Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To moral relativists and nihilists...

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 8:39:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

http://www.philosophytalk.org...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:39:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?

It should be left to the Muslims. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. The majority of Muslims cannot read the Quran because they are illiterate. This is a disgrace to Islam. There are 164 jihad verses in the Quran to deal with infidels. A Muslim who cannot read or does not read the Quran is worse than an infidel. And a Muslim who can read the Quran must act on the words of the prophet. Only Muslims can see both sides of their religion.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:45:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:39:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?

It should be left to the Muslims. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. The majority of Muslims cannot read the Quran because they are illiterate. This is a disgrace to Islam. There are 164 jihad verses in the Quran to deal with infidels. A Muslim who cannot read or does not read the Quran is worse than an infidel. And a Muslim who can read the Quran must act on the words of the prophet. Only Muslims can see both sides of their religion.

So instead of teaching them to become literate they should be set on fire and have their throats slit?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:49:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:39:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?

It should be left to the Muslims. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. The majority of Muslims cannot read the Quran because they are illiterate. This is a disgrace to Islam. There are 164 jihad verses in the Quran to deal with infidels. A Muslim who cannot read or does not read the Quran is worse than an infidel. And a Muslim who can read the Quran must act on the words of the prophet. Only Muslims can see both sides of their religion.

So instead of teaching them to become literate they should be set on fire and have their throats slit?
The Quran was written like 10 centuries ago. That is hardly an excuse.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:52:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:49:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:39:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?

It should be left to the Muslims. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. The majority of Muslims cannot read the Quran because they are illiterate. This is a disgrace to Islam. There are 164 jihad verses in the Quran to deal with infidels. A Muslim who cannot read or does not read the Quran is worse than an infidel. And a Muslim who can read the Quran must act on the words of the prophet. Only Muslims can see both sides of their religion.

So instead of teaching them to become literate they should be set on fire and have their throats slit?
The Quran was written like 10 centuries ago. That is hardly an excuse.

What's hardly an excuse?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:52:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:49:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:39:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?

It should be left to the Muslims. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. The majority of Muslims cannot read the Quran because they are illiterate. This is a disgrace to Islam. There are 164 jihad verses in the Quran to deal with infidels. A Muslim who cannot read or does not read the Quran is worse than an infidel. And a Muslim who can read the Quran must act on the words of the prophet. Only Muslims can see both sides of their religion.

So instead of teaching them to become literate they should be set on fire and have their throats slit?
The Quran was written like 10 centuries ago. That is hardly an excuse.

What's hardly an excuse?
There is no excuse for Muslims not reading or not being able to read the Quran which is their holy scriptures. God has no mean if one cannot read what he is saying.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:56:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:55:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:52:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:49:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:39:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 10:31:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:45:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

It is called ethnic cleansing. The Islamists are getting rid of all the false Muslims as decreed in the Quran. That is not much different than when Jesus comes to pass judgement and there will be gnashing of teeth. Only difference with Jesus coming, billions will be killed.
Read the post of all the blood thirsty Christians calling for Armageddon and end of times.
Islam is a religion of peace. It has to maintain its reverence.

So you're condoning this "ethnic cleansing"?

It should be left to the Muslims. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. The majority of Muslims cannot read the Quran because they are illiterate. This is a disgrace to Islam. There are 164 jihad verses in the Quran to deal with infidels. A Muslim who cannot read or does not read the Quran is worse than an infidel. And a Muslim who can read the Quran must act on the words of the prophet. Only Muslims can see both sides of their religion.

So instead of teaching them to become literate they should be set on fire and have their throats slit?
The Quran was written like 10 centuries ago. That is hardly an excuse.

What's hardly an excuse?
There is no excuse for Muslims not reading or not being able to read the Quran which is their holy scriptures. God has no mean if one cannot read what he is saying.

You're trolling right now...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 11:09:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

They feel as though they must do these things in order to bring about Islamic dominion over the earth, at the urging of their god. If I truly believed that some omnipotent mad god wanted me to do something like that, I don't know if I would be able to resist. To actually condemn their actions, you pretty much have to argue that their religious beliefs are delusional. Doing so causes all kinds of problems for theists of any stripe by comparison, even if they don't realize it.

But I'm not the kind of moral relativist that you're addressing, so I may not be expressing the kind of opinion you were hoping for.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:21:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 11:09:56 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion on the actions of ISIS burning people alive, slitting throats of infants, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? None of the atrocities that they commit are truly wrong? Can't you see that you're lying to yourself to deny the existence of evil?

They feel as though they must do these things in order to bring about Islamic dominion over the earth, at the urging of their god. If I truly believed that some omnipotent mad god wanted me to do something like that, I don't know if I would be able to resist. To actually condemn their actions, you pretty much have to argue that their religious beliefs are delusional. Doing so causes all kinds of problems for theists of any stripe by comparison, even if they don't realize it.

But I'm not the kind of moral relativist that you're addressing, so I may not be expressing the kind of opinion you were hoping for.

Really? You might not be able to resist slitting the throats of children on setting people on fire if you had religious convictions in Islam?

To condemn their actions all you need to do is condemn the action itself. If the god babbaloo tells you to rape children do you need to prove that babbaloo is a delusion or that raping children is wrong? Because what you're saying is that it depends on if babbaloo is illusory.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:33:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.

So if "slitting children's throats" was on the ballot you vote "no opinion"?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:38:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:33:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.

So if "slitting children's throats" was on the ballot you vote "no opinion"?

My own opinion does nothing to reflect any form of reality of morality (whether moral exist, whether they are subjective, or whether they are objective). Therefore, to ask for an opinion is to stray away from trying to find the reality of these matters out. My opinion could be that they are bad, that doesn't make morality objective. That doesn't even make nihilism false. That does not mean I have no opinion, it just means that when trying to determine what morality is that opinions are worthless.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:40:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:38:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:33:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.

So if "slitting children's throats" was on the ballot you vote "no opinion"?

My own opinion does nothing to reflect any form of reality of morality (whether moral exist, whether they are subjective, or whether they are objective). Therefore, to ask for an opinion is to stray away from trying to find the reality of these matters out. My opinion could be that they are bad, that doesn't make morality objective. That doesn't even make nihilism false. That does not mean I have no opinion, it just means that when trying to determine what morality is that opinions are worthless.

So logically, you recognize that you have no moral highground to intervene or condemn the actions of Isis burning people alive, throwing homosexuals off buildings, or slitting infants throats. Is that correct?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:40:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:38:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:33:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.

So if "slitting children's throats" was on the ballot you vote "no opinion"?

My own opinion does nothing to reflect any form of reality of morality (whether moral exist, whether they are subjective, or whether they are objective). Therefore, to ask for an opinion is to stray away from trying to find the reality of these matters out. My opinion could be that they are bad, that doesn't make morality objective. That doesn't even make nihilism false. That does not mean I have no opinion, it just means that when trying to determine what morality is that opinions are worthless.


So logically, you recognize that you have no moral highground to intervene or condemn the actions of Isis burning people alive, throwing homosexuals off buildings, or slitting infants throats. Is that correct?

I recognize that there is no "moral highground" or "moral lowground", but that does not mean that I cannot push my own views on another.

A way to combine moral nihilism and social contract theory is the following:
Nihilism as a truth claim but not as a way of life would imply the following:
1) There is no absolute right or wrong, they are relative.
2) There is no intrinsic value, only values assigned to things by desire.

Now, we will use a pseudo-society of 100 people.

To get a basic idea, I will be using one example of a desire in the following:

Person 1 has the desire not to die. Through this desire he assigns his own relativistic value to his own life (his life has no intrinsic value).
It is desirable for Person 1 to live in a society in which people do not kill others because of his desire not to die.

Persons 2-98 have a similar desire to person 1 in regards to their own life.

It therefore becomes desirable for them to enter into a social contract not to kill each other (this will help to fulfill each of their desires not to die).

Person 99 and Person 100 can opt out of this social contract, but then their lives are not guaranteed to be safe.

Now, to get onto a more broad example.

Let's assume there are only 10 problems in which there are 2 sides. You can take your own side of these issues based upon your desires.

Let's say that Persons 1-80 all agree on 8 of the 10 issues. It would be desirable for them to enter into a social contract in order to achieve a net positive amount of their desires (more desired are easier/able to be fulfilled then not).

Let's say that Persons 81-95 agree on 7 of the issues the others agreed on. It would still be desirable for them to agree to the social contract, but not as desirable as it is for those that agree with 8 of the points.

This also allows for those within the social contract to try and change other people's opinion on certain problems. This is because it is more desirable to have a greater number of people that agree with you then that do not (allowing you to make judgments based on desires and not moral "rights" or "wrongs").

The end result is a society which has a social contract of oughts and ought nots based off of relativistic values assigned by desires instead of being based off intrinsic values of certain things. It still ends with moral nihilism as a truth claim (in that there is no intrinsic value, no moral rights, and no moral wrongs), but still can have these oughts and ought nots. It also makes it desirable to try and push your ideas onto others (making judgment claims) to further your own desires instead of being based off of moral ideas.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 11:08:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:40:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:38:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:33:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.

So if "slitting children's throats" was on the ballot you vote "no opinion"?

My own opinion does nothing to reflect any form of reality of morality (whether moral exist, whether they are subjective, or whether they are objective). Therefore, to ask for an opinion is to stray away from trying to find the reality of these matters out. My opinion could be that they are bad, that doesn't make morality objective. That doesn't even make nihilism false. That does not mean I have no opinion, it just means that when trying to determine what morality is that opinions are worthless.


So logically, you recognize that you have no moral highground to intervene or condemn the actions of Isis burning people alive, throwing homosexuals off buildings, or slitting infants throats. Is that correct?

I suppose it depends on how we look at it, or more precisely, how the Islamic extremists are attempting to show us their "moral highground". I've recently had discussions with Muslims here who believe I'm idiotic and insane because I didn't accept the Quran's guidelines that my one and only reaction to anyone who attacks me is to kill them. This is their moral high-ground for dealing with attacks.

Isn't that what we're seeing now, Muslim extremists who believe they are being attacked and are just following through their moral high-ground?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:40:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:38:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:33:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:30:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/17/2015 8:30:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What's your opinion

Does not matter. My own opinion has no relevance to if morality is relative or realistic. It has no bearing on if moral nihilism is correct or not.

So if "slitting children's throats" was on the ballot you vote "no opinion"?

My own opinion does nothing to reflect any form of reality of morality (whether moral exist, whether they are subjective, or whether they are objective). Therefore, to ask for an opinion is to stray away from trying to find the reality of these matters out. My opinion could be that they are bad, that doesn't make morality objective. That doesn't even make nihilism false. That does not mean I have no opinion, it just means that when trying to determine what morality is that opinions are worthless.


So logically, you recognize that you have no moral highground to intervene or condemn the actions of Isis burning people alive, throwing homosexuals off buildings, or slitting infants throats. Is that correct?

I recognize that there is no "moral highground" or "moral lowground", but that does not mean that I cannot push my own views on another.

A way to combine moral nihilism and social contract theory is the following:
Nihilism as a truth claim but not as a way of life would imply the following:
1) There is no absolute right or wrong, they are relative.
2) There is no intrinsic value, only values assigned to things by desire.

Now, we will use a pseudo-society of 100 people.

To get a basic idea, I will be using one example of a desire in the following:

Person 1 has the desire not to die. Through this desire he assigns his own relativistic value to his own life (his life has no intrinsic value).
It is desirable for Person 1 to live in a society in which people do not kill others because of his desire not to die.

Persons 2-98 have a similar desire to person 1 in regards to their own life.

It therefore becomes desirable for them to enter into a social contract not to kill each other (this will help to fulfill each of their desires not to die).

Person 99 and Person 100 can opt out of this social contract, but then their lives are not guaranteed to be safe.

Now, to get onto a more broad example.

Let's assume there are only 10 problems in which there are 2 sides. You can take your own side of these issues based upon your desires.

Let's say that Persons 1-80 all agree on 8 of the 10 issues. It would be desirable for them to enter into a social contract in order to achieve a net positive amount of their desires (more desired are easier/able to be fulfilled then not).

Let's say that Persons 81-95 agree on 7 of the issues the others agreed on. It would still be desirable for them to agree to the social contract, but not as desirable as it is for those that agree with 8 of the points.

This also allows for those within the social contract to try and change other people's opinion on certain problems. This is because it is more desirable to have a greater number of people that agree with you then that do not (allowing you to make judgments based on desires and not moral "rights" or "wrongs").

The end result is a society which has a social contract of oughts and ought nots based off of relativistic values assigned by desires instead of being based off intrinsic values of certain things. It still ends with moral nihilism as a truth claim (in that there is no intrinsic value, no moral rights, and no moral wrongs), but still can have these oughts and ought nots. It also makes it desirable to try and push your ideas onto others (making judgment claims) to further your own desires instead of being based off of moral ideas.

But this wouldn't solve the problem. A society of 40,000 ISIS militants could form desires to behead, rape, and torture all people that don't support their views. While the society of 98 desire life and protect it by entering into a social contract, the 40,000 in the other society have entered into a contract to destroy that life. If nothing is inherently right or wrong, whoever holds the most power decides what the way of life ought to be for any society. This gives us 0 *reason* to condemn or intervene unless we happen to have the power to do so. We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 11:30:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
But this wouldn't solve the problem.

What problem?

A society of 40,000 ISIS militants could form desires to behead, rape, and torture all people that don't support their views.

Okay.

While the society of 98 desire life and protect it by entering into a social contract, the 40,000 in the other society have entered into a contract to destroy that life.

Okay. That means they are not part of the social contract of the 40,000. Anything goes between them.

If nothing is inherently right or wrong,

This method doesn't deal with moral rights or wrongs, it deals with desires.

whoever holds the most power decides what the way of life ought to be for any society.

Ok.

This gives us 0 *reason* to condemn or intervene unless we happen to have the power to do so.

Ypu know, except that you could do so a little less obviously to try and change the minds of some of them, eventually causing the majority to switch to support your side. rO it might not. Either way, what is the problem here?

We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.

How do you suppose we can do that? Show that morals exist and that Isis is acting morally wrong? Good luck.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:04:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 11:30:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Ypu know, except that you could do so a little less obviously to try and change the minds of some of them, eventually causing the majority to switch to support your side. rO it might not. Either way, what is the problem here?

On what basis could we change their minds? By reason, right?

We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.

How do you suppose we can do that? Show that morals exist and that Isis is acting morally wrong? Good luck.

Morals certainly exist. If they didn't we couldn't even have a coherent concept of them. If morals are grounded in reason, then reason itself is a means for an objective moral standard. This is Kant's categorical imperative argument for objective morality.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:12:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:04:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:30:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Ypu know, except that you could do so a little less obviously to try and change the minds of some of them, eventually causing the majority to switch to support your side. rO it might not. Either way, what is the problem here?

On what basis could we change their minds? By reason, right?

Whatever way works. If reason works, then use reason. If appealing to emotion works, use that.

We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.

How do you suppose we can do that? Show that morals exist and that Isis is acting morally wrong? Good luck.

Morals certainly exist. If they didn't we couldn't even have a coherent concept of them.

Ha.. ha.. hahahahaha.. Oh, you are being serious?
Ya, fantasy writers have come up with a coherent concept of elves, dwarves, magic, etc. That does not mean that elves, dwarves, or magic are real.

If morals are grounded in reason, then reason itself is a means for an objective moral standard. This is Kant's categorical imperative argument for objective morality.

Ya, but it is stupid.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:26:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:12:17 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:04:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:30:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Ypu know, except that you could do so a little less obviously to try and change the minds of some of them, eventually causing the majority to switch to support your side. rO it might not. Either way, what is the problem here?

On what basis could we change their minds? By reason, right?

Whatever way works. If reason works, then use reason. If appealing to emotion works, use that.

So if there's no "correct" way to reason or use emotion, we could reason that causing the most suffering to appease Allah is the way things ought to be. Causing the worst emotional harm to appease Allah is good and should be done at all costs.

We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.

How do you suppose we can do that? Show that morals exist and that Isis is acting morally wrong? Good luck.

Morals certainly exist. If they didn't we couldn't even have a coherent concept of them.

Ha.. ha.. hahahahaha.. Oh, you are being serious?
Ya, fantasy writers have come up with a coherent concept of elves, dwarves, magic, etc. That does not mean that elves, dwarves, or magic are real.

We accept those concepts as fantasy. Do we accept morality as a fantasy concept? Sure seems like we don't. We also recognize varying degrees of immorality in certain actions. Imagine sensing the "quacha" of different ice cream flavors. That's utterly incoherent. The only way we can sense the "immorality" of different actions is because they actually have a moral value attached.

If morals are grounded in reason, then reason itself is a means for an objective moral standard. This is Kant's categorical imperative argument for objective morality.

Ya, but it is stupid.

How so? Kant is widely recognized as one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived. Do you know something that he was missing?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:40:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:26:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:12:17 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:04:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:30:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Ypu know, except that you could do so a little less obviously to try and change the minds of some of them, eventually causing the majority to switch to support your side. rO it might not. Either way, what is the problem here?

On what basis could we change their minds? By reason, right?

Whatever way works. If reason works, then use reason. If appealing to emotion works, use that.

So if there's no "correct" way to reason or use emotion, we could reason that causing the most suffering to appease Allah is the way things ought to be. Causing the worst emotional harm to appease Allah is good and should be done at all costs.

I am sorry, but are you stupid?
What you are saying now has no relevance to the question you asked. You asked what method would be used to change people's minds. You did not relate "killing in the name of Allah" to changing people's minds.
Next, how is that an ought to be? Whichever method works best is the method a person will use. Different methods work at different times.
What do you mean by "Causing the worst emotional harm to appease Allah is good"? Again, there is no good or bad in this system.

We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.

How do you suppose we can do that? Show that morals exist and that Isis is acting morally wrong? Good luck.

Morals certainly exist. If they didn't we couldn't even have a coherent concept of them.

Ha.. ha.. hahahahaha.. Oh, you are being serious?
Ya, fantasy writers have come up with a coherent concept of elves, dwarves, magic, etc. That does not mean that elves, dwarves, or magic are real.

We accept those concepts as fantasy. Do we accept morality as a fantasy concept? Sure seems like we don't. We also recognize varying degrees of immorality in certain actions. Imagine sensing the "quacha" of different ice cream flavors. That's utterly incoherent. The only way we can sense the "immorality" of different actions is because they actually have a moral value attached.

Not everyone accepts these "fantasy" concepts as being fantasies. For example, some people actually believe in magic. So, your argument is void. You also presuppose there are moral values.

If morals are grounded in reason, then reason itself is a means for an objective moral standard. This is Kant's categorical imperative argument for objective morality.

Ya, but it is stupid.

How so? Kant is widely recognized as one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived. Do you know something that he was missing?

I never said Kant was stupid, I said that specific thing is stupid. It presupposes that morality exists.

I agree that if morality is grounded in reason then reason is a means for finding an objective moral standard, that logically follows. That does not mean that morality exists, and it does not mean morality (if it does exist) is grounded in reason.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:54:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is really the time for Christians to test their God of the bible against the God of the Quran or Islam.
ISIS has waged a war against infidels and Christians are definitely their targets. Why is there no outrage among Christians? Where is their all powerful omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience God. Is he still nailed to the cross?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 12:57:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:40:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:26:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:12:17 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:04:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:30:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:25:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 11:02:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Ypu know, except that you could do so a little less obviously to try and change the minds of some of them, eventually causing the majority to switch to support your side. rO it might not. Either way, what is the problem here?

On what basis could we change their minds? By reason, right?

Whatever way works. If reason works, then use reason. If appealing to emotion works, use that.

So if there's no "correct" way to reason or use emotion, we could reason that causing the most suffering to appease Allah is the way things ought to be. Causing the worst emotional harm to appease Allah is good and should be done at all costs.

I am sorry, but are you stupid?
What you are saying now has no relevance to the question you asked. You asked what method would be used to change people's minds. You did not relate "killing in the name of Allah" to changing people's minds.
Next, how is that an ought to be? Whichever method works best is the method a person will use. Different methods work at different times.
What do you mean by "Causing the worst emotional harm to appease Allah is good"? Again, there is no good or bad in this system.

I asked how other societies could change the minds of terrorists that entered into a contract to commit atrocities together.

You said by using emotion or reason.

I said that using emotion or reason is baseless because we can reason or use emotion however we like. There must be a "correct" way to reason or to use emotion if we have any grounds for doing that. Otherwise the terrorists committing atrocities in the name of Allah can reason and use emotion for supporting their own position.

We can clearly reason that atrocities committed by Isis are wrong.

How do you suppose we can do that? Show that morals exist and that Isis is acting morally wrong? Good luck.

Morals certainly exist. If they didn't we couldn't even have a coherent concept of them.

Ha.. ha.. hahahahaha.. Oh, you are being serious?
Ya, fantasy writers have come up with a coherent concept of elves, dwarves, magic, etc. That does not mean that elves, dwarves, or magic are real.

We accept those concepts as fantasy. Do we accept morality as a fantasy concept? Sure seems like we don't. We also recognize varying degrees of immorality in certain actions. Imagine sensing the "quacha" of different ice cream flavors. That's utterly incoherent. The only way we can sense the "immorality" of different actions is because they actually have a moral value attached.

Not everyone accepts these "fantasy" concepts as being fantasies. For example, some people actually believe in magic. So, your argument is void. You also presuppose there are moral values.

So if not everyone accepts fantasy as being fantasy then things we treat as real shouldn't be treated as real? I'm not presupposing moral values. The fact that human beings have a concept of morality and treat it as being real across societies means that presupposing morals don't exist is the bigger assumption.


If morals are grounded in reason, then reason itself is a means for an objective moral standard. This is Kant's categorical imperative argument for objective morality.

Ya, but it is stupid.

How so? Kant is widely recognized as one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived. Do you know something that he was missing?

I never said Kant was stupid, I said that specific thing is stupid. It presupposes that morality exists.

No it doesn't. It presupposes the existence of reason. I never said that you said Kant was stupid either, I was referring to his argument.

I agree that if morality is grounded in reason then reason is a means for finding an objective moral standard, that logically follows. That does not mean that morality exists, and it does not mean morality (if it does exist) is grounded in reason.

Well perfect. That's exactly what Kant has done with his categorical imperative argument.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 12:54:43 PM, Harikrish wrote:
This is really the time for Christians to test their God of the bible against the God of the Quran or Islam.
ISIS has waged a war against infidels and Christians are definitely their targets. Why is there no outrage among Christians? Where is their all powerful omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience God. Is he still nailed to the cross?

The ones ISIS is waging war against are the "infidels"? ISIS and their cause is a disgrace to the entire human race.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:10:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:00:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:54:43 PM, Harikrish wrote:
This is really the time for Christians to test their God of the bible against the God of the Quran or Islam.
ISIS has waged a war against infidels and Christians are definitely their targets. Why is there no outrage among Christians? Where is their all powerful omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience God. Is he still nailed to the cross?

The ones ISIS is waging war against are the "infidels"? ISIS and their cause is a disgrace to the entire human race.

Nonsense. It is a battle of Gods. Christian coalition attacked Iraq. Now the Iraqi led ISIS is retaliating after having regrouped. They certainly are not fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:10:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:00:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:54:43 PM, Harikrish wrote:
This is really the time for Christians to test their God of the bible against the God of the Quran or Islam.
ISIS has waged a war against infidels and Christians are definitely their targets. Why is there no outrage among Christians? Where is their all powerful omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience God. Is he still nailed to the cross?

The ones ISIS is waging war against are the "infidels"? ISIS and their cause is a disgrace to the entire human race.

Nonsense. It is a battle of Gods. Christian coalition attacked Iraq. Now the Iraqi led ISIS is retaliating after having regrouped. They certainly are not fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein.

Who is the one cutting off children's heads, setting people on fire, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? I don't care what side you align yourself with. Whoever does those things are committing atrocities that are unequestionably, objectively evil. The real God is the one who instilled a moral code in you to truly know right from wrong. Since those things are truly wrong, you are not obeying the true God.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 1:23:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 1:15:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:10:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/18/2015 1:00:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/18/2015 12:54:43 PM, Harikrish wrote:
This is really the time for Christians to test their God of the bible against the God of the Quran or Islam.
ISIS has waged a war against infidels and Christians are definitely their targets. Why is there no outrage among Christians? Where is their all powerful omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience God. Is he still nailed to the cross?

The ones ISIS is waging war against are the "infidels"? ISIS and their cause is a disgrace to the entire human race.

Nonsense. It is a battle of Gods. Christian coalition attacked Iraq. Now the Iraqi led ISIS is retaliating after having regrouped. They certainly are not fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein.

Who is the one cutting off children's heads, setting people on fire, and throwing homosexuals off buildings? I don't care what side you align yourself with. Whoever does those things are committing atrocities that are unequestionably, objectively evil. The real God is the one who instilled a moral code in you to truly know right from wrong. Since those things are truly wrong, you are not obeying the true God.

ISIS don't have to worry about such things. They are guided by Allah. Who is guiding the Christians?