Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Actually I do remember Carp agreeing that he was an existential nihilist by definition.
    And yet he argues as though objective values exist and life has meaning.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post


      I think we've gone over this once before, using the term "moral objectivist/absolutist" in the idiosyncratic way you're doing is not going to help make the discussion clearer.

      If you're an "-ist" about something, regardless of what it is, it simply means that you have certain beliefs about that something. Whether you're correct about those beliefs or not is absolutely irrelevant as to whether you really are a "those beliefs"-ist or not.
      And I distinguish between what a person believes and what a person is in practice. A person may say "I'm a communist" all they want, but if they start a private business, work to make as much money as they can in the free market, have employees they pay a pittance to so they can line their pockets, and trades on the stock exchange, I'm going to say they are a communist in belief (because that's what they tell me) and a capitalist in behavior (because that is what they do).

      Likewise, the moral absolutist/objectivist can be that in belief (which Seer clearly is) but they cannot be that in practice, because there is no avenue for doing so and the very nature of morality precludes it. No matter how you cut it, the person gets in the way. Seer is choosing which, of a wide selection, "absolute" moral framework he is aligning with. Seer is imposing his interpretation on the specific framework he is attempting to align with. Seer is the one that values god, which is his entire rational for adopting this framework. We cannot escape the fact that individuals derive moral frameworks on the basis of what they value. Every singe one of us does it - whatever we might call ourselves.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Using your logic I would have to conclude that every atheist out there is actually a theist, because whatever they might believe, the fact of the matter is that the very nature of reality is that there is a ultimate cause and upholder of the cosmos called God, and regardless of what the "atheist" might believe it's still a fact that his very existence is dependent on that God's continuously sustaining providence. So the atheist might believe that the intellectual faculties he's using to come to the conclusion that belief in God is not warranted came into being and continue to exist without divine power and guidance, but reality contradicts him.

      Of course, the above is actually ridiculous, and not something I'm proposing to put forth as a serious argument. But my point is that I have a hard time seeing how your "everyone is actually a 'moral relativist/subjectivist' because whatever someone might believe about morality the fact of the matter is that the very nature of morality is relative"-claim is not equally absurd and abusive of the English language.
      And it doesn't work anyway. The distinction I am drawing is between belief and behavior. The atheist believes there is no god, and their behavior should match that belief. Using my logic, if you encounter an atheist who is going to church regularly, praying to god, and following the precepts of a given religion, then their behavior does not align with their expressed classification. They may claim to be atheist in belief, but they are theist in behavior.

      Likewise, Seer (and all so-called "moral realists") may claim this belief and actually have it - but they cannot live it. Their actions and choices are all relative/subjective. They simply cannot escape it. It is analogous to the person that believes they are a dog. They may fervently believe it, but they cannot escape the reality that they are actually human.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Frankly, based on this, I'm not sure why you haven't thrown your hands up in nihilistic despair and declared like King Solomon, "Vanity! Vanity! All is vanity"

        "I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun."
        Why would I do that?

        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Of course very few atheists have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its only logical conclusion, and I suspect it's because, deep down, they know it's a lie.
        What do you think this conclusion should be?
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          What do you think this conclusion should be?
          existential nihilist...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I did not say prove, I made a deductive case for both universal moral truths and the universality of logical truths, which are conceptual.
            Deduction, Seer, is a logical process by which we begin from premises that can be shown to be true, and arrive at conclusions that must also be true by virtue of the structure of the argument. It begins with general truths and arrives at specific conclusions. If the argument is well structured, it is considered sound. If it is sound AND the premises are true, then it is valid and the conclusion must be true. You keep popping out presumably sound arguments, but cannot show any of them to be valid, despite the fact that you are making claims about an objective reality.

            P1) Ferzwhiggles have unlimited knowledge
            P2) Beings with unlimited knowledge can never make a mistake
            C) Ferzwhiggles can never make a mistake

            See...I just made a deductive argument for the inerrancy of a Ferzwiggle. Will you now join me in believing in that inerrancy? What you are doing, Seer, is weaving together fanciful claims about god so they can be strung together to conclude what you want to conclude. You cannot show any of your premises to be true.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            You are correct, premise two does not follow deductively so this is not a sound syllogism.
            Seer. I think you need a lesson in basic logic. The premises do not have to be deductively related. They simply need to be necessary for the conclusion to be true. Here is another sound syllogism:

            P1) I like pizza
            P2) A person who likes pizza should have it for lunch
            C) I should have pizza for lunch

            Any first year philosophy student will see this as a sound syllogism. It is valid only if the first and second premises are true.

            P1) A dog has four legs
            P2) That animal has four legs
            C) That animal is a dog

            This syllogism is NOT sound. The two premises can be true and the conclusion can still be false, because it could be a cat. The structure of the syllogism has been violated. It should be:

            P1) A dog has four legs
            P2) That animal is a dog
            C) That animal has four legs

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Second, as a theist I can deductively account for inherent human value, you can not. I also can deductively account for the universality and immutability of the laws of logic (which are conceptual) - you can not. So in this debate Carp, logic is not your friend. So what do you have left?
            Actually - you can't. You can string together syllogisms that are sound (assuming yours are), but you cannot establish that any of the premises are true. The best you can say is "if these premises I claim are true, then the conclusion follows." I would nod and say "yep, but you haven't shown that they are so you haven't shown that the conclusion is true. You might as well believe in a ferzwiggle's inerrancy."
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Actually I do remember Carp agreeing that he was an existential nihilist by definition.
              Given how you define it - yes.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                And yet he argues as though objective values exist and life has meaning.
                No to the first - and yes to the second.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Likewise, Seer (and all so-called "moral realists") may claim this belief and actually have it - but they cannot live it. Their actions and choices are all relative/subjective. They simply cannot escape it. It is analogous to the person that believes they are a dog. They may fervently believe it, but they cannot escape the reality that they are actually human.
                  That does not follow Carp. If I believe that adultery is a universal moral wrong, and refrain from that behavior based on that belief how am I not living that out?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    That does not follow Carp. If I believe that adultery is a universal moral wrong, and refrain from that behavior based on that belief how am I not living that out?
                    Your question has nothing to do with what I said. A specific moral position does not equate to the meta issue of how moral frameworks are derived, or the basis for morality.

                    Example: You and I both believe (I think) that "randomly killing other humans is morally wrong." How we get to this position differs because our relative/subjective moral frameworks differ. My path is by recognizing that I value life - both mine and that of others, and recognizing the implicit contradiction in destroying something I value. You arrive at it by valuing your god and (presumably) wanting to please it. Why you value this god you have not articulated, so I won't presume. You have determined that the collection of books called "the bible" is where this god has expressed its will, and in there are passages about "though shalt not kill," which you interpret to mean, "not randomly kill human beings." So you follow this precept.

                    We end up at the same moral principle - but arrive there by different subjective/relative moral paths. If you didn't value this god but valued a different god, presumably you would turn to whatever source you believe to be the expressed will of this other god and use that instead. If you didn't believe in any god, you would be left to identify specific things you value that lead you to this conclusion. If you didn't value life - or valued money MORE than life, then you might not have this moral code at all.

                    That's the way it works. Each of us holds specific moral positions because we have determined they are "the most moral." If we ever encountered a different moral principle we come to perceive as superior in some way, we immediately adopt it. That is essentially how we convince one another. So at any given time, each of us sees our moral framework as "the best." Because it is the lens through which we evaluate all sentient action (ours and everyone else's), we intrinsically want our moral framework to be the one everyone lives by - because then what we value is best protected. It's much easier to do that if we can convince people "this moral framework is from the supreme intelligence of the universe - and we ought all follow it!" I suspect that has a lot to do with why the notion of gods exist to begin with: they lend authority to morality. After all - who would dare to question a god, right?
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-12-2019, 08:23 AM.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Given how you define it - yes.
                      It wasn't how I defined it...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It wasn't how I defined it...
                        OK - this confuses me a bit. What wasn't how you defined it?
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Deduction, Seer, is a logical process by which we begin from premises that can be shown to be true, and arrive at conclusions that must also be true by virtue of the structure of the argument. It begins with general truths and arrives at specific conclusions. If the argument is well structured, it is considered sound. If it is sound AND the premises are true, then it is valid and the conclusion must be true. You keep popping out presumably sound arguments, but cannot show any of them to be valid, despite the fact that you are making claims about an objective reality.

                          P1) Ferzwhiggles have unlimited knowledge
                          P2) Beings with unlimited knowledge can never make a mistake
                          C) Ferzwhiggles can never make a mistake

                          See...I just made a deductive argument for the inerrancy of a Ferzwiggle. Will you now join me in believing in that inerrancy? What you are doing, Seer, is weaving together fanciful claims about god so they can be strung together to conclude what you want to conclude. You cannot show any of your premises to be true.
                          That is hypocritical Carp, you can not prove for instance that your premise "I value life" is true. Yet you used it.


                          Seer. I think you need a lesson in basic logic. The premises do not have to be deductively related. They simply need to be necessary for the conclusion to be true. Here is another sound syllogism:

                          P1) I like pizza
                          P2) A person who likes pizza should have it for lunch
                          C) I should have pizza for lunch

                          Any first year philosophy student will see this as a sound syllogism. It is valid only if the first and second premises are true.

                          P1) A dog has four legs
                          P2) That animal has four legs
                          C) That animal is a dog

                          This syllogism is NOT sound. The two premises can be true and the conclusion can still be false, because it could be a cat. The structure of the syllogism has been violated. It should be:

                          P1) A dog has four legs
                          P2) That animal is a dog
                          C) That animal has four legs


                          Actually - you can't. You can string together syllogisms that are sound (assuming yours are), but you cannot establish that any of the premises are true. The best you can say is "if these premises I claim are true, then the conclusion follows." I would nod and say "yep, but you haven't shown that they are so you haven't shown that the conclusion is true. You might as well believe in a ferzwiggle's inerrancy."
                          Your original argument was inductive, not deductive. The fact is Carp, you can not deductively even account for the laws of logic that you rely on, the theist can.
                          Last edited by seer; 06-12-2019, 09:04 AM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            OK - this confuses me a bit. What wasn't how you defined it?
                            It was the definition from Wikipedia. I didn't invent it.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              It was the definition from Wikipedia. I didn't invent it.
                              I wasn't claiming you invented it. I was merely referring to the definition you were using, hence "as you define it."
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                That is hypocritical Cap, you can not prove for instance that your premise "I value life" is true. Yet you used it.
                                You folks just love to jump out with the "hypocritical" label. Has it ever dawned on you that the people you are talking to might actually be debating and discussing in good faith? Be that as it may...

                                I believe morality is relative/subjective. As a consequence, the premises will largely be subjective. A subjective premises is internal - it cannot be proven - by definition. Evidence for it can be found in my behavior, but that is about it. You either are going to accept my word for the fact that "I value life" is true or not. This is the reason I cannot "prove" my premises to you.

                                You believe morality is absolute/objective - a real thing that exists to which we should all align. As such, one would hope you can demonstrate the truth of your premises in some fashion, since it is supposedly an objective reality available to all of us. But you cannot. I think there is a good reason why you cannot. I don't think you're likely to agree with or like that reason.

                                There is no hypocrisy involved.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Your original argument was inductive, not deductive. The fact is Carp, you can not deductively even account for the laws of logic that you rely on, the theist can.
                                I agree that that my arguments about the meta-nature of morality are inductive ones. No question about it. I can frame some deductive ones if you wish, but I will be no more able to show the premises to be true than you are, leaving us at basically the same place: nice sound arguments that cannot be shown to be valid (i.e., have true conclusions). That's why I do not attempt to do so. The exercise is, IMO, somewhat pointless.

                                Meanwhile, we remain where we have always been - which is part of what convinces me that morality is genuinely relative/subjective: no one has ever been able to frame an argument against the position that doesn't reduce to an objection that relative/subjective morality cannot exist (or must be bad) because it's not absolute/objective. I find that form of argument content-free. Since how humans moralize is demonstrably relative and subjective to themselves (as it would be for any sentient being) and an absolute/objective moral framework cannot be shown to exist and multiple competing variations exist, I conclude that morality is naturally relative/subjective. It's what we do. It's what we have always done. It conforms to the observed reality.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-12-2019, 09:07 AM.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X