Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Moral Truths

jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 1:17:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How many atheists believe in objective moral truths? I'm not asking for numbers about those in world or region, although that would be nice.
I ask because I feel like I am the only atheist who believes in objective moral truths, in my philosophy class (who are all atheists) I seem to be the only person to believe in objective moral truths alongside atheism.
What atheist objective moral truth theories are there?
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 1:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've argued against two atheism based objective morality theories recentely. One would entail killing the feeble-minded as morally good and eating skittles as morally bad. The other coincides with the definition of subjective morality perfectly. I'm not atheist, but I have yet to be convinced by any theories.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:05:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*raises hand*

Are you asking for my ethical theory or my metaethical? The ethics are objective , the metaethics not so much.

(It is objectively true that you have chosen to live, it is objectively true that your choice implies certain actions are better than others, but no objective factor mandates that you made that choice.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:18:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It all depends on what you mean by objective. If you mean written into the cosmos, or something that would exist if humans didn't, then no, morality is not objective. If you mean objective simply as in, killing for fun is objectively an immoral and not just based on opinion, then yes I believe in objective morality.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:18:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It all depends on what you mean by objective. If you mean written into the cosmos, or something that would exist if humans didn't, then no, morality is not objective. If you mean objective simply as in, killing for fun is objectively an immoral and not just based on opinion, then yes I believe in objective morality.

What do you hold makes that "objective"?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 4:44:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are plenty of atheistic theories of objective morality, Kantianism, utilitarianism (preference, act, rule), Objectivism, egoism, altruism, most forms of virtue ethics, Rawlsian contractarianism, and various natural rights theories. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these, just that there are more theories of objective morality than simply divine command theory.
: 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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:12:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do
"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
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:13:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 4:44:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
There are plenty of atheistic theories of objective morality, Kantianism, utilitarianism (preference, act, rule), Objectivism, egoism, altruism, most forms of virtue ethics, Rawlsian contractarianism, and various natural rights theories. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these, just that there are more theories of objective morality than simply divine command theory.

Good point
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:14:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:13:13 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 4:44:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
There are plenty of atheistic theories of objective morality, Kantianism, utilitarianism (preference, act, rule), Objectivism, egoism, altruism, most forms of virtue ethics, Rawlsian contractarianism, and various natural rights theories. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these, just that there are more theories of objective morality than simply divine command theory.

Good point

The Fool: Pls enlighten us on why its a good point. Johnny Boy. I am but a Fool
"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
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 1:17:51 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
How many atheists believe in objective moral truths? I'm not asking for numbers about those in world or region, although that would be nice.
I ask because I feel like I am the only atheist who believes in objective moral truths, in my philosophy class (who are all atheists) I seem to be the only person to believe in objective moral truths alongside atheism.
What atheist objective moral truth theories are there?

It's a complicated topic. Certainly there can be 'objective truths' in normative ethics, but there is pretty much always a subjective essence to morality as it depends on what one values. If for instance you value human life and well-being (As I do -among other things-) then yes of course there are objectively better and worse moves you can make in accordance to your values. However, I've yet to see a completely convincing answer to meta-ethics. (Is/ought gap seems to be a pretty solid argument) But morality isn't the only topic that carries this degree of subjectivity; so does even science's foundation, since it rests on the value of truth, logic, and evidence. As humans we have to make ought movements -unless you choose to lay in your bed and starve to death-. We then will also have to decide what we value and those values will transcend our behavior. I would say reason, evidence, and logic are all good aids in deciding what you ought to value. Even moral nihilism can't begin to function without first placing value on logic; which to me makes it a contradictory position. Moral relativism also falls into similar paradoxes. If you add in a God I don't perceive a quick solution to meta-ethics either unless 'it' decides to change the current parameters. I would consider myself a moral realist.

A quick answer to your question though is that yes I do hold a value system that permits of better and worse moral moves. I for instance would say Hitler's actions were evil. Why? Because I value human life and well-being in general. I also value fairness, and hold various principles that I have derived from reasoning that strongly contradict with such actions. While it is pretty inevitable that subjectivity to a degree will be involved with morality, there also can clearly be objective moral systems. Normative ethics is what most moral philosophers deal in. I'm not sure this was quite the answer you were looking for, but I think it's more complicated than most people first think.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:42:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:14:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:13:13 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 4:44:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
There are plenty of atheistic theories of objective morality, Kantianism, utilitarianism (preference, act, rule), Objectivism, egoism, altruism, most forms of virtue ethics, Rawlsian contractarianism, and various natural rights theories. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these, just that there are more theories of objective morality than simply divine command theory.

Good point


The Fool: Pls enlighten us on why its a good point. Johnny Boy. I am but a Fool

I simply meant to state that Spinko was right about there being many secular philosophies that deal in objective moral facts.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:43:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:42:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:14:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:13:13 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 4:44:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
There are plenty of atheistic theories of objective morality, Kantianism, utilitarianism (preference, act, rule), Objectivism, egoism, altruism, most forms of virtue ethics, Rawlsian contractarianism, and various natural rights theories. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these, just that there are more theories of objective morality than simply divine command theory.

Good point


The Fool: Pls enlighten us on why its a good point. Johnny Boy. I am but a Fool

I simply meant to state that Spinko was right about there being many secular philosophies that deal in objective moral facts.

Of course this says nothing of their respective truths. Each theory depending on it's formulation is open to many criticisms (so is divine command theory for that matter though), however their very existence disproves the idea that only theism provides a guide to morality.
: 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.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see how there could be atheistic morality. Given naturalism, we are simply the compositions of our parts, and any transient laws that dictate how we, as composed entities, should act towards one another strongly hints if not proves the fine-tuning of the universe towards human (or rational) existence.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:05:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:19:39 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 5/24/2012 1:17:51 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
How many atheists believe in objective moral truths? I'm not asking for numbers about those in world or region, although that would be nice.
I ask because I feel like I am the only atheist who believes in objective moral truths, in my philosophy class (who are all atheists) I seem to be the only person to believe in objective moral truths alongside atheism.
What atheist objective moral truth theories are there?

It's a complicated topic. Certainly there can be 'objective truths' in normative ethics, but there is pretty much always a subjective essence to morality as it depends on what one values. If for instance you value human life and well-being (As I do -among other things-) then yes of course there are objectively better and worse moves you can make in accordance to your values. However, I've yet to see a completely convincing answer to meta-ethics. (Is/ought gap seems to be a pretty solid argument) But morality isn't the only topic that carries this degree of subjectivity; so does even science's foundation, since it rests on the value of truth, logic, and evidence. As humans we have to make ought movements -unless you choose to lay in your bed and starve to death-. We then will also have to decide what we value and those values will transcend our behavior. I would say reason, evidence, and logic are all good aids in deciding what you ought to value. Even moral nihilism can't begin to function without first placing value on logic; which to me makes it a contradictory position. Moral relativism also falls into similar paradoxes. If you add in a God I don't perceive a quick solution to meta-ethics either unless 'it' decides to change the current parameters. I would consider myself a moral realist.

A quick answer to your question though is that yes I do hold a value system that permits of better and worse moral moves. I for instance would say Hitler's actions were evil. Why? Because I value human life and well-being in general. I also value fairness, and hold various principles that I have derived from reasoning that strongly contradict with such actions. While it is pretty inevitable that subjectivity to a degree will be involved with morality, there also can clearly be objective moral systems. Normative ethics is what most moral philosophers deal in. I'm not sure this was quite the answer you were looking for, but I think it's more complicated than most people first think.

This is the exact answer I was looking for! :)
And I've read through all the other answers and I've figured that they too are incredibly helpful. Thanks! :)

Can I question you on the fact/value gap?
Can you not deny the fact that any gap exists? This is what I tend to do when proposed with such gap. In fact, due to the fact it's used in cognitivist vs non-cognitivist debates I claim that it is arrogant of the user to use this gap. It tells me that I cannot derive value's from facts and that my position is wrong because of this, but in the argument of cognitivism vs non-cognitivism the argument is essentially;
"You are wrong to state that we can derive value's from facts, because I believe that one cannot derive value's from facts."
Also, as you said yourself, science itself is rested upon value's. I'm sure this is fallacious in one form or another. But! Does this not turn facts into value's?

Sam Harris (I love him and his Ben Stiller looks) puts it perfectly and I will add a video of what he says. :)

My third criticism is one which can so easily be disputed and I'm hoping it does. Here it is, I've no idea what the fact/value gap is grounded in or where it's foundations are at. It seems to me to be a theistic claim as a defence mechanism against those militant scientists. Sort of a, "ok, you can tell us about the how the world is, but you cannot tell us how we ought to live. That's what religion is for. Science cannot touch this".

I'm sorry if this has been a little ranty, but I've got an exam on this stuff soon and I'm searching in every direction for analysis. :)
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:04:15 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
I don't see how there could be atheistic morality. Given naturalism, we are simply the compositions of our parts, and any transient laws that dictate how we, as composed entities, should act towards one another strongly hints if not proves the fine-tuning of the universe towards human (or rational) existence.

See argumentation ethics, Objectivism, or Kantianism. No mention of the world being geared towards transcendental laws of morality.
: 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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:11:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:42:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:14:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:13:13 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 4:44:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
There are plenty of atheistic theories of objective morality, Kantianism, utilitarianism (preference, act, rule), Objectivism, egoism, altruism, most forms of virtue ethics, Rawlsian contractarianism, and various natural rights theories. I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these, just that there are more theories of objective morality than simply divine command theory.

Good point


The Fool: Pls enlighten us on why its a good point. Johnny Boy. I am but a Fool

I simply meant to state that Spinko was right about there being many secular philosophies that deal in objective moral facts.

The Fool: every different religion is its own morality. and so is every difference interpretation of morallity.
"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
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:48:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:11:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: every different religion is its own morality. and so is every difference interpretation of morallity.

Isn't that an epistemological issue rather than an ontological one?
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:05:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:05:34 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:19:39 PM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 5/24/2012 1:17:51 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
How many atheists believe in objective moral truths? I'm not asking for numbers about those in world or region, although that would be nice.
I ask because I feel like I am the only atheist who believes in objective moral truths, in my philosophy class (who are all atheists) I seem to be the only person to believe in objective moral truths alongside atheism.
What atheist objective moral truth theories are there?

It's a complicated topic. Certainly there can be 'objective truths' in normative ethics, but there is pretty much always a subjective essence to morality as it depends on what one values. If for instance you value human life and well-being (As I do -among other things-) then yes of course there are objectively better and worse moves you can make in accordance to your values. However, I've yet to see a completely convincing answer to meta-ethics. (Is/ought gap seems to be a pretty solid argument) But morality isn't the only topic that carries this degree of subjectivity; so does even science's foundation, since it rests on the value of truth, logic, and evidence. As humans we have to make ought movements -unless you choose to lay in your bed and starve to death-. We then will also have to decide what we value and those values will transcend our behavior. I would say reason, evidence, and logic are all good aids in deciding what you ought to value. Even moral nihilism can't begin to function without first placing value on logic; which to me makes it a contradictory position. Moral relativism also falls into similar paradoxes. If you add in a God I don't perceive a quick solution to meta-ethics either unless 'it' decides to change the current parameters. I would consider myself a moral realist.

A quick answer to your question though is that yes I do hold a value system that permits of better and worse moral moves. I for instance would say Hitler's actions were evil. Why? Because I value human life and well-being in general. I also value fairness, and hold various principles that I have derived from reasoning that strongly contradict with such actions. While it is pretty inevitable that subjectivity to a degree will be involved with morality, there also can clearly be objective moral systems. Normative ethics is what most moral philosophers deal in. I'm not sure this was quite the answer you were looking for, but I think it's more complicated than most people first think.



This is the exact answer I was looking for! :)
And I've read through all the other answers and I've figured that they too are incredibly helpful. Thanks! :)

Can I question you on the fact/value gap?
Can you not deny the fact that any gap exists? This is what I tend to do when proposed with such gap. In fact, due to the fact it's used in cognitivist vs non-cognitivist debates I claim that it is arrogant of the user to use this gap. It tells me that I cannot derive value's from facts and that my position is wrong because of this, but in the argument of cognitivism vs non-cognitivism the argument is essentially;
"You are wrong to state that we can derive value's from facts, because I believe that one cannot derive value's from facts."
Also, as you said yourself, science itself is rested upon value's. I'm sure this is fallacious in one form or another. But! Does this not turn facts into value's?

Sam Harris (I love him and his Ben Stiller looks) puts it perfectly and I will add a video of what he says. :)

My third criticism is one which can so easily be disputed and I'm hoping it does. Here it is, I've no idea what the fact/value gap is grounded in or where it's foundations are at. It seems to me to be a theistic claim as a defence mechanism against those militant scientists. Sort of a, "ok, you can tell us about the how the world is, but you cannot tell us how we ought to live. That's what religion is for. Science cannot touch this".

I'm sorry if this has been a little ranty, but I've got an exam on this stuff soon and I'm searching in every direction for analysis. :)

The argument for the is/ought gap goes like this: 'you can not derive an ought from simply just an is, but only from and is and an if.' So for example, your statement might be that: 'rape is bad for both the mental and physical well-being of the victim.'(is) Now what you ought to do about this fact can only be answered by 'if' statements. In full it would be: 'rape is bad for both the mental and physical well-being of the victim; if we value the mental and physical well-being of the victim, than we ought to prevent the victim from being raped.'

Now Sam Harris in a way just bypasses (or attempts to anyway) the is/ought gap by saying that morality is in actuality equivalent with the maximizing of the well-being of conscious creatures. The problem I have with this is who's well-being are we specifically speaking of? For example, perhaps you could argue that Hitler by seizing the power he did and if he had been successful would have be maximizing his own personal well-being. He certainly would have had all the luxuries he could have dreamed of. Of course those who suffered and died on his ordering; had their well-being snatched away from them, but it's tough to say how Harris' system distinguishes this situation. I basically agree with Harris but his 'Moral Landscape' to me has philosophical holes and I don't quite buy into his strong definitional move. I have yet to see a good way of bypassing the is/ought gap. But the thing is you don't need to in order to speak in normative terms. You just need to have a value system. We -as I said before- as humans are forced to make ought movements and through doing so ultimately will develop values. No path of thought isn't based on some sort of value. That's why I would argue moral nihilism holds no water; as it is basically saying that it is arbitrary to have 'moral systems' based on premises (values) when at the same time it adheres to a value based foundation itself. Moral relativism falls for the same sort of problems. So what you need is a value system and under this value system objectivity can exist. My example of science illustrates this well. You should take a look at contractualism as a foundation for morality.(Seems pretty rock solid to me) There are others who buy into categorical imperatives, and perhaps that resonates well with you but I have problems with it. Take a look at these links and the video if you're interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu... (Contractualism)

http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com... (Maybe you'll find this helpful)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:15:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:48:42 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:11:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: every different religion is its own morality. and so is every difference interpretation of morallity.

Isn't that an epistemological issue rather than an ontological one?

The Fool: I would every philosophical issue is really an epistemological. For What does it mean to speak of ontology if you havent yet ground that knowledge of it is first.
Ontology can be wiped out all together . Its a superflous philosophy.
"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 9:36:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:15:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:48:42 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:11:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: every different religion is its own morality. and so is every difference interpretation of morallity.

Isn't that an epistemological issue rather than an ontological one?


The Fool: I would every philosophical issue is really an epistemological. For What does it mean to speak of ontology if you havent yet ground that knowledge of it is first.
Ontology can be wiped out all together . Its a superflous philosophy.
Edit

The Fool: I would argue that all philosophical issues are really epistemological ones. For What does it mean to speak of ontology if you havent yet grounded the means by which we could know it? Thus the main job of philosophy is always epistemological , and metaphysics should only focus on the categorization of that which we do experience. I mean experience in a broader sense then simply the Sense Data of physicalism.
"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 11:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 3:30:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/25/2012 2:05:57 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:

I fire my nihilism ray at you! Your moral realism stands no chance!

The Fool: I would except that challange!
"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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:14:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 3:30:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/25/2012 2:05:57 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:

I fire my nihilism ray at you! Your moral realism stands no chance!

it's true..

but "nihilism" is such a pessimistic word..

It's appropriate in that I don't "believe" in anything.. (least not Absolute belief)
but it doesn't express the fact that I Am (that my notions, cares, and general understanding, and manner of coming to understandings is)... and that I, quite contentedly, go with that ;)
"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."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:25:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you say that morality is subjective, then you also say there's nothing wrong with torturing someone out of hate. Anyone who maintains this belief is clearly so far lost in intellectual pursuits that they have disconnected themselves with reality. People can reason and use rhetoric to achieve any answer they'd like, right or wrong, and unfortunately some get so wrapped up in their own arrogant intellectual self-superiority that they can pretty much convince themselves of whatever they want to.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:12:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 1:25:58 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I don't have any argument for my views.

Cool story comrade.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:28:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 1:25:58 PM, Lasagna wrote:
If you say that morality is subjective, then you also say there's nothing wrong with torturing someone out of hate. Anyone who maintains this belief is clearly so far lost in intellectual pursuits that they have disconnected themselves with reality. People can reason and use rhetoric to achieve any answer they'd like, right or wrong, and unfortunately some get so wrapped up in their own arrogant intellectual self-superiority that they can pretty much convince themselves of whatever they want to.

That opinion doesn't fly on DDO.
: 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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 1:14:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/25/2012 3:30:29 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/25/2012 2:05:57 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:

I fire my nihilism ray at you! Your moral realism stands no chance!

it's true..

but "nihilism" is such a pessimistic word..

It's appropriate in that I don't "believe" in anything.. (least not Absolute belief)
but it doesn't express the fact that I Am (that my notions, cares, and general understanding, and manner of coming to understandings is)... and that I, quite contentedly, go with that ;)

The Fool: Care to defend your claim. The challenge is open.
"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