Derail from Hillarygate

[Charles]

First, that reasoning is clear as mud Charles when it comes to the specific question. And the fact that Kant is clear - a moral system without justice is irrational, go back to my link, his reasoning is solid - and it is not my position but Kant's. So your position would be that a moral system that is often or largely unjust is rational.



No Charles, whether an individual subjectively wants to die or not is immaterial to the point. The question was if we actually destroyed ourselves would that be a universal or objective moral wrong. It isn't, so... And yes, I would like to hear what goal the random, amoral forces of nature had for man.

The answer is that you question in the form it has is completely misguided and a misunderstanding of what is at stake. I do not want to repeat for the third time. Go back and read. Your conclusion "So your position would be that a moral system that is often or largely unjust is rational." completely contradicts what I was saying. If no one follows the moral system it does not become an less just by that fact. So, your statement simply makes no sense.

What the individual subjectivity wants is surely of importance in the framework of the categorical imperative. That should be rather obvious, seer.

[Charles]

No new answers until you answer yourself
So, seer, I will be happy to answer even more questions and objections from you. But this is not a one man show. So I need you to answer these in order for me answer more of your posts. It is not fair to keep asking questions never wanting to answer.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post453766

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post453914

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post453911

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post453926

Looking forward.

[seer]

The answer is that you question in the form it has is completely misguided and a misunderstanding of what is at stake. I do not want to repeat for the third time. Go back and read. Your conclusion "So your position would be that a moral system that is often or largely unjust is rational." completely contradicts what I was saying. If no one follows the moral system it does not become an less just by that fact. So, your statement simply makes no sense.

Then you completely disagree with Kant and how is a moral system just if evil doers get away with crime? It is like saying that we have laws against rape, but we don't prosecute rape crimes.

What the individual subjectivity wants is surely of importance in the framework of the categorical imperative. That should be rather obvious, seer.

Charles you said: I have showed that the claim you can always kill and always lie will have absurd consequences.

That is incorrect, the consequences would not be logically absurd (they would violate no law of logic) they could however be deadly for the human race. Hence my question - if we actually destroyed ourselves would that be a universal or objective moral wrong. I doubt if you can make that case. Which means you have not yet offered a universal moral truth. Only relative moral ideals.

[seer]

Ok. Then I would like to see how the following is an argument for the pedophile:

Two persons of the same or different sex can follow their genuine self and have sex given that they are both more than 15 years old and given that they both wish to take part in the act.

Looking forward, seer.

Why can't one person be 50 and the other 15? If they both wish to take part?

[seer]

I have already shown that your reasoning is clear as mud, and when you say you have already addressed something, what I saw was obfuscation to the main points.

[seer]

It seems you have changed your mind since you have been asked to give us a little more than an "of course" or personal attacks to "support" your views.

Just because you started out well doesn't mean that you continued well. Which you didn't, in IMHO...

[seer]

Wow, even more ad hominem.

And then supported by some wrong claims about our discussion. I have only held that the Categorical imperative was universal. I have not held that the practical guidelines as to what you should actually do are easily formulated. And i have not disavowed in the end, because that has always been my position. Plain and simple. I have showed that the claim you can always kill and always lie will have absurd consequences. But I have not been attracted by too easy solutions to that problem.

But the Categorical imperative is not universal - I demonstrated that with the alien question which you refused to answer. The best you could conclude is that the Categorical imperative is relative to humankind.

You claim "And yes, I did defend my position in that thread starting with the fact that there was a God given teleology for the human person and human sexuality." You made no statements containing the word "sex" in the entire discussion, so I don't think memory serves you too well

You are correct, I said a teleology for the human person and human morality.

You cannot claim there is a God given teleology, because you do not know whether God exists or not. You admitted yourself. You don't know. So at best there may be one. And you claimed I could not question Christian dogma like the idea of eternal pain in Hell because no logic or knowledge would do. I don't think a man who makes such a claim can fairly say that the opponents "rational functions are convoluted by sin". It would rather have to be some not very rational functions that would have to be so.

Now who is lying Charles? I never said that I did not know if God existed, I said that I could not prove God, just as I could not prove that what goes on in my mind corresponds to reality. And the point about human teleology was that it is only possible if a God existed - a God given purpose and aim. Nature has no aim or purpose for humankind.

[One Bad Pig]

I am truly impressed by how much more eager people are to debate this than the thread which spawned this discussion.

[Starlight]

I am truly impressed by how much more eager people are to debate this than the thread which spawned this discussion.

You posted an opinion piece that seemed to make entirely false statements from start to finish. Anyone who's been following the issue will know virtually all the claims made in that opinion piece are absurdly untrue. Why should we care to discuss it? You can believe your fake news if you like. But try reading a normal news outlet on the subject once in a while to get at least a tiny injection of reality.

[One Bad Pig]

You posted an opinion piece that seemed to make entirely false statements from start to finish. Anyone who's been following the issue will know virtually all the claims made in that opinion piece are absurdly untrue.

Pro-tip: I find wild assertions like this unconvincing; it makes me suspect that you're trying to use quantity to make up for quality.

Why should we care to discuss it? You can believe your fake news if you like. But try reading a normal news outlet on the subject once in a while to get at least a tiny injection of reality.

What, like CNN? (I do read a "normal news outlet" every weekday, skipping only the Entertainment section.)