Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

The final claim of theistic morality

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 2:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would think it'd be more along the lines of morality stemming directly from god's own nature instead of his will.

Rather than simply obeying god's will in order to be moral, this distinction anchors morality to god himself, and being moral is akin to being one with god.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:00:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 2:31:49 PM, caveat wrote:
I would think it'd be more along the lines of morality stemming directly from god's own nature instead of his will.

Rather than simply obeying god's will in order to be moral, this distinction anchors morality to god himself, and being moral is akin to being one with god.

So one should be godly for its own purpose?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:36:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.

The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality? This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God. (Leff, btw. is a bit more tame than Nietzsche, but both articulate similar points. Leff is also easier to understand than Nietzsche, lol.)

The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc." The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective. They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

Things to think about....
Tsar of DDO
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 3:44:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The self-trickery which is that of cementing your will through the perceived negation of it.
You tell yourself "Not my will but God's" and then proceed to make God in your image.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 4:07:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.

It is Virtue:

A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. The opposite of virtue is vice.
Love, Forgiveness, Loyalty, Mercy, Dignity, Respectibility, Charisma, Wholesomeness, Prosperity, Confidence, Justice, Liberty, Nobility, Modesty, Chasity, Faith, Courage, Hope,
TheAsylum
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:28:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 2:36:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.

The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality? This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God. (Leff, btw. is a bit more tame than Nietzsche, but both articulate similar points. Leff is also easier to understand than Nietzsche, lol.)

The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc." The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective. They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

Things to think about....

This view stands only if one actually believes that the force behind atheistic ethicists is that "John Rawls says..." and not because the reason behind such proclamations is sound. On the latter, it is a mere argument from authority, the latter can be correct though (possibly) and shouldn't be categorically dismissed on account of it's source.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:24:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:28:43 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/25/2012 2:36:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.

The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality? This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God. (Leff, btw. is a bit more tame than Nietzsche, but both articulate similar points. Leff is also easier to understand than Nietzsche, lol.)

The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc." The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective. They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

Things to think about....

This view stands only if one actually believes that the force behind atheistic ethicists is that "John Rawls says..." and not because the reason behind such proclamations is sound. On the latter, it is a mere argument from authority, the latter can be correct though (possibly) and shouldn't be categorically dismissed on account of it's source.

That's funny. The heads question: Is it your assertion that there is more force behind the word of man than the word of man? The tales question: even if there were more force behind atheistic ethics, who is to say who is right?

If it is your assertion that there is more force behind the word of a man, then a word of a man, then I ask you simply, from where does that force originate? Will you argue that the ends of human existence determine proper human conduct? Will you argue that the universe is governed by a natural law which endows men with absolute rights? Will you argue that the imperatives we have are categorical in nature and that some invented law of universality is the metric by which we should allow our motives to be guided? Or will you argue that the thrust of the argument is not from the man who makes it but from the argument itself? That's what I'm guessing you will do. So... I'll save you the trouble.

Again, this is what I'm talking about:
and not because the reason behind such proclamations is sound.

That an argument is made, no matter how compelling it is, does not mean that it is a statement of fact. During the enlightenment, the discovery of science had profound impacts on the processes of human thinking. Man began to consider that if certain scientific laws governed natural processes, then perhaps too such laws governed the behavior of man. Ideas such as "natural law" and "the social contract" etc were born. It was revolutionary at the time, and its impact can still be felt throughout the western world.

The problem is simple, almost self evident (almost as self evident as the truths outlined in the Declaration of Independence): it is the application of laws of the physical world to the metaphysical. In the words of Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Man cannot prove that which he cannot observe through empirical observation, and therefore, because empirical observation of the metaphysical would be impossible, to derive any system of absolute morality (as in a supreme system of morally, what is actually the case, something beyond question).

Many have derived systems of morality, and the history of moral philosophy is rich throughout the sum of human existence. Fascinating as it is to me to trace the lineage of how and why people thought they way they did over the trajectory of time, and especially how and why they thought what they did about morality, human moral philosophy dies by the same means it was created. Because it is, inexorably, human, it can never transcend the limitations of being of human creation. As such, no man's argument, no matter how compelling, could ever be established as superior to another man's opinion, objectively so.

For example: That many people happen to think that the moral worth of an action is found in the intentions of an act rather than an outcome no more establishes the superiority of Kant's deontology than it denounces the idea of consequentialism. (I only cite Kant because his is, in my opinion, the best attempt to do what cannot be done which I am familiar with.) Why? It reduces to argumentum ad populum. That many people believe something is the case does not make it the case.

That a whole host of atheists believe that objective morality which mirrors the same values as Christianity, or more broadly the "Judeo-Christian tradition" can be derived from outside the scope of theism is, as Nietzsche sardonically articulates, as preposterous as it is unachievable. (I strongly encourage you to read Genealogy of Morals). That is not to say that atheists are necessarily bad people, or that they are incapable of living within the bounds of social norms (much to the contrary) but ultimately, any moral system invented by the likes of man reduces to "sez who?" (Read Leff's article.)

But, YYW, how can this be the case?

Think about what it would take to make something objectively the case. Consider, briefly, how one could determine some metaphysical truth at all? You would need a metaphysical source, naturally. Perhaps, even, a metaphysical source who created the physical who articulated the rules that source proscribed for the physical. Of course, this is all very abstract, but I'm hoping you get the point.

As an aside, I don't expect you to change the entire way you think about morality based on this post. I'd rather be shocked if you did, but if you consider from yourself certain things about "morality" as you understand it, and sufficiently examine morality for what it is, you may find certain shortcomings in the arguments. Arguments are not sufficient to derive truth, at least not about what they cannot apply to.

The finality of it all: Absolute morality doesn't exist because it cannot be objectively proven. "Morality" can exist in human thought, but it is subjective. The only absolute morality begins with an absolute source. If, however, God isn't the one to tell us what to do, then we are left to determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. Where we are determining right and wrong for ourselves, it all boils down to, as Arthur Leff wrote more than four decades ago, "the grand sez who."

More things to think about...

(and pardon the sloppy typing. Had a long night last night.)
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 2:36:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.

The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality? This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God. (Leff, btw. is a bit more tame than Nietzsche, but both articulate similar points. Leff is also easier to understand than Nietzsche, lol.)

The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc." The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective. They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

Things to think about....

Morality for the majority of atheists is not heteronomous, like theistic morality, but autonomous, and dependent on the self.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 2:36:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What would you say it is? That is, what is the final claim, that is true in itself. Is there a statement that is justified intrinsically, due to its own nature? In DCT, it's most likely "Because God says so", but is that it.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: is that really the REAL question. Come on now. lol Does even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a christiain God as the only type of God.

YYW: This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

The Fool: the question obviously to mean, with what justification do you assert such claims. Most philosophers would say with reason.

YYW: Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality.

The Fool: The problem is why is he presuming a who in the first place. Come on now.

YYW: I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God.

The Fool: So give the argument, not the reference, and then you can be justified to be in the philosophy section or else go to science or religion.

YYW: The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc."

The Fool: Its does not follow from assertion alone that ther is something wrong with that.

YYW: The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective.

The Fool: Good what is the argument. For I may simply point out that objective is simply a reference to that which existence is not dependence on opinion. And so I would argue that subjective and objectivity are not a dichotomy, since the existence of opinon and thought are not dependent on opinion and thus it follows by necessity that subjtive is simply a category withing objectivity. That is subjective must be objectivily true to exist. How would argue or rather philosophize your out of that with out merly faith principles. I am curious to here it.

YYW: They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

The Fool: what is the difference, For how could you distinquish one with out the other. in other words what is the factor of demarcation in between what is opinion and what is not. FOr the necessity or to recognize even the idea of either or required that there is a difference. I am but a fool. Pls tell me how you are denoting the difference.

Things to think about....

The Fool: I think you confuse theology with philosophy. Defend yourself. <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:27:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 2:36:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/24/2012 12:10:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Big Edit. 1.1

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool:
Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God.

YYW: This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

The Fool: The question obviously to mean, with what justification do you assert such claims? Most philosophers would say with reason. IT has nothing to do with people saying so but rather them demonstrating or attempting to demonstrate it through Coherent logical reasoning.

YYW: Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality.

The Fool:
The problem is why is he presuming that it is based on saying for saying is word the justification is in the organization of the world aka the Form(as in formula). Obviously his theology as appose to philosophy is only to convince the already converted, for now one else would intuitively accept that it depend on somebody saying so.

YYW: I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God.

The Fool: How cares about what you say. But what do you defend with reason? So give the argument, not the reference, and then you can be justified to be in the philosophy section or else go to science or religion. Where you simply refer to an ancient test or physical fact? There is no thinking required there. Everything is based on what somebody else said. And you like you that. <(XD)

YYW: The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc."

The Fool: The point or in more professional terms the conclusion doesn't follow from that statement. Especially to a lover of wisdom.

YYW: The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective.

The Fool: Good. Now what is the argument? Aka Set of premised where you logically deduct a conclusion. For I may simply point out that what is objective is simply a reference to that in which its existence not dependence on opinion. And so I would argue that subjective and objectivity are a false dichotomy, since the existence of an opinion or thought are not dependent on "having" an opinion and thus it follows by necessity that subjectivity is simply a category within objectivity. That is subjectivity must be objectively true to exist. How would you argue or rather philosophize out of that argument without faith principles. Aka referring to what someone else argued.

YYW:
They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

The Fool
: what is the difference, for how could you distinguish one without the other. In other words what is the factor of demarcation in between what opinion is and what is not knowledge. For the necessity or to recognize even the idea of either it is required that there is a difference to recognized in the first place or else how could such demarcation in language come about. I am but a fool. Pls tell me how you are denoting the difference.

YYW: Things to think about....

The Fool:
it's called mind Garbage. Mushmind! You are confusing Theology with philosophy. Only on is of reason. The other simply uses the word ‘reason', without any particular criteria.

The Fool say you are a Sophist. not a philosopher.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fool, I like you. I do. And I've been wondering how long it would take you to respond to some of the things I have posted. Let's begin, shall we?

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool:
Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God.

Answer the question, rather than dismissing it. The bastard in me is tempted to reduce all non-religous morality to a master-slave dichotomy. The master follows his instincts. The slave flagellates himself, but at least he is interesting. In the end, the last man emerges, who is interested in comfort and security. And thus spake zarathustra... lol.

And bringing my faith into the argument is a bit amusing. By saying "he is a Christian" and then trying to -poorly- undermine what you think an assumption in the argument behind the question you refuse to answer you're demonstrating a few things: (1) you either didn't understand the question and are incapable of answering it or (2) you're just a bombastic fool on a hill. Neither of those two options are mutually exclusive, btw.

YYW: This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

The Fool: The question obviously to mean, with what justification do you assert such claims? Most philosophers would say with reason. IT has nothing to do with people saying so but rather them demonstrating or attempting to demonstrate it through Coherent logical reasoning.

So is it your assertion that reason is sufficient to transcend subjectivity? If so... then we can have a lovely conversation... a lovely conversation indeed... about the last paragraph of the previous post I made.


YYW: Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality.

The Fool:
The problem is why is he presuming that it is based on saying for saying is word the justification is in the organization of the world aka the Form(as in formula). Obviously his theology as appose to philosophy is only to convince the already converted, for now one else would intuitively accept that it depend on somebody saying so.

I'm going to give you the opportunity to clarify that statement before I refute it.


YYW: I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God.

The Fool: How cares about what you say. But what do you defend with reason? So give the argument, not the reference, and then you can be justified to be in the philosophy section or else go to science or religion. Where you simply refer to an ancient test or physical fact? There is no thinking required there. Everything is based on what somebody else said. And you like you that. <(XD)

Do you mean how or who, in your first sentence? I'm guessing who, because how doesn't make much sense. Let's explore why I don't type things out at great length: this is a forum, not a book. You have the reference, google the damn article and read for yourself. It is not my responsibility to offer intellectual shorthand for you to then turn around and then refute the shadow of the argument that I could fit -even if I did, which I won't- in 8k characters. This is the place for a beginning of a further conversation, not the place for determining what is, beyond reasonable doubt. And yes, everything I say has been influenced by what others have said. Is it your claim that you think for yourself? Lol...

YYW: The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc."

The Fool: The point or in more professional terms the conclusion doesn't follow from that statement. Especially to a lover of wisdom.

And I'm sure you have a reason for that assertion. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to offer it, rather than just making clever statements. Clever statements are fine... but, being a lover of wisdom, I like reasons.


YYW: The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective.

The Fool: Good. Now what is the argument? Aka Set of premised where you logically deduct a conclusion. For I may simply point out that what is objective is simply a reference to that in which its existence not dependence on opinion. And so I would argue that subjective and objectivity are a false dichotomy, since the existence of an opinion or thought are not dependent on "having" an opinion and thus it follows by necessity that subjectivity is simply a category within objectivity. That is subjectivity must be objectively true to exist. How would you argue or rather philosophize out of that argument without faith principles. Aka referring to what someone else argued.

Fool, did you read my post? Or are you just incessantly asking questions to make inflate your own sense of yourself by lodging beau geste questions against me?

I can give you a reading list... but you've already objected to that... so I won't bother.

Explain your assertion that the choice between "objective" and "subjective" is a false dichotomy. Your claim is wanting of reasons, because the explanation you offered is pragmatically nonsensical.

And I'm not here to argue faith. Faith isn't the point, but rather another discussion. The point is that no man can reason his way to what must be taken on faith, because reason is not a capable vehicle to metaphysical truth.


YYW:
They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

The Fool
: what is the difference, for how could you distinguish one without the other. In other words what is the factor of demarcation in between what opinion is and what is not knowledge. For the necessity or to recognize even the idea of either it is required that there is a difference to recognized in the first place or else how could such demarcation in language come about. I am but a fool. Pls tell me how you are denoting the difference.

Knowledge is that which can be empirically observed. What we cannot empirically observe are things like "morality." That's one of the foundations of what I've been saying.


YYW: Things to think about....

The Fool:
it's called mind Garbage. Mushmind! You are confusing Theology with philosophy. Only on is of reason. The other simply uses the word ‘reason', without any particular criteria.

The Fool say you are a Sophist. not a philosopher.

And no, I'm not. I'm arguing that philosophy as a method or practice (where reason is the means to philosophize) is not capable of arriving at objective or absolute system of morality. What cannot be absolute or objective is necessarily subjective.

For your reference, some useful definitions:

Objective: of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality

Subjective: relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

The two are opposites, not open to interpretation and necessarily mutually exclusive.

And in regard to my being a sophist? The peevish assault of a mind trapped in its own delusions, strangled by beliefs and assumptions of the working world, is as nonsensical is it is inaccurate. I
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:10:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And, Fool,

When I call you a "fool on a hill" recognize that I do it in good humor, because I'm actually glad that at least someone has the balls to engage. The username is delightful. Really is. Thus far, your's has been the best counter yet.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. I also want to caution you against rejecting what I have said because you may think the implications to my perspective justify a person leading an immoral life. That's not the case.

This is the most basic idea of what I would argue:

Philosophy is the activity of applying reason to what can be known.
What can be known, can only be known through observation.
The metaphysical cannot be observed.
Reason cannot determine metaphysical truths.

And now, to the bit on theology:

Books of scripture (of any variety) are metaphysical sources.
Metaphysical sources can outline metaphysical truths.
Books of scripture can, if accepted, delineate morality.

Now, one does not have to accept a book of scripture as a source of morality. One does not have to believe in any god, but without god, there can be no absolute non-subjective morality.

I hope that's been fairly clear.

Still yet... more things to think about... lol
Tsar of DDO