Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

secular objective morality

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:20:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
a bunnies suffering is the bunnies suffering.

It's not Necessarily MINE.

Suffering Generally is Not a Negative to Me... My suffering is.

Granted, I do happen to be empathetic.. and do generally suffer when I see others suffer.. and so Suffering Generally Is a Negative to me..

but this isn't Universal for all subjects..
and not even Full-out for me.
"good's" and "bads" are relative to the cares of the subject.

Suffering of the bunny is NOT an objective bad b/c it's NOT Free-Floaty "bad" of it's own.. NOR is it "bad" from the perspective of All subjects.

The coyote may enjoy toying with a dying bunny.. as the Orca do with Seals.
Or some dude may simply not care about the bunny suffering.

the bunnies suffering is NOT bad from the perspective of all subjects... it's bad from the Bunnies perspective (If it should be said to have such notions), and those who are empathetic.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:46:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All philosophy lectures should be done by peppy blondes.

I would differentiate between "suffering" and "unnecessary suffering." Suffering can be a source of knowledge and teach us important lessons about the world - like don't touch that jelly-like substance that has washed up on the shore. Where to draw the line between necessary and unnecessary is an important issue, but suffering is a perfectly natural human experience.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:57:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 9:20:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
a bunnies suffering is the bunnies suffering.

It's not Necessarily MINE.

Suffering Generally is Not a Negative to Me... My suffering is.

Granted, I do happen to be empathetic.. and do generally suffer when I see others suffer.. and so Suffering Generally Is a Negative to me..

but this isn't Universal for all subjects..
and not even Full-out for me.
"good's" and "bads" are relative to the cares of the subject.

Suffering of the bunny is NOT an objective bad b/c it's NOT Free-Floaty "bad" of it's own.. NOR is it "bad" from the perspective of All subjects.

The coyote may enjoy toying with a dying bunny.. as the Orca do with Seals.
Or some dude may simply not care about the bunny suffering.

the bunnies suffering is NOT bad from the perspective of all subjects... it's bad from the Bunnies perspective (If it should be said to have such notions), and those who are empathetic.

+1
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:08:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 1:46:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
All philosophy lectures should be done by peppy blondes.

Lets be frank, this is pop-philosophy, she has to be entertaining, it is YouTube so it can not be judged by academic standards - that being said I find her video's entertaining and she does make solid points.

I would differentiate between "suffering" and "unnecessary suffering." Suffering can be a source of knowledge and teach us important lessons about the world - like don't touch that jelly-like substance that has washed up on the shore. Where to draw the line between necessary and unnecessary is an important issue, but suffering is a perfectly natural human experience.

This raises an interesting question, is suffering moral if it can be argued that it causes more good than harm - or in general can it be argued for necessary reason. Just extend the argument for example, if I kill you to save your children is that a moral act? What about if actually kill you because I enjoy killing and your children just happen to be saved? What about if you ask to be killed because your organs will save your children?

Of course it is not as trivial as she makes it out to be, the entire purpose of her post is just to poke a few obvious holes into the whole argument that theists like to use to say without God you can lay no claim to what is right or wrong, you have no ability to tell someone they should not do anything. You may have the ability to force them not to hurt you, but you have no ability to argue it is wrong for them to do it.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:34:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 9:08:19 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/12/2011 1:46:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
All philosophy lectures should be done by peppy blondes.

Lets be frank, this is pop-philosophy, she has to be entertaining, it is YouTube so it can not be judged by academic standards - that being said I find her video's entertaining and she does make solid points.

I would differentiate between "suffering" and "unnecessary suffering." Suffering can be a source of knowledge and teach us important lessons about the world - like don't touch that jelly-like substance that has washed up on the shore. Where to draw the line between necessary and unnecessary is an important issue, but suffering is a perfectly natural human experience.

This raises an interesting question, is suffering moral if it can be argued that it causes more good than harm - or in general can it be argued for necessary reason. Just extend the argument for example, if I kill you to save your children is that a moral act? What about if actually kill you because I enjoy killing and your children just happen to be saved? What about if you ask to be killed because your organs will save your children?

Of course it is not as trivial as she makes it out to be, the entire purpose of her post is just to poke a few obvious holes into the whole argument that theists like to use to say without God you can lay no claim to what is right or wrong, you have no ability to tell someone they should not do anything. You may have the ability to force them not to hurt you, but you have no ability to argue it is wrong for them to do it.

I completely agree, I found it insight and entertaining.

Much of the suffering I was referring to was just accidental suffering, or suffering caused through experiences with non-moral objects. I was just commenting on her claim about suffering being an objective evil. Even if suffering is caused by another person it can be a non-moral act, like in team contact sports.

If you kill me to save my children (if I had them), I can't think of any situations where I would disapprove of that (though you are responsible for the method). Even if your intentions were base, the act is still good but I would like more information about the specific scenario. If you walked in on me in the midst of a murder scene and killed me out of sadistic desire the act is still morally right even if you had skewed values. If I asked to be killed to help my children I still see murder as ok.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:44:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 9:20:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

It's not Necessarily MINE.

It was not argued to be necessarily yours, you can not argue necessary in secular morality as a fundamental construction, that can only be argued from theism. It was argued to be logically asserted that it should be yours based on the fundamental principle of reciprocity which is a basic law of human nature. The foundational principle is that you (the general you) has things they value and would wish to retain.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:54:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 9:44:25 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/12/2011 9:20:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

It's not Necessarily MINE.

It was not argued to be necessarily yours, you can not argue necessary in secular morality as a fundamental construction, that can only be argued from theism.

It was argued to be logically asserted that it should be yours based on the fundamental principle of reciprocity which is a basic law of human nature.

now, I didn't watch it to the very end.. but I watched most of it.. and I Certainly didn't see That.

Now Reciprocity MIGHT make sense to take into account, but it's not always applicable..a bunny can hardly reciprocate much..

And, sometimes it can be completely Not Relevant to what I would have... For example if I'm powerful enough, and Un-empathetic, I probably wouldn't care for the bunny's favor even if it could reciprocate.. for I don't need/want what it can afford
and if I'm a sociopath.. I might just enjoy tossing the bunny about for a good time like the Orca do to seals.

The foundational principle is that you (the general you) has things they value and would wish to retain.

IF we both can benefit it makes sense to work together..

However If benefiting others Does Not benefit myself though...
(Either b/c I'm not empathetic, or b/c they don't/can't reciprocate in a manner that is useful to me)
.. then there's certainly no compelling reason to benefit Them.

and if I'm a sociopath and happen to enjoy harming them... well.. the opposite then.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:06:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 9:34:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

If you kill me to save my children (if I had them), I can't think of any situations where I would disapprove of that (though you are responsible for the method). Even if your intentions were base, the act is still good but I would like more information about the specific scenario.

You do not have enough money to take care of your children who are sick and need medical care, you love them but you are on disability and your wife has died. You are torn between giving them up, but they can not live without you, or watching them suffer.

I am oblivious to this and just break into your home in the middle of the night. Frustrated by nothing to steal I kill you in a fit of rage. I see your children as an opportunity though and I sell the two of them to a very wealthy couple who wish to have children but can not (Brad and Angelina).

That couple takes care of the children, who being very young (< 2), are still plastic enough to be raised away from their father and soon forget him. Everyone lives happily ever after, me with my money, Bradelina with there two kids, the two kids with all medical problems cured and two doting parents.

But the father is dead, and I did it all out of base material desires.

I can of course manipulate the scenario to make it more imbalanced, for example what about if there are three kids and I kill one of them but the same happens to the other two. The basic question here is how do you, or in fact can you at all, treat suffering as some kind of math problem, i.e., something is moral if and only if it produces a net reduction in suffering.

There is of course the standard question in moral philosophy which comes in many forms, the basic set up is :

You have a sick wife, there is only one treatment, the pharmacist has a very high price as only he has the cure. You go to him and beg him for it, you will give everything you have - but you have little. He refuses. You return and steal it.

Is this moral?

The question can be changed with the following :

-Your wife will die without it
-You kill the pharmacist as he discovers you and you struggle to get the cure
-The Pharmacist actually enjoys the fact you can not afford it
-The Pharmacist needs the price to be that high, it is the only cure he has that he makes money on and without that pricing he will go out business and will not be able to support his family
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:42:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:06:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/12/2011 9:34:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

If you kill me to save my children (if I had them), I can't think of any situations where I would disapprove of that (though you are responsible for the method). Even if your intentions were base, the act is still good but I would like more information about the specific scenario.

You do not have enough money to take care of your children who are sick and need medical care, you love them but you are on disability and your wife has died. You are torn between giving them up, but they can not live without you, or watching them suffer.

I am oblivious to this and just break into your home in the middle of the night. Frustrated by nothing to steal I kill you in a fit of rage. I see your children as an opportunity though and I sell the two of them to a very wealthy couple who wish to have children but can not (Brad and Angelina).

That couple takes care of the children, who being very young (< 2), are still plastic enough to be raised away from their father and soon forget him. Everyone lives happily ever after, me with my money, Bradelina with there two kids, the two kids with all medical problems cured and two doting parents.

But the father is dead, and I did it all out of base material desires.

I can of course manipulate the scenario to make it more imbalanced, for example what about if there are three kids and I kill one of them but the same happens to the other two. The basic question here is how do you, or in fact can you at all, treat suffering as some kind of math problem, i.e., something is moral if and only if it produces a net reduction in suffering.

There is of course the standard question in moral philosophy which comes in many forms, the basic set up is :

You have a sick wife, there is only one treatment, the pharmacist has a very high price as only he has the cure. You go to him and beg him for it, you will give everything you have - but you have little. He refuses. You return and steal it.

Is this moral?

The question can be changed with the following :

-Your wife will die without it
-You kill the pharmacist as he discovers you and you struggle to get the cure
-The Pharmacist actually enjoys the fact you can not afford it
-The Pharmacist needs the price to be that high, it is the only cure he has that he makes money on and without that pricing he will go out business and will not be able to support his family

I had a different conception of "kill me to save my children" in mind. Morality is obviously a guide to behaving, and while bad acts can certainly produce good consequences the accidental consequences produced are outside the scope of our behavior-guiding principles. That said, the idea is to act in such a way to produce the greatest general good, if we're going by Utilitarianism. When I first thought about the "kill me to save my children" scenario I envisioned that either I was directly killing them or unknowingly carrying some easily transmittable fatal disease that would have killed my children. It's an incredibly tricky moral system because you need to consider so many alternatives and the "ripple effects." I don't see how a moral system can judge the morality of its actor entirely based on consequences since they're often so outside our control. I'll get back to you tomorrow on this.

I would say that based on limited information, life is generally valued higher than business profit. This answer is not unconditional. If by stealing the drug it would put the pharmacist out of business and have wide-reaching effects for the community it would probably be immoral. I won't go into detail here, I got 2 finals tomorrow.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 1:54:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
2 finals down.

Yeah, a moral philosophy can't be entirely focused on consequences because it abandons what's meaningful. There is only one correct act in Utilitarianism, even if what you do is +utility it can be wrong if it fails to maximize utility, for example in the case where you kill one of the kids. Acts that are slightly +utility are the not right act when utility could have been further increased.

I know the answer to the pharmacist question is a little weak, and it does reflect ambivalence. In reality this situation would be highly emotional and most of us would find it difficult to blame a husband stealing to help his wife from an overcharging pharmacist.

What I want to ask you though is, are rights really unconditional? Just from how I see it, attempts to universalize even innocuous concepts ("do not kill innocent people") can be justified at one time or another.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 3:10:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:42:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

I would say that based on limited information, life is generally valued higher than business profit. This answer is not unconditional. If by stealing the drug it would put the pharmacist out of business and have wide-reaching effects for the community it would probably be immoral.

That is exactly how the question is modifed if you propose that solution, this is a stock question in moral phiolosphy. It is meant to show nothing more than the nontrivial nature of any morality which is not absolute. Meaning moral decisions are trivial if you have a set of rules (do not steal, do not kill, etc.) they are extremely complex if you have some general principle (cause least suffering, act only to create value, etc.) .
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 3:15:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/13/2011 1:54:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

What I want to ask you though is, are rights really unconditional?

A right is just a claim to an action, they are unconditional if you are a theist or someone who advocates objective (absolute or universal) morality as these are nonconditional systems. They don't exist if you are a nihilist and if you have a relative morality then they are obviously conditional. Of course anyone who belongs to the last two sub-groups are all going to burn in hell anyway as they are doing it wrong.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 3:51:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/13/2011 3:15:49 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/13/2011 1:54:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

What I want to ask you though is, are rights really unconditional?

A right is just a claim to an action, they are unconditional if you are a theist or someone who advocates objective (absolute or universal) morality as these are nonconditional systems. They don't exist if you are a nihilist and if you have a relative morality then they are obviously conditional. Of course anyone who belongs to the last two sub-groups are all going to burn in hell anyway as they are doing it wrong.

I'm referring to those who use reason to advocate rights-based theories. We can poke holes in Utilitarianism about limited knowledge or the role of consequences, but it seems like making unconditional claims like Kant did makes far less sense when put into the real world. I'm sure you know the case where Kant said you shouldn't lie to the murderer looking for your friend. It would just seem like using reason would lead someone to reject theories which don't seem to take context into account.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 9:42:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/13/2011 3:51:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

but it seems like making unconditional claims like Kant did makes far less sense when put into the real world. I'm sure you know the case where Kant said you shouldn't lie to the murderer looking for your friend.

Yes, it is based on following the three formulations where any act has to be considered if it was a universal law in all possible worlds. Note the rationale here is not that the act itself is moral/immoral but the consequence of allowing that act in general is moral/immoral. In this case yes it is obvious that lying there prevents unjust suffering - however allowing lying at all creates the risk for unjust suffering so it is again a greater good argument. The basic conflict arises when you are moral and the people you interact with are not. In this case the mathematics of game theory clearly show you will lose and in order for you to break even you also have to be immoral, see for example the classic prisoner dilemma.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 1:08:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 9:42:07 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/13/2011 3:51:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

but it seems like making unconditional claims like Kant did makes far less sense when put into the real world. I'm sure you know the case where Kant said you shouldn't lie to the murderer looking for your friend.

Yes, it is based on following the three formulations where any act has to be considered if it was a universal law in all possible worlds. Note the rationale here is not that the act itself is moral/immoral but the consequence of allowing that act in general is moral/immoral. In this case yes it is obvious that lying there prevents unjust suffering - however allowing lying at all creates the risk for unjust suffering so it is again a greater good argument. The basic conflict arises when you are moral and the people you interact with are not. In this case the mathematics of game theory clearly show you will lose and in order for you to break even you also have to be immoral, see for example the classic prisoner dilemma.

granted i am no expert, but my understanding of Kant is that immoral actions undermine themselves in some way, and thats why they should be prohibited. for example, if lying were an everyday accepted practice, then it would lose efficacy, since no one would believe what anyone else said. since your goal in lying is to get someone to believe what you're saying, and universalizing that action undermines that goal, lying is immoral. likewise with murder... if murdering is allowed then you'll likely never get the chance to murder anyone because you'll be dead (murdered). and so on. it is consequentialist, in a way, but its not utilitarian at all.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 12:46:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 1:08:42 AM, belle wrote:

if murdering is allowed then you'll likely never get the chance to murder anyone because you'll be dead (murdered). and so on. it is consequentialist, in a way, but its not utilitarian at all.

Essentially that which can not be universal can not be, it is a very ordered and easy to apply theory which is likely why it is attractive. Ton a fundamental level it just does not seem to make any sense. Of course if you lie all the time the murder does not believe you and thus there is no worth to lying - but the point is exactly that, sometimes certain actions can be moral even if they can not be universal laws. Kant's formulations work perfectly if they are held perfectly (i.e. everyone does them). But when people n they fail. But to his credit we did not have much of a knowledge of game theory at that point either. Game theory + utility provides a much more it is much more complicated and in no way trivial to apply.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 9:21:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I couldn't listen to that Scandinavian freak for any more than a minute or so, but I believe in the general concept. Seven sins, baby.
kfc
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 8:39:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe what she states from an athiestic viewpoint breaks down here:
Reciprocity:
1) It only pertains to species or morally aware agents, if we choose to spare a rampaging elephant it will not spare us in return as it is "rampaging". This only works based within a community of moral agents.
2) It also pertains to people or culture groups. An american cannot expect women to be treated with inherent fairness in the muslim culture. We cannot expect any sort of reciprocity.

Additionally, I believe you pointed out Cliff, the problem with a defined method of suffering like "cause no pain" or "the greatest good".
She is clearly wrong as all of these things are subjective and can be made to be personally subjective.

In the same way as your pharmacy analogy.

What if the pharmicist is selling the drugs at a fair dollar but it is in fact too much for the man to pay and he steals it?

If you change one more element... what if the pharmacist is selling those drugs to pay for the drugs to save his own wife? Who's wife is more worthy of salvation?

It is clearly subjective when put under any "full context".

I will expand more later.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:41:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 9:21:52 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I couldn't listen to that Scandinavian freak for any more than a minute or so ...

That is definitely immoral.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:46:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 8:39:10 AM, Gileandos wrote:

She is clearly wrong as all of these things are subjective and can be made to be personally subjective.

Her foundational principle is that we as rational beings can not flourish in a world which is filled with suffering. I think you can argue that this is an objective truth. It is based on the premise that only insane people wish suffering on others for the purpose of suffering.

There is an entire body of law and science built around that and thus it could be argued as an objective truth. Following from that and combining the perspectives of Kagan and Harris you can outline a morality which is not subjective because any rational mind would reach the same conclusions.

Here is where someone like William Lane Craig steps in and says, well that is all well and good - but is it not just your opinion and not an objective truth that the human race ought to flourish. What is your objective argument to affirm that truth?

At the end of all of the semantics we are left with one truth, it is only if we flourish that we can even make this argument so if we wish to have it that must be foundational. But again - why ought we be able to have this discussion if there is no God to make that our purpose?

"Tide go in, tides go out - PINHEADS - YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 5:50:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:46:49 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/16/2011 8:39:10 AM, Gileandos wrote:

She is clearly wrong as all of these things are subjective and can be made to be personally subjective.

Her foundational principle is that we as rational beings can not flourish in a world which is filled with suffering. I think you can argue that this is an objective truth.

You already suggested how.. and I offered a damning critique to which you didn't respond ;)

It is based on the premise that only insane people wish suffering on others for the purpose of suffering.

the bunny's suffering can be b/c of the coyote.. and I just don't care.

the fact of my caring or not doesn't have to do with my being Rational... it's not rational to be empathetic.. it's just the case, or it's not.

and "reciprocity" is NOT a Cover-all as I've already explained.

There is an entire body of law and science built around that and thus it could be argued as an objective truth.

Very Badly argued

Following from that and combining the perspectives of Kagan and Harris you can outline a morality which is not subjective because any rational mind would reach the same conclusions.

From what I saw of the kagan debate you had posted.. He's a bad philosopher.

Here is where someone like William Lane Craig steps in and says, well that is all well and good - but is it not just your opinion and not an objective truth that the human race ought to flourish. What is your objective argument to affirm that truth?

At the end of all of the semantics we are left with one truth, it is only if we flourish that we can even make this argument so if we wish to have it that must be foundational. But again - why ought we be able to have this discussion if there is no God to make that our purpose?

is this your way of admitting you don't have any real argument?
and... God is not an end all- be all for "importance"..
In fact, it's not relevant at all.

"Tide go in, tides go out - PINHEADS - YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!"

dummy!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 5:50:32 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

You already suggested how.. and I offered a damning critique to which you didn't respond ;)

You said you don't care that is not a critique. You can say that about anything, I could watch your kids get raped and eaten and say I don't care, that does not defeat the argument, it would just mean I was insane. The argument from the social contract is not about what you want, and it is not about what I would want. If you actually think it is that simple defeat that claim to objective morality then I can debate you on it.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 6:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:05:30 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
You said you don't care that is not a critique. You can say that about anything, I could watch your kids get raped and eaten and say I don't care, that does not defeat the argument, it would just mean I was insane.

The argument from the social contract is not about what you want, and it is not about what I would want. If you actually think it is that simple defeat that claim to objective morality then I can debate you on it.

there is no morality that is Not based in cares.

I would suggest My Morality is Objective, for Me.. Now...

but Not objective in the sense of Universal

Not objective in the sense of having force to all Reasonable beings.

if you would claim that it IS so objective I'd be more than happy to relieve you of your delusions ;)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 11:45:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 6:10:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
objective in the sense of Universal

objective in the sense of having force to all Reasonable beings.

if you would claim that it IS so objective I'd be more than happy to relieve you of your delusions ;)

At 5/16/2011 6:18:32 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
That is not objective, that is a normalized relative.

What do you mean by Objective Morality then??
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 11:56:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 11:45:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/16/2011 6:10:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
objective in the sense of Universal

objective in the sense of having force to all Reasonable beings.

if you would claim that it IS so objective I'd be more than happy to relieve you of your delusions ;)

At 5/16/2011 6:18:32 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
That is not objective, that is a normalized relative.

What do you mean by Objective Morality then??

here's what I take to be the Common understanding of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

what are You talking about?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."