Studying Philosophy. Justify it.

At 4/6/2012 11:47:43 PM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/6/2012 11:40:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Challenge me to a debate that you prove my moral objective proof wrong.

I haven't debated in years, but we can exchange opinions on the forums.

At 4/6/2012 11:47:07 PM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/6/2012 11:19:26 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Mental and physical health. A maximally good well-being would be mentally sublime and physically fit. A maximally bad well-being would be probably something similar to experiencing Hell, if such a thing existed.

Do you believe that something that can benefit a person's well-being can harm them based on what they know or believe at two different moments in time?

Natural selection. To determine which behaviors and actions are objectively good and bad to our well-beings is to be one step closer to conducing a (theoretically) perfect society for the sake of long-lasting survival and prosperity.

I LOVE IT. I also believe that morality operates in the same way that natural selection does. I understand you believe that actions will always have an objective moral ranking, but do you believe that the same actions may have different values at different times?

Yes, and perhaps having three corners being a property of triangles is merely a popular misapprehension as well. What you deem a triangle, I deem a square, but the concepts remain. There must necessarily be some actions that promote survival and prosperity more greatly than others.

And if those things are definitively unknowable, does that affect your argument for an objective morality?

Perhaps the problem here is that the value one places on well-being is subjective, and therefore, morality (the principles of behaviors which effect well-beings) is also subjective. But this is quite parallel to saying the value one places on logic is subjective, and therefore, the laws of logic are also subjective.

I understand your point. Do you believe that a person's opinion of their own well-being can impact their actual well-being? We know that a person's subjective view of logic doesn't impact the truth values of statements.

I must concede, of course, that some people do not value their own well-beings. This is exemplified most commonly in suicidal acts, where one takes his/her own life at the benefit of no one. But most, if not all, of suicide attempts are a result of some form of depression, an imbalance of chemicals in the victim's brain. This is akin to the victim being, in a way, "broken" as an automobile is with a blown engine. We cannot tailor the definition of "good performance" to suit the behavior of a car with three flat tires any more than we can tailor the definition of "good well-being" to suit the behaviors or values of a person with self-harming tendencies.

Professionally, I can tell you, the "imbalance" of chemicals in a depressed person's brain isn't truly an imbalance. That's a drug company ploy. Is a person's mood affected by antidepressants? Yes. Is it necessarily correcting something and bringing a person back to normal? No. We don't have a measure on normal neurotransmitter levels. We can only judge whether or not anti-depressant therapy is working by whether or not they act normal by our own standards.

That being said, do you advocate "fixing" everybody?

"Regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective, things will be the same" is far different than "morality is not objective". That being said, realizing that our behaviors objectively influence the well-beings of others (and therefore, our societies and species as wholes) is a step closer to understanding how we can apply the principles of morality to our lives.

You didn't answer my question. I don't mind exploring several conclusions aside from the one I intend to prove. What would happen if the effects are completely unknowable?

And, in fact, that's the only way things will not remain the same, because if morality is subjective, then every perceived "wrong" action is not really wrong. Everything is perfect the way it is, regardless of how screwed up you may personally think it is.

Would you entertain the notion that morality works in the same manner that evolution does? That although each individual of a species has different DNA, their DNA is alike enough such that an extreme mutation would either die, be killed, or be unable to mate and spread its genes? That beneficial genes would be mechanistically spread throughout a population leading to widespread change and a genetic shift due to natural selection?

At 4/7/2012 12:01:24 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Edit.

The Fool: I meant to say that the evolutionary explanation has been around for a long time. But its not the type of objective that we want. As you said, I can just say mabye I had a mutation and so I disagree. The truth is none of our Rights or Human rights have any rationality behind them. They currently stand as a really large list of fundementalist commandments. So they are trying to back track and say its normative because of evolution, to back it up. Evolution is far from complete. There are still big holes all over it. Its the best explanation we got. But I could pick it apart. Even Human Right used to just be called Rights and people complained that they were man made. So they added in that they are inherent in Humanity. Which is a ridiculas and outstanding claim.

At 4/6/2012 11:57:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: the evolutionary morals are a fail for objecitve moral. The idea have been around for a long time. Its really just a way to justify are normative morals we have now that have know rational basis.

At 4/7/2012 12:04:51 AM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/6/2012 11:57:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: the evolutionary morals are a fail for objecitve moral. The idea have been around for a long time. Its really just a way to justify are normative morals we have now that have know rational basis.

I don't use the evolutionary model to support objective morals. I use them to describe a system that really can't be categorized in any comfortable way.

I believe that everyone has their own beliefs as to whether certain acts are good or evil, and they have a working knowledge as to what general society feels about it too. Just like how every organism's different DNA makes up an "average" that determines a species, every individual's moral beliefs, based on their values and experiences, make up a moral average.

Stray too far from the moral average and they lock you up, call you a looney, or isolate you from society in one way or another. If many people have small shifts in their moral views, that can change society altogether.

Whether it is for the better or the worse is impossible to say. All we can say is that it is in flux. Constantly. And though it is in flux, there are extreme limits as to what is morally acceptable that are somewhat grounded in biology.

Morality is a multifaceted system, but its mechanism is the same one that controls speciation and evolution.

At 4/6/2012 11:47:07 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Do you believe that something that can benefit a person's well-being can harm them based on what they know or believe at two different moments in time?

I LOVE IT. I also believe that morality operates in the same way that natural selection does. I understand you believe that actions will always have an objective moral ranking, but do you believe that the same actions may have different values at different times?

And if those things are definitively unknowable, does that affect your argument for an objective morality?

I understand your point. Do you believe that a person's opinion of their own well-being can impact their actual well-being? We know that a person's subjective view of logic doesn't impact the truth values of statements.

Professionally, I can tell you, the "imbalance" of chemicals in a depressed person's brain isn't truly an imbalance. That's a drug company ploy. Is a person's mood affected by antidepressants? Yes. Is it necessarily correcting something and bringing a person back to normal? No. We don't have a measure on normal neurotransmitter levels. We can only judge whether or not anti-depressant therapy is working by whether or not they act normal by our own standards.

That being said, do you advocate "fixing" everybody?

You didn't answer my question. I don't mind exploring several conclusions aside from the one I intend to prove. What would happen if the effects are completely unknowable?

Would you entertain the notion that morality works in the same manner that evolution does? That although each individual of a species has different DNA, their DNA is alike enough such that an extreme mutation would either die, be killed, or be unable to mate and spread its genes? That beneficial genes would be mechanistically spread throughout a population leading to widespread change and a genetic shift due to natural selection?

At 4/7/2012 12:07:43 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

At 4/6/2012 11:47:07 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Do you believe that something that can benefit a person's well-being can harm them based on what they know or believe at two different moments in time?

I'm unsure if you're alluding to the placebo affect. If you are, then yes, I believe the placebo affect can be quite potent in some cases. If you aren't, then kindly elucidate, as you've clearly gone over my head.

I LOVE IT. I also believe that morality operates in the same way that natural selection does. I understand you believe that actions will always have an objective moral ranking, but do you believe that the same actions may have different values at different times?

For instance, is killing always wrong? No. Context is very important when discerning if particular action X is objectively morally good or bad.

And if those things are definitively unknowable, does that affect your argument for an objective morality?

No. It cannot possibly be known whether or not God exists (as you well know), but God's existence or non-existence is still a matter of objectivity.

I understand your point. Do you believe that a person's opinion of their own well-being can impact their actual well-being? We know that a person's subjective view of logic doesn't impact the truth values of statements.

Sure, self-esteem is an important aspect of happiness.

Professionally, I can tell you, the "imbalance" of chemicals in a depressed person's brain isn't truly an imbalance. That's a drug company ploy. Is a person's mood affected by antidepressants? Yes. Is it necessarily correcting something and bringing a person back to normal? No. We don't have a measure on normal neurotransmitter levels. We can only judge whether or not anti-depressant therapy is working by whether or not they act normal by our own standards.

That being said, do you advocate "fixing" everybody?

If someone is depressed and the depression can be properly medicated (I'm not a professional like you in this matter, keep in mind), then it ought to be.

You didn't answer my question. I don't mind exploring several conclusions aside from the one I intend to prove. What would happen if the effects are completely unknowable?

For some courses of actions, the effects will be unknowable. And, inevitably, the predicted effects and actual effects will differ from time to time. Our ignorance on the matter, however, would not change the objectivity of the effects.

Would you entertain the notion that morality works in the same manner that evolution does? That although each individual of a species has different DNA, their DNA is alike enough such that an extreme mutation would either die, be killed, or be unable to mate and spread its genes? That beneficial genes would be mechanistically spread throughout a population leading to widespread change and a genetic shift due to natural selection?

Yes, but it should be clarified that certain genes will objectively benefit species X more than others. Those being the ones that survive and are passed on, becoming the eventual "norm", so to speak.

At 4/7/2012 12:04:51 AM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/6/2012 11:57:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: the evolutionary morals are a fail for objecitve moral. The idea have been around for a long time. Its really just a way to justify are normative morals we have now that have know rational basis.

I don't use the evolutionary model to support objective morals. I use them to describe a system that really can't be categorized in any comfortable way.

I believe that everyone has their own beliefs as to whether certain acts are good or evil, and they have a working knowledge as to what general society feels about it too. Just like how every organism's different DNA makes up an "average" that determines a species, every individual's moral beliefs, based on their values and experiences, make up a moral average.

Stray too far from the moral average and they lock you up, call you a looney, or isolate you from society in one way or another. If many people have small shifts in their moral views, that can change society altogether.

Whether it is for the better or the worse is impossible to say. All we can say is that it is in flux. Constantly. And though it is in flux, there are extreme limits as to what is morally acceptable that are somewhat grounded in biology.

Morality is a multifaceted system, but its mechanism is the same one that controls speciation and evolution.

At 4/7/2012 12:13:37 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must say, Kleptin, it's always a pleasure to bounce ideas back and forth between you and I.

(Shallowly tying this back into the OP, it's a reason why reading other's works can be beneficial: to learn. Thinking for yourself and developing your own beliefs is important, but we can all surely benefit from exposing ourselves to new ways of thinking. After all, when all you have is your own mind to think of things, you're not really going to come up with anything new. Of course, I admittedly haven't read much about this thread's original topic, so excuse me if I digressed from even that.)

At 4/7/2012 12:13:37 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must say, Kleptin, it's always a pleasure to bounce ideas back and forth between you and I.

(Shallowly tying this back into the OP, it's a reason why reading other's works can be beneficial: to learn. Thinking for yourself and developing your own beliefs is important, but we can all surely benefit from exposing ourselves to new ways of thinking. After all, when all you have is your own mind to think of things, you're not really going to come up with anything new. Of course, I admittedly haven't read much about this thread's original topic, so excuse me if I digressed from even that.)

At 4/7/2012 12:17:05 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I'll reply to your other points tomorrow as it's getting late,

but I do want to agree with you that it's definitely productive to bounce points back and forth. The problem with the dead guys is well...they're dead.

At 4/7/2012 12:17:05 AM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/7/2012 12:13:37 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must say, Kleptin, it's always a pleasure to bounce ideas back and forth between you and I.

(Shallowly tying this back into the OP, it's a reason why reading other's works can be beneficial: to learn. Thinking for yourself and developing your own beliefs is important, but we can all surely benefit from exposing ourselves to new ways of thinking. After all, when all you have is your own mind to think of things, you're not really going to come up with anything new. Of course, I admittedly haven't read much about this thread's original topic, so excuse me if I digressed from even that.)

I'll reply to your other points tomorrow as it's getting late, but I do want to agree with you that it's definitely productive to bounce points back and forth. The problem with the dead guys is well...they're dead. Not only that, but I believe that circumstance changes philosophy. I put a lot more credibility in what you have to say than what I would read by any of those weird Europeans recommended to me for reading.

At 4/7/2012 12:21:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: that is a really bad argument.

At 4/7/2012 12:21:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/7/2012 12:17:05 AM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/7/2012 12:13:37 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I must say, Kleptin, it's always a pleasure to bounce ideas back and forth between you and I.

(Shallowly tying this back into the OP, it's a reason why reading other's works can be beneficial: to learn. Thinking for yourself and developing your own beliefs is important, but we can all surely benefit from exposing ourselves to new ways of thinking. After all, when all you have is your own mind to think of things, you're not really going to come up with anything new. Of course, I admittedly haven't read much about this thread's original topic, so excuse me if I digressed from even that.)

I'll reply to your other points tomorrow as it's getting late, but I do want to agree with you that it's definitely productive to bounce points back and forth. The problem with the dead guys is well...they're dead. Not only that, but I believe that circumstance changes philosophy. I put a lot more credibility in what you have to say than what I would read by any of those weird Europeans recommended to me for reading.

The Fool: that is a really bad argument.

At 4/7/2012 12:07:43 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I'm unsure if you're alluding to the placebo affect. If you are, then yes, I believe the placebo affect can be quite potent in some cases. If you aren't, then kindly elucidate, as you've clearly gone over my head.

For instance, is killing always wrong? No. Context is very important when discerning if particular action X is objectively morally good or bad.

No. It cannot possibly be known whether or not God exists (as you well know), but God's existence or non-existence is still a matter of objectivity.

Sure, self-esteem is an important aspect of happiness.

If someone is depressed and the depression can be properly medicated (I'm not a professional like you in this matter, keep in mind), then it ought to be.

For some courses of actions, the effects will be unknowable. And, inevitably, the predicted effects and actual effects will differ from time to time. Our ignorance on the matter, however, would not change the objectivity of the effects.

Yes, but it should be clarified that certain genes will objectively benefit species X more than others. Those being the ones that survive and are passed on, becoming the eventual "norm", so to speak.

At 4/6/2012 11:28:03 PM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/6/2012 11:20:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There's a difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy. The distinction is in the arguments provided.

Good philosophy is what you can apply. Bad philosophy is what you cannot. If the arguments suck and the conclusions are invalid, it's not philosophy because it's not true.

I'm saying that you obsess *way* too much over the mechanism and delivery when all that matters is the conclusion. If two people come to the same *valid* conclusion about a deep topic, and one person requires 200 pages whereas the other requires 2, and they can both do this with the same accuracy and precision, what does that say about these two individuals?

I *can* give arguments for these, but tell me, do any of your profound readings conclude anything wildly different? I'm sure that some do, and I'm sure I can disprove them.

At 4/7/2012 10:38:50 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know what to make of this because you see morality as subjective, and that implies these value judgments you're putting on philosophy are in a similar vein. If that's the case you're just saying stuff that's subjective to you, and it leaves me no room to really comment.

That one has a much, much deeper understanding and is more connected with ultimate reality.

Do you really believe you're as much attuned to the universe as Einstein because you believe in his physics, I assume?

A bold claim, but you've stated you don't want to debate when the fool challenged you. I just want to get back to this argument, because I have a new take on it.

You basically believe your own philosophical development is adequate, to say the least. You didn't read much if any of these old dead men, and so you conclude that these old, dead men are unnecessary for philosophical development. This point of development really isn't uncommon, has there been any ideas you've read and adopted? Any? I almost feel like it's someone saying fiction is useless without having read any of it.

At 4/7/2012 9:37:55 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I'll clarify: Where does emotional state come into play in terms of well-being, and how do you measure well-being? Is it purely intellectual/theoretical or is there some indicator?

Good, that's obvious, right? How do you judge acts that work against the well-being of individuals, but work for the fitness of the species? For example: Euthanizing individuals who have a heritable disease. Following along with that point, what about individuals who cost society more by being alive than by being dead?

On that matter, would it be apt to say that your argument is essentially that there is one, optimal way to benefit the species and that morality can be correlated as to how well an action contributes to that benefit?

And how important is happiness in terms of well-being? Mental and Physical fitness don't *exactly* encompass happiness. What if something were to raise and lower these three aspects of Mental fitness, Physical fitness, and happiness, at different levels? For example: A person is slightly overweight because he likes to indulge and only exercises lightly. Or perhaps, a person has focused his entire life on maximizing his mental and physical prowess but is unhappy because he has no time for anything else.

I'm not going to keep leading you on for this point, you're more than capable of responding directly to it now: Given that "depression" is not very often a result of a biological problem, is it moral to change a person's personality in order to bring them to what we perceive to be a norm, purely because they exhibit signs of depression and not an actual clinical need?

And just to clarify again, that has to do with the optimal course of action for the evolution of our species, right? If you haven't already addressed the issue of pitting individual well-being with that of the species, please do so now. Otherwise, ignore.

At 4/7/2012 1:29:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
I'd say emotional well-being is even more important than physical well-being. For instance, it's better to be happy and crippled than to be a chronically-depressed athlete. That being said, it's better to be a happy athlete than both of those.

And again, there is no universal way to measure well-being, as far as I know, but I wouldn't say it's purely theoretical either. There is a set standard well-being that individuals of our species would normal adhere to: physically well and mentally stable (not perfect in either category, but well). This standard isn't merely theoretical (even though I can't point to any particular person and say "that's the standard"), but is actually our species' norm.

For instance, human beings are prone to have weak knees and back problems every now and then, and sometimes get upset (just to name only a few things). Anything above this standard would be considered better than anything below this standard.

I'm all for eugenics (however not in the way you're describing; why euthanize an individual with a heritable disease, when you could sterilize him/her?). As for people who cost more by being alive than being dead, that seems a separate issue (a political one, too, and I'm not good with politics). Perhaps you could give an example?

My argument is in a very similar vein, but I wouldn't say there is only one perfect course of action above all others. Just as there are a multitude of different ways to suffer horribly, I think it's probable there are a multitude of different ways to prosper.

Any physical and/or mental health problems ought to be medicated at the sufferer's request. I don't mean to answer your questions like a politician, but that's all there is to it. They may not "need" to be happy, but maximal well-beings go beyond mere survival.

I myself haven't given this particular question much thought, but I'll try to answer as best I can. It can be said that the species' prosperity ought to override the individuals' prosperity; though they are closely tied in the present, ensuring the species' prosperity is to ensure the prosperity of generations to come, instead of just relatively very temporary prosperity.

...I wouldn't have used the word "prosperity" so many times if I could have thought of another way to write that...

At 4/6/2012 4:28:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/6/2012 4:15:28 PM, Oryus wrote:
I thought you'd like that :) It's true though. But there is something to be said for the poetic words of Nietzsche. Thoreau himself makes grand metaphors at times. Sometimes things are best summed up in such a way. But to each his own.

If your argument for "Why read dead men's works" is going to be "They say it pretty sometimes", then I don't have much of a counterpoint, other than the fact that they sometimes take way too long to make their point, and often get a little too convoluted.

This is a very negative light through which to view the study of philosophy. I think you are both giving people too much credit and too little. Too much because- honestly, if I hadn't read the philosophical texts I have, there is no way I would be as knowledgeable about the world as I am now. I probably never would have thought up most of it. I treasure that knowledge.

I think the opposite. Though I've never made it a hobby to read those works, I absorbed an immense amount from those around me, and my obsession with philosophy, theology, logic, and debate made me far too confident and cocky about my "intelligence". Working and interacting with other people IRL taught me far more about the world and about myself than I ever learned in discussions about reality, existence, God, or ethics.

Too little credit- because just the fact that I have read these texts doesn't mean that I absorb them without thinking critically and without continuing thinking. I don't read them as truth- you couldn't! Because as I said, much of "philosophy" is differing opinion. No theory is brought up in a philosophy class without it's adversary just around the corner. You are still forced to think critically about the topic at hand. Philosophy cannot be spoon-fed. It requires a different approach than a history or math class. It doesn't present facts- it presents arguments. And arguments, as you know, always require evaluation.

I separate those two points. I submit that if you can read them critically, you have the capacity to develop those ideas yourself and thus, don't really need to read the works of others. Perhaps you require a prompt, or as mentioned by the previous poster, a "question", but you have the capacity to answer that philosophical question just as well as a person with a degree in philosophy.

This is the effect of dogmatism- not of philosophy. Philosophy as a general subject would encourage the opposite of dogmatism. I think your frustration might be misdirected. I think I said once already, if I'm not mistaken, that the search for certainty is just a part of being human. You have chosen agnosticism. I have on many fronts as well. But you can't deny that most people desire certainty. Philosophy provides arguments for answers to the big questions- if that is not a breeding ground for dogmatism, I don't know what is. But you can't blame philosophy for it. Blame humans.

Agnosticism is a form of certainty. It is the stance on whether or not something is possible, namely, our ability to understand. And yes, I agree with you that philosophy isn't to blame. I have highlighted the difference between those who can think critically without a source, and those who depend solely on those sources.

It's just that I feel philosophy is best described as an art form in which a person's expertise with turning a question around in his or her head is likened to a painter's ability to express a mental image onto a canvas.

You have the option of studying the works of those who come before you to learn the mechanics of how they mix paint, blend colors, produce textures on the canvas, etc.

Alternatively, you have the option of looking at their artwork and replicating it over and over and over again.

Philosophy is not a team exercise, nor is it a group contributory field.

At 4/7/2012 1:42:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Would you say there is a level of objectivity in what maximizes a person's happiness or emotional well-being? Is happiness objective?

Okay, so you are a proponent of sterilizing individuals with heritable diseases? Are there any limitations to your support for this?

As for the issue with cost, there is a resource pool, best defined by taxes but encompasses other things as well. Being humane, we offer services from this resource pool to care for those in our society who are incapable of caring for themselves. In doing so, these resources are locked out of things that benefit society as a whole and only go to preserving the lives of many people who don't contribute more to society than they receive.

But wouldn't there be one way to prosper *optimally*?

Why does it need to be at their request?

I'm going to lead you down a discussion of the ethics of the majority forcing its will upon the minority, on the basis of the prosperity of the species, do you want to offer preemptive arguments?

At 4/7/2012 2:37:25 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Most people will one day end up in a situation where they cannot care for themselves. It would not optimize the well-being of our species to shrug and say "oh well" to them all. They would suffer, their families would grieve, and people would live in fear of the day they end up in such a situation (more so than they already do).

Perhaps for the same person or the same species, but as individuals and species change, their optimal prosperity would be different.

Forcing medication down someone's throat isn't really a good way to optimize well-being.

I'm going to lead you down a discussion of the ethics of the majority forcing its will upon the minority, on the basis of the prosperity of the species, do you want to offer preemptive arguments?

Nope. Go ahead.

At 4/7/2012 2:56:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If they have saved up the resources, that would not happen. If the burden on the state were reduced, the state could take less resources from everyone. The only people who lose out, are the individuals who can't care for themselves and have no resources to do so, and don't people already worry about this?

What would change about individuals and the species to make their optimal prosperity different?

If the medication objectively helps, why not?

Okay. If I grant you that morality is objective, would it be moral to enact punishment against those who don't follow that objective morality?

At 4/7/2012 11:53:24 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

At 4/7/2012 2:56:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If they have saved up the resources, that would not happen. If the burden on the state were reduced, the state could take less resources from everyone. The only people who lose out, are the individuals who can't care for themselves and have no resources to do so, and don't people already worry about this?

It's not every homeless person's fault he/she is homeless. I can tell you that from experience, my friend.

What would change about individuals and the species to make their optimal prosperity different?

Who knows? Species' needs, wants, and environments effect how it should optimally survive and prosper. If our species remains the same forever, then our maximally good well-being should as well.

If the medication objectively helps, why not?

Because we ought to have ownership rights of our own bodies that override others' desires. Of course, it's a different story if the sufferer is deemed to have a state of mental awareness unfit to make such decisions. For example, if someone's arm has just been accidentally chopped off, but the person is unconscious, then the decision to operate should be delegated to someone of a more sound mind.

Okay. If I grant you that morality is objective, would it be moral to enact punishment against those who don't follow that objective morality?

Legally punish? That depends; legislation can be quite different from morality.

At 4/7/2012 11:59:17 PM, Oryus wrote:
he's gone :(

At 4/8/2012 12:00:48 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

At 4/7/2012 11:59:17 PM, Oryus wrote:
he's gone :(

That's okay; this thread will still be here when he returns :)