Total Posts:217|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 6:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Dont know why I called david, dan...ooo boy!
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 6:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?
It's just that guy.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 6:41:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:37:52 PM, Torton wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?
It's just that guy.
Well, maybe not just him, but if there are any more like him, they're assuredly a tiny minority, and it doesn't even just pertain to atheists.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What a refreshing contrast, I say.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 7:28:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

If humanity is not a means towards an end, moral objectivism is false. If atheism is true, humanity is not a means towards an end. Therefore if atheism is true, moral objectivism is false.

Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

If God created humanity for a purpose then this purpose is inherent in every human being. This purpose, from our perspective, is objective.

On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What does "morality has to do with well-being" mean?

Are you advocating that some form of utilitarianism is true?

What a refreshing contrast, I say

in your subjective opinion or is your opinion based on some truth of the matter?
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 7:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 7:28:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

If humanity is not a means towards an end, moral objectivism is false. If atheism is true, humanity is not a means towards an end. Therefore if atheism is true, moral objectivism is false.

Hi Ben.
What was that last thread you created?
What's your opinion on bait-and-flee tactics, Ben?

Anyway, the topic is described in the OP.
As for the cassette you keep playing, it's been debunked too many times


Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

If God created humanity for a purpose then this purpose is inherent in every human being. This purpose, from our perspective, is objective.

As far as it's known, Mankind evolved. It was not created.

And that's not what objective means.
You keep stumbling in the meaning of the word.


On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What does "morality has to do with well-being" mean?

The statement is rather straightforward.
An intellectual colossus such as yourself, Ben, should have no problem deciphering it.


Are you advocating that some form of utilitarianism is true?

Depends on how strictly you define utilitarianism.


What a refreshing contrast, I say

in your subjective opinion or is your opinion based on some truth of the matter?

Explained above.
The intelectual eminence of DDO should have no problem understanding sentences cosseting of just one, 1, clause.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 7:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 7:28:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

If humanity is not a means towards an end, moral objectivism is false. If atheism is true, humanity is not a means towards an end. Therefore if atheism is true, moral objectivism is false.

Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

If God created humanity for a purpose then this purpose is inherent in every human being. This purpose, from our perspective, is objective.

On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What does "morality has to do with well-being" mean?

Are you advocating that some form of utilitarianism is true?

What a refreshing contrast, I say

in your subjective opinion or is your opinion based on some truth of the matter?

Nasty typo.
It should read "you keep stumbling on"
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 7:59:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 7:49:12 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/31/2016 7:28:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

If humanity is not a means towards an end, moral objectivism is false. If atheism is true, humanity is not a means towards an end. Therefore if atheism is true, moral objectivism is false.

Hi Ben.
What was that last thread you created?
What's your opinion on bait-and-flee tactics, Ben?


Anyway, the topic is described in the OP.
As for the cassette you keep playing, it's been debunked too many times

In philosophy, this is called a red herring.


Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

If God created humanity for a purpose then this purpose is inherent in every human being. This purpose, from our perspective, is objective.

As far as it's known, Mankind evolved. It was not created.

Then if my above argument is true, moral objectivism must be false.

And that's not what objective means.
You keep stumbling in the meaning of the word.

"Objective" and "subjective" refer to truth standards. If something is objective then it's necessarily true. If something is subjective then it's not necessarily true. I encourage you to find any contradictions with this.


On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What does "morality has to do with well-being" mean?

The statement is rather straightforward.
An intellectual colossus such as yourself, Ben, should have no problem deciphering it.

I'm nothing special intellectually. I just like to ask questions and challenge people's beliefs (including my own).

My problem with the above statement is that it's too vague.


Are you advocating that some form of utilitarianism is true?

Depends on how strictly you define utilitarianism.

Whatever maximizes well-being on net balance is moral and whatever minimizes well-being on balance is immoral. Agree or disagree?



What a refreshing contrast, I say

in your subjective opinion or is your opinion based on some truth of the matter?

Explained above.
The intelectual eminence of DDO should have no problem understanding sentences cosseting of just one, 1, clause.

It's not specific enough. Please explain.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 8:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:41:22 PM, Torton wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:37:52 PM, Torton wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?
It's just that guy.
Well, maybe not just him, but if there are any more like him, they're assuredly a tiny minority, and it doesn't even just pertain to atheists.

I mean that's what I thought, I don't personally think atheists are immoral by nature. From my theistic world view at least I view everyone as having base morals. Then those morals get shaped by experience.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 8:16:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

Well the only reason I disagree with this part of the post is in an assumed God controlled world, going against a decree of God would be wrong in the same sense that disobeying a law of any given land would be considered wrong. There is indeed a difference between not liking a law and that law existing. Even in the sense of natural laws governing the world. You can dislike that humans are not capable of flying on their own without assistance but no matter how many times you jump off a cliff a man will never be able to fly through his own will.

On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What a refreshing contrast, I say.

Well this could be argued to not be true in that human history itself in various cultures all over the world have not held the same definition of "well-being" or that morality is a basis for such. I think too many questions would arise regarding whos well being? What about foreigners in the land that don't kneel to the same definition? So I don't think that can be a basis of morality.
What do you make of this example even? When it comes to murder being wrong, even until this very day people are not entirely uniform on what that is. In America for example there is a huge debate going on about police allegedly murdering citizens by gunning them down in circumstances people are arguing it wasn't necessary force. Yet there is a whole other group of people arguing the force was necessary and that if you argue with a cop period or do anything to impede their job or commands, you get whats coming to you.
Then theres the idea of if someone trespasses on your property do you have the right to shoot someone flat out or would it be murder to do so?
Of course theres endless scenarios that could be listed in which we can find disagreement across the board on what constitutes murder situationally so how can we really find a objective meaning in this context?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 10:12:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Not all atheists believe in subjective morality just like not all theists think gays should be killed.

It is an objective fact that the holocaust caused intentional, large-scale, and avoidable suffering. To say that is moral negates any possible meaning of the word.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 11:44:28 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

There is no "how atheists think" other than the fact that they don't believe in a God. Everything else is something else.

I do however think the majority of atheists believe morality is subjective. But believing morality is subjective does not = believing the holocaust was moral in any reasonable sense. And although I didn't see the debate I will say the argument as you have represented it is ridiculous. I somehow do not think that the people who were being killed and tortured believed what was happening was just.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:55:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Of course Nazi's would consider the Holocaust to be morally good, just as today neo-Nazi's generally approve of what Hitler did - just as Christians approve of the slaughter against the Canaanites of the OT. The relativism comes from individual perspective (influenced by personal values, culture and other factors). To them it's moral, to us it's not.

Now to be able for us to say "our morals are better" or "we ought to hold these values because .." we need to find common values and show how our perspective on those values exceeds the other in real world outcomes.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:07:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

I haven't heard Silverman's position, but if that's it, it's not representative. There are really two moral influences at work here, Bigs, and they're distinct and not entirely consistent:

1) Postmodernist cultural relativism -- an idea from postcolonial humanities studies that everything is so coloured by culture that it's hard to separate objectivity from subjective cultural bias -- so morality is more a matter of tradition than anything; and
2) Secular humanism -- an idea from the Enlightenment that morality needs to be accountable for its objective impacts on human welfare.

While both views challenge religious tradition, the irony is that religion now uses each for its own purposes anyway.

We simultaneously have religious modernists insisting that humanism is a product of divine inspiration, and that Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha or the ancient Jews were all the original humanists, AND meanwhile, we have religious fundamentalists invoking postmodernist cultural relativism to insist that there's no objective sense in the world, therefore their sense is as good as anyone's even if it's not born out by science or history. :D

Amid that mess, with society and religion confused, one shouldn't be surprised to find some atheists confused too. And it's compounded because of inherited confusion over the difference (if any) between morality and ethics.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:09:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.

Everyone living in the area? What does this even mean? The Germans tried to keep the more horrific aspects secret from their own people. Remember that Germany at the time was a police state and had an extensive propaganda machine. Whilst there were bound to be some rumours of what was happening in the gas chambers, I think the average German would have been turning a blind eye and trying to stay out of trouble. The suggestion that the majority found it just assumes too much knowledge.

Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Just this guy.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:41:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 10:12:18 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Not all atheists believe in subjective morality just like not all theists think gays should be killed.

It is an objective fact that the holocaust caused intentional, large-scale, and avoidable suffering. To say that is moral negates any possible meaning of the word.

I mean that's what I thought.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:44:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 11:44:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

There is no "how atheists think" other than the fact that they don't believe in a God. Everything else is something else.

I do however think the majority of atheists believe morality is subjective. But believing morality is subjective does not = believing the holocaust was moral in any reasonable sense. And although I didn't see the debate I will say the argument as you have represented it is ridiculous. I somehow do not think that the people who were being killed and tortured believed what was happening was just.

While I agree the point was a ridiculous one, he was just saying morality was whatever a group of people define it as at any given time so while the people being killed/tortured wouldn't think it was just, the people doing the killing did and that was his point I guess.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 5:11:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?

Opposite side of the coin.
Moral realism, relativism, and nihilism are all cognitive theories. They all propose that "morals" "exist", in some sense, that moral claims are truth apt.
Noncognitivism takes the stance that they are not truth apt, that "morals" don't really "exist".
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 5:43:45 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 5:11:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?

Opposite side of the coin.
Moral realism, relativism, and nihilism are all cognitive theories. They all propose that "morals" "exist", in some sense, that moral claims are truth apt.
Noncognitivism takes the stance that they are not truth apt, that "morals" don't really "exist".

I see, am I correct in assuming that's along the lines of silvermans thinking?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 6:44:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 5:43:45 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 5:11:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?

Opposite side of the coin.
Moral realism, relativism, and nihilism are all cognitive theories. They all propose that "morals" "exist", in some sense, that moral claims are truth apt.
Noncognitivism takes the stance that they are not truth apt, that "morals" don't really "exist".

I see, am I correct in assuming that's along the lines of silvermans thinking?

Not at all, Silverman is a relativist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 7:44:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What a refreshing contrast, I say.
I'm curious, did you honestly type this nonsense without busting out laughing as to how utterly ridiculous a person has to be to succeed in contradicting themselves in less than four thougts? Seriously? "Well being". Why didn't you just say objective morality could have a premise based on who breathes the purest oxygen and that, by definition, results in the purest sense of right and wrong? Lmfao.........
Objective morality can be erected upon subjective rhetoric, bwhahahahah
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 10:59:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 5:11:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?

Opposite side of the coin.
Moral realism, relativism, and nihilism are all cognitive theories. They all propose that "morals" "exist", in some sense, that moral claims are truth apt.

Noncognitivism is a subset of moral nihilism. Moral nihilism doesn't propose that moral claims are truth apt.

Noncognitivism takes the stance that they are not truth apt, that "morals" don't really "exist".
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:07:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 7:44:40 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:42:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
Boy, the list of theists who don't know what atheism entails keeps growing by the hour.

Silverman's entitled to his opinions.

God's opinion on any given topic doesn't render it objective. It is still His opinion, which can be disputed and shown to be flawed, at least potentially. And herein lies the problem with theistic morality: because it is simply a collection of divine injunctions, because there is no rationale behind it and the only substantiation provided is a form of "God says so", it can't be aptly described as objective.

On the other hand, under the acceptance of the straightforward premise "morality has to do with well-being", an edifice of objective morality can indeed be erected. No God required.

What a refreshing contrast, I say.
I'm curious, did you honestly type this nonsense without busting out laughing as to how utterly ridiculous a person has to be to succeed in contradicting themselves in less than four thougts?

This, of course, from an individual who claims gravity and solar radiation are "destructive forces".

Seriously? "Well being". Why didn't you just say objective morality could have a premise based on who breathes the purest oxygen and that, by definition, results in the purest sense of right and wrong? Lmfao.........

Your laughter stems from your misunderstanding of what is being said. I take it you do not know what a premise is.
I'm not surprised.

Objective morality can be erected upon subjective rhetoric, bwhahahahah

I love this concept of "Objective Rhetoric".
Sun lotion will perhaps help you. You know, to stop the destructive force of solar radiation from damaging your brain.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:38:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 6:44:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 5:43:45 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 5:11:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?

Opposite side of the coin.
Moral realism, relativism, and nihilism are all cognitive theories. They all propose that "morals" "exist", in some sense, that moral claims are truth apt.
Noncognitivism takes the stance that they are not truth apt, that "morals" don't really "exist".

I see, am I correct in assuming that's along the lines of silvermans thinking?

Not at all, Silverman is a relativist.

Ok I think I see the point. So something to a noncognitivist like acts of "good" or "evil" simply dont exist? Things just are what they are? Sorry Iv just never heard of this position before but I find it fascinating.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 5:13:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 4:38:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 6:44:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 5:43:45 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 5:11:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:58:56 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/1/2016 12:31:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

Atheists have no uniform philosophy on ethics.
Some atheists are moral realists, some are moral relativists, etc.
Personally, I am an ethical noncognitivist.

I'm honestly not familiar with what entails an ethical noncognitivist world view. Where does that fit in the spectrum of moral realists and relativists?

Opposite side of the coin.
Moral realism, relativism, and nihilism are all cognitive theories. They all propose that "morals" "exist", in some sense, that moral claims are truth apt.
Noncognitivism takes the stance that they are not truth apt, that "morals" don't really "exist".

I see, am I correct in assuming that's along the lines of silvermans thinking?

Not at all, Silverman is a relativist.

Ok I think I see the point. So something to a noncognitivist like acts of "good" or "evil" simply dont exist? Things just are what they are? Sorry Iv just never heard of this position before but I find it fascinating.

Basically, they say that 'good' and 'bad' are subjective and not intrinsic objective properties associated to morality. To me, that is like saying that paper money has no intrinsic objective value beyond the value of paper.

Even the example of the holocaust as subjective morality is a false equivalence and more simple cognitive dissonance. If you asked most Germans in Nazi Germany if needless suffering should be caused to large amounts of people, they would have most likely say no. It had more to do with how they defined a Jew; not whether mass wonton killing was acceptable. Almost everyone thinks that killing is unacceptable but many will think that killing a child rapist is acceptable. The demonization of the Jews defined them in the Germans' mind.

Empathy is the sole foundation of morality. There is no moral question that cannot be answered by empathy. Since empathy exists objectively, morality exists objectively in my subjective opinion. :)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 12:06:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 4:44:05 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/31/2016 11:44:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

There is no "how atheists think" other than the fact that they don't believe in a God. Everything else is something else.

I do however think the majority of atheists believe morality is subjective. But believing morality is subjective does not = believing the holocaust was moral in any reasonable sense. And although I didn't see the debate I will say the argument as you have represented it is ridiculous. I somehow do not think that the people who were being killed and tortured believed what was happening was just.

While I agree the point was a ridiculous one, he was just saying morality was whatever a group of people define it as at any given time so while the people being killed/tortured wouldn't think it was just, the people doing the killing did and that was his point I guess.

The presenter is entitled to his views, however that idea of morality doesn't hold up in any reasonable sense and does not represent the majority of atheist views on morality as I have observed. Most atheists view morality from a rational perspective. Before we can talk about morality we have to determine what it is about. If it is about well being, as most non-theists I know accept, then the idea that we can just call something just doesn't make it so.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 12:06:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:44:05 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/31/2016 11:44:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/31/2016 6:35:09 PM, bigotry wrote:
I watched a debated recently between david silverman and james white and during the debate dan silverman insisted morality is so relative that he insinuated the holocaust was a moral act because everyone living in that area of that time found it just.
Is this really an acccurate representation of how atheists think? Or is it just this guy?

There is no "how atheists think" other than the fact that they don't believe in a God. Everything else is something else.

I do however think the majority of atheists believe morality is subjective. But believing morality is subjective does not = believing the holocaust was moral in any reasonable sense. And although I didn't see the debate I will say the argument as you have represented it is ridiculous. I somehow do not think that the people who were being killed and tortured believed what was happening was just.

While I agree the point was a ridiculous one, he was just saying morality was whatever a group of people define it as at any given time so while the people being killed/tortured wouldn't think it was just, the people doing the killing did and that was his point I guess.

The presenter is entitled to his views, however that idea of morality doesn't hold up in any reasonable sense and does not represent the majority of atheist views on morality as I have observed. Most atheists view morality from a rational perspective. Before we can talk about morality we have to determine what it is about. If it is about well being, as most non-theists I know accept, then the idea that we can just call something just doesn't make it so.

Makes alot more sense than this dope!