't deal with the rebuttal.

                      Feel free to actually deal with the rebuttal, without your usual moving the goaposts. I'll repeat this as many times as it takes for you to produce an honest response. And I won't deal with the rest of whatever else you post, until you address it,gien your penchant for evading.
                      Pure BS, I agree that God's law would be subjective to Him, but objective to mankind. Fine you don't buy it. It doesn't matter because that is NOT what I asked in my OP, and it is not even relevant to my original inquiry which was: The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?

                      And you stated: To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. OK, let's use that - how is moral realism not mind dependent?
                      Last edited by seer; 07-16-2015, 12:51 PM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Right this is like pulling teeth. How does moral realism answer meta-ethical questions? How does that show that there is anything "objective" here? Or why we should accept moral realism as true? And again, at least cell theory corresponds to something real, tangible.

                        I'm not interested in your goal-post moves and Gish gallops.

                        Do you admit that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions? And there's no point in lying or feigninig ignorant, since you've been previously pointed to sources on the sort of meta-ethical questions that moral realism answers:
                        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                        Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

                        Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.

                        Originally posted by seer
                        Pure BS, I agree that God's law would be subjective to Him, but objective to mankind.
                        And I explained why that was wrong. Feel free to address that response. Here it is again:

                        It's subjective because God's commands express God's desires.

                        On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.

                        That's why divine command theory is recognized as a forum of moral subjectivism, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. I've even dumbed this down for you by pointing you to Wikipedia on this.


                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Fine you don't buy it. It doesn't matter because that is NOT what I asked in my OP, and it is not even relevant to my original inquiry which was: The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?
                        You said it in your OP. You even started your OP off with it:
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                        So you can stop pretending otherwise.
                        Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 01:01 PM.
                        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                          Do you admit that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions?

                          I'm not interested in your goal-post moves and Gish gallops.
                          That is a lie, these are basically the same questions I asked from the OP. And yes, I agree that you assert that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions.



                          And I explained why that was wrong. Feel free to address that response. Here it is again:
                          I don't care, I don't care if God's law is only subjective to Him or subjective to Him and objective to us.


                          You said it in your OP. You even started your OP off with it:
                          So you can stop pretending otherwise.
                          You are a deeply deceptive man Jichard, I had two basic questions in my OP: where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist? And you have done all you could to confuse the issue and to avoid them.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            That is a lie, these are basically the same questions I asked from the OP. And yes, I agree that you assert that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions.
                            You didn't answer the question; the question was not about what I asserted or did not assert.

                            The question instead was: Do you admit that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions? And there's no point in lying or feigninig ignorance, since you've been previously pointed to sources on the sort of meta-ethical questions that moral realism answers:
                            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

                            Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.

                            I don't care, I don't care if God's law is only subjective to Him or subjective to Him and objective to us.
                            You cared enough to start your OP with it:
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                            So I'm going to keep addressing it no matter how much it bugs you. Once again, I explained why what you said was wrong. Feel free to address that response. Here it is again:

                            It's subjective because God's commands express God's desires.

                            On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.

                            That's why divine command theory is recognized as a forum of moral subjectivism, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. I've even dumbed this down for you by pointing you to Wikipedia on this.


                            You are a deeply deceptive man Jichard, I had two basic questions in my OP: where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist? And you have done all you could to confuse the issue and to avoid them.
                            You started off your OP with this:
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                            I've explained why that claim is wrong. And I've already explained why I'm doing that:
                            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            But also like I said even if God's law is subjective to Him - so what?
                            Not "subjective to Him". Instead, "subjective simpliciter". That is: "subjective".

                            It means that you can no longer go around pretending that you have a moral objectivist position. You don't; you're a moral subjectivist. It also means that you can drop the pretense about atheism being incompatible with moral objectivism.
                            There's no deception here on my part. I'm just making you do something you can't stand having to do: defend ridiculous claims you make in the service of defending your apologetic position. And that seems to be frustrating you. Good. :)
                            Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 01:39 PM.
                            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                              You didn't answer the question; the question was not about what I asserted or did not assert.

                              The question instead was: Do you admit that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions? And there's no point in lying or feigninig ignorance, since you've been previously pointed to sources on the sort of meta-ethical questions that moral realism answers
                              No I don't admit that moral realism does anything but assert that it answers meta-ethical questions. Is that so hard for you to follow? Or do you agree that Ethical subjectivism answers meta-ethical questions?

                              You started off your OP with this:
                              I've explained why that claim is wrong. And I've already explained why I'm doing that:
                              There's no deception here on my part. I'm just making you do something you can't stand having to do: defend ridiculous claims you make in the service of defending your apologetic position. And that seems to be frustrating you. Good. :)

                              What were the questions I actually asked in my OP Jichard?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                No I don't admit that moral realism does anything but assert that it answers meta-ethical questions.
                                I've pointed you to sources on the sorts of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers. For example:
                                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

                                Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.
                                So why do you still not accept that moral realism answers meta-ethical questions?

                                Is that so hard for you to follow? Or do you agree that Ethical subjectivism answers meta-ethical questions?
                                I accept that ethical subjectivism answers meta-ethical questions. It obviously does, since it's a meta-ethical position.

                                What were the questions I actually asked in my OP Jichard?
                                Anyone can read your OP and see what those questions are, just like they can read your OP and see that it started off with these false claims:
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                                So I'm going to keep addressing it no matter how much it bugs you. And I've already explained why I'm doing that:
                                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                But also like I said even if God's law is subjective to Him - so what?
                                Not "subjective to Him". Instead, "subjective simpliciter". That is: "subjective".

                                It means that you can no longer go around pretending that you have a moral objectivist position. You don't; you're a moral subjectivist. It also means that you can drop the pretense about atheism being incompatible with moral objectivism.
                                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                I'm just making you do something you can't stand having to do: defend ridiculous claims you make in the service of defending your apologetic position. And that seems to be frustrating you. Good. :)

                                So once again, I explained why what you said was wrong. Feel free to address that response. Here it is again:

                                It's subjective because God's commands express God's desires.

                                On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.

                                That's why divine command theory is recognized as a forum of moral subjectivism, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. I've even dumbed this down for you by pointing you to Wikipedia on this.

                                Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 02:10 PM.
                                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X