Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An infinite series of finite causes.
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThat was essentially #2Atheism 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 carpedm9587 View PostClearly not to you.
No - to be a moral relativist - you have to practice moral relativism. Everyone does.
Look, you may not want to call yourself a carpenter if you make your living in woodcraft, but it doesn't mean you're not a carpenter. You can call yourself a plumber every day of the week, it doesn't make you one if you regularly work with wood. Likewise, a person can call themselves a moral objectivist/absolutist every day of the week, but if they are practicing moral relativism/subjectivism, they are a moral relativist/subjectivist. I have never met anyone who is not, in reality, practicing moral relativism/subjectivism - including yourself. You can dress it up any way you wish, but your moral framework is grounded in your subjective valuing of your "god," and your subjective interpretation of what this "god" wills - which was actually written down by men. You cannot escape moral relativism/subjectivism.
You do love Technique #3. Unfortunately, and argument from outrage is just not an argument. I see the Nazi throwing Jews into ovens as no different from you disrespecting/disparaging the LGBTQ community or anyone else who has come to a subjective conclusion that "X is right." Each person see's their own moral framework as "right" by definition. If they didn't, they would have a different one. That does not make them "right" in any absolute sense. They may go to their graves believing they were acting morally, as you undoubtedly will about the LGBTQ community. Meanwhile, the rest of us will work to minimize the effect of the actions of those we consider to be immoral, including both the Nazi and you.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 carpedm9587 View Post"Swaying" them is an attempt to get them to value as I value so they will derive the same moral code I have derived. For that to happen, they have to see a benefit to themselves from "valuing X." If I cannot help them find one, they will not value X.
If someone's moral code does not align with mine, then I will, by definition, see their moral code as "flawed" or "wrong." After all, I cannot hold two contradictory moral positions simultaneously. It is also possible they will make the same judgment of me.
Seer's bigotry against the LGBTQ community is a perfect case in point. He values something I do not (his god). It drives his moral code - leaving him seeing me as "immoral" or "wrong" to support the LGBTQ community, and I see him as immoral/wrong to take bigoted stances against them. Unless we can align our valuing, or I can somehow show hm an error in his reasoning from what he values to his moral framework, we are going to continue to evaluate one another as wrong/immoral. It is possible there is no resolution to that, which means we can exhaust the "convince" without resolution. That takes us to isolate/separate or contend to determine who's moral code will become part of our society's expressed moral code, which means it will likely be enforced in law.Last edited by JimL; 04-23-2018, 02:56 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut why would you care if they value what you value, why would you care if they derive the same moral code as you have derived if you did not believe that what you value is right, and that what they value is wrong?
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut you do not only see their moral code as being wrong simply because it doesn't agree with your own moral code, there must be reasons for believing that your moral code is right and theirs to be wrong, no?
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think we need to leave god out of it because god is just mans way of enforcing mans own moral code. When god comes in to play then all reason and common sense goes out the window.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostHow could they be logically unalienable? Because the majority may subjectively agree with certain values? That makes no sense.
Originally posted by seer View PostNonsense.
Moral relativism is a meta-ethical theory, one that most people don't hold - thankfully. The moral realist or theist hold that there are universal moral truths, that belief does not depend on what we practice or not.
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course in your world I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays... And what gives you the right to minimize anything?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo it isn't - they could and did see Jews as human but did not value their lives, or valued something over their lives. Nothing illogical about that. If you saw two children drowning, and could only save one, and one was a stranger and the other your child - you will value your child over the other.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOf COURSE I believe what I value is what people should value.
If I didn't, I wouldn't value it myself. That doesn't make it "objective."
Yes. Because my moral code is rooted in what I value. What I value is based on many influences: culture, family, community, reason, the reality of my humanity, etc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhy? Is it because you believe your moral values to be right. If so, what do you mean by right?
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo, you don't think that either one of you are right? If you believe murder to be wrong and someone else thinks it's not wrong, do you believe that neither one of you is correct?
This is what Seer is largely objecting to. He wants there to be an absolute/objective metric to settle this question. Without one, he sees the entire situation as "irrational" and "without resolution." That is unsettling. Yet that is exactly what happens. It may well be that there is no way to resolve this dispute, unless we can a) convince the other to value as we do or b) find a chink in their reasoning that leads them to a flawed morality (based on their OWN valuing).
Originally posted by JimL View PostSee above.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes, you will. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. There is a fairly large difference between proactively killing children and choosing one child over another to save when you only have the capacity to save one.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 carpedm9587 View PostAs I noted, you can call yourself anything you wish, and reject anything you wish. Since your moral code is actually subjective and relative, you are actually a moral relativist/subjectivist. That you are deluding yourself into believing your moral code is absolute/objective and trying to impose it on others on that basis is irrelevant.
In your subjective morality, you have determined that taking a bigoted position against the LGBTQ community is (apparently) a moral act. It is immoral in my worldview. I have already outline that the basis for reconciling that difference is likely absent in this exchange, which leaves us with isolation/separation and contention. As more and more people shift their moral framework to acceptance of this community, you and those who think as you do will be increasingly isolated, with limited ability to impose your views on others or impact others with your views. That trend is well underway, though it is stronger in the developed countries than the developing world or theocracies based on Islam, so there is still much work to be done.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 PostThe point is what what did the Nazis do that violated logic?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostA moral realist or theist believes that universal moral truths exist, by definition then they are not moral relativists.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou don't know what the future will bring Carp. But I'm glad you agree that I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIt depends on what they actually valued.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 carpedm9587 View PostThey are moral "objectivists/absolutists" in theory, and moral subjectivists/relativists in practice. I tend to put more weight on what a person is doing rather than what a person is saying, so (IMO) they are moral subjectivists/relativists. You, Seer, call yourself a moral absolutist/objectivist, but I have already shown that your entire moral framework is based on subjectivism. So what you call yourself is inconsequential. There has never been an actual moral objectivist/absolutist, as far as I can tell.
You are right, I do not know what the future will bring. The current trends, however, are promising. As for what you think is right, I realize your relative/subjective moral framework has you seeing this activity as right, just as Nazi's likely see their moral framework as "right." I may not be able to convince you otherwise. If I cannot, then we will end up at the other ways for dealing with the disconnect: isolation/separation, and contention. That is the way it has always been.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment