Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for nihilists.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

Uh... You'd change your beliefs, of course. It would be the same to ask "Christians, what would you do if someone thoroughly proved that God doesn't exist".

I don't see the point in that question.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:13:21 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

Uh... You'd change your beliefs, of course. It would be the same to ask "Christians, what would you do if someone thoroughly proved that God doesn't exist".

I don't see the point in that question.

I just think it would be interesting to see how someone like Cody would react.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:15:11 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/19/2012 1:13:21 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

Uh... You'd change your beliefs, of course. It would be the same to ask "Christians, what would you do if someone thoroughly proved that God doesn't exist".

I don't see the point in that question.

I just think it would be interesting to see how someone like Cody would react.

The Fool: ask Cody to challenge me...<(8J)
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that 1+1 = 3? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

I hope you get the point here. Objective morality is a logical absurdity, it's not as if there exist some possible avenue through which it could be validated, no. It is a logical absurdity. period. It's incoherent. It doesn't make sense.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 4:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that 1+1 = 3? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

I hope you get the point here. Objective morality is a logical absurdity, it's not as if there exist some possible avenue through which it could be validated, no. It is a logical absurdity. period. It's incoherent. It doesn't make sense.

The Fool: One thing you could never know is what is NOT. because what is not does exist. You could only know what IS. Challage me on objective morality. Make it four rounds.
"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
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

IMO a better question is WHAT would it take to convince them of objective morality.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:05:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 4:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that 1+1 = 3? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

I hope you get the point here. Objective morality is a logical absurdity, it's not as if there exist some possible avenue through which it could be validated, no. It is a logical absurdity. period. It's incoherent. It doesn't make sense.

why don't you end your existence? All your efforts in doing anything will all be meaningless in the end. Since everything will become nothingness and all memory will cease to exist, there is no reason to continue living this instant. You might as well end it right now.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 4:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that 1+1 = 3? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

I hope you get the point here. Objective morality is a logical absurdity, it's not as if there exist some possible avenue through which it could be validated, no. It is a logical absurdity. period. It's incoherent. It doesn't make sense.

You're a nihilist?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:05:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that 1+1 = 3? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

I hope you get the point here. Objective morality is a logical absurdity, it's not as if there exist some possible avenue through which it could be validated, no. It is a logical absurdity. period. It's incoherent. It doesn't make sense.

why don't you end your existence? All your efforts in doing anything will all be meaningless in the end. Since everything will become nothingness and all memory will cease to exist, there is no reason to continue living this instant. You might as well end it right now.

I derive meaning from life with knowledge that my meaning is subjective. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it's a total misrepresentation of my position.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:38:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:26:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:05:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 12:58:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that objective moral facts exist? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

What would you do if someone, out of the blue, walked up to you and proved that 1+1 = 3? I mean proved it so thoroughly you wouldn't even be able to argue, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%. How would it effect you or impact your life?

I hope you get the point here. Objective morality is a logical absurdity, it's not as if there exist some possible avenue through which it could be validated, no. It is a logical absurdity. period. It's incoherent. It doesn't make sense.

why don't you end your existence? All your efforts in doing anything will all be meaningless in the end. Since everything will become nothingness and all memory will cease to exist, there is no reason to continue living this instant. You might as well end it right now.

I derive meaning from life with knowledge that my meaning is subjective. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it's a total misrepresentation of my position.

What the fuck do you mean, meaning is subjective? How is that possible? Isn't it just another form of moral objectivity? Otherwise, do you think it's alright for Jihadists to bomb places?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:39:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

Ask a utilitarian, Objectivist, natural lawyer, Kantian deontologist, altruist, Aristotelian, egoist, contractarian, preference utilitarian, virtue ethicist, or a pragmatist. The way I see it there's nothing which makes atheist morals categorically impossible that doesn't likewise apply to religious morals.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:44:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:38:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:26:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:05:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:

why don't you end your existence? All your efforts in doing anything will all be meaningless in the end. Since everything will become nothingness and all memory will cease to exist, there is no reason to continue living this instant. You might as well end it right now.

I derive meaning from life with knowledge that my meaning is subjective. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it's a total misrepresentation of my position.

What the fuck do you mean, meaning is subjective? How is that possible? Isn't it just another form of moral objectivity? Otherwise, do you think it's alright for Jihadists to bomb places?

It's not alright in the sense that it's moral or anything, it's just not immoral per se.
: 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.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:02:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

Why?
"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)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.

Then what makes it objective? By description, by definition, objective morals are evident in themselves....A reason need not suffice to justify it's existence, it is true in itself and does not require reason. Reason would make the so-called objective law actually relative, because reason creates contingency...where the so-called "objective" law will only be true or justified on the premise the reason provides.

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:48:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.

Then what makes it objective? By description, by definition, objective morals are evident in themselves....A reason need not suffice to justify it's existence, it is true in itself and does not require reason. Reason would make the so-called objective law actually relative, because reason creates contingency...where the so-called "objective" law will only be true or justified on the premise the reason provides.

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

No. By saying that morality is relative, for instance some cultures might value something that others find to be abhorrent, you are essentially saying that it means nothing. And if you try and say that it is dependent upon people's perception of it, then you are saying that that perception has objective value. "Moral relativism" is self-refuting no matter which way you spin it.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

actually, nevermind this. It should say:

All objective laws must be reasonless in order to be truly objective. However it is a logical dictum that all propositions require a warrant in order to be rational or logical. Objective ethics must be illogical.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:48:44 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.

Then what makes it objective? By description, by definition, objective morals are evident in themselves....A reason need not suffice to justify it's existence, it is true in itself and does not require reason. Reason would make the so-called objective law actually relative, because reason creates contingency...where the so-called "objective" law will only be true or justified on the premise the reason provides.

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

No. By saying that morality is relative, for instance some cultures might value something that others find to be abhorrent, you are essentially saying that it means nothing. And if you try and say that it is dependent upon people's perception of it, then you are saying that that perception has objective value. "Moral relativism" is self-refuting no matter which way you spin it.

No... Their perception has subjective value, hence why their perception has absolutely no objective moral value.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:51:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

actually, nevermind this. It should say:

All objective laws must be reasonless in order to be truly objective. However it is a logical dictum that all propositions require a warrant in order to be rational or logical. Objective ethics must be illogical.

What are you talking about? Axiom =/= objective fact
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:54:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:53:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:48:44 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.

Then what makes it objective? By description, by definition, objective morals are evident in themselves....A reason need not suffice to justify it's existence, it is true in itself and does not require reason. Reason would make the so-called objective law actually relative, because reason creates contingency...where the so-called "objective" law will only be true or justified on the premise the reason provides.

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

No. By saying that morality is relative, for instance some cultures might value something that others find to be abhorrent, you are essentially saying that it means nothing. And if you try and say that it is dependent upon people's perception of it, then you are saying that that perception has objective value. "Moral relativism" is self-refuting no matter which way you spin it.

No... Their perception has subjective value, hence why their perception has absolutely no objective moral value.

You avoid the question. How would anything subjective have any value whatsoever without being objective?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:55:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:53:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:51:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

actually, nevermind this. It should say:

All objective laws must be reasonless in order to be truly objective. However it is a logical dictum that all propositions require a warrant in order to be rational or logical. Objective ethics must be illogical.

What are you talking about? Axiom =/= objective fact

I already explained why objective laws must be reasonless. Reason creates contingency, where the law is only valid under the premise the reason provides. Don't just randomly blurt out some random inequality without some kind of corroboration.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:01:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.

Then what makes it objective? By description, by definition, objective morals are evident in themselves....A reason need not suffice to justify it's existence,
it is true in itself and does not require reason.

Reason would make the so-called objective law actually relative, because reason creates contingency...

Does not follow. Why would reason make the objective law relative.

where the so-called "objective" law will only be true or justified on the premise the reason provides.

If your a theist, simply god.

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective.

No objectivity just means it exists independent of the mind.

If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

A stand alone *should* does not make sense. For example, it makes sense to state that "If one wants X then one should do Y." However, if you just assert that one should do something, then you can only appeal to psychological self-interest.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:06:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:51:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:45:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

In brief, if there is no reason why one "should" follow this law, the law is not, by description, objective. If there is a reason why one should follow this law, the law is not, by logic, objective. Objective ethics are utterly absurd.

actually, nevermind this. It should say:

All objective laws must be reasonless in order to be truly objective. However it is a logical dictum that all propositions require a warrant in order to be rational or logical. Objective ethics must be illogical.

Not really since people who think logical laws hold weight think that them being true is a necessary proposition i.e., true in all possible worlds. You're kind of just mixing up contingent with necessary existence.
: 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.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see you have no further defense of moral relativism. Hum.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:24:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Says the person whose view on omnipotence is that it entails the ability to do anything. You'd think that being could create objective morality if he existed.
"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)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:25:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:36:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Well even if objective morality does exist, there is no reason why one *should* follow them. Since objective morality is descriptive, and you cannot derive and *ought* from an *is*.

There can't be an objective morality without the obligation to follow it.
"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)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 7:24:05 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:31:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:35:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see how Atheists can ever believe in Objective morals.

I fail to see how anyone can ever believe in Objective morals.

The reality is that even if it comes from God, it's still a relative system...(as in, even if God says "thou shalt not steal" you are only obligated to follow that command on the premise that you fear God or his punishments.)

Says the person whose view on omnipotence is that it entails the ability to do anything. You'd think that being could create objective morality if he existed.

That doesn't make any sense. His omnipotence makes him logically absurd...so by the time you're making the ridiculous argument that God can create objective morality despite such a concept being completely illogical, you've already closed off God from any kind of logic-based discourse since his omnipotence means he supersedes reason and hence cannot be bound by any logical description or conclusion the likes of which you're attempting to make.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault