The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

Sure.

Do you have a specific thread in mind? If so point me to it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism does entail nihilism. That is not analogous to saying atheists are nihilists. Most atheists I know are moral realists.

Errr... you just said that you "never said" that atheism precludes moral realism. Now you're backtracking to your original position.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you have a specific thread in mind? If so point me to it.

Already did in my most recent PMs to you. Quite a nostalgia trip that was. I'm sure there's more, but they don't come to mind right now.

 

[bhsmte]

Errr... you just said that "never said" that atheism precludes moral realism. Now you're backtracking to your original position.

Desperation mode has kicked in, as it typically does, when he exposes himself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Most atheists I know are moral realists. They just have no grounds for being such.

They at least seem able to say that genocide is wrong. Seeing as you would partake in genocide if commanded to do so by Yahweh, you have no grounds for saying even that much.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why not?

He hasn't said anything to establish that he is an ethical naturalist. What facts of nature is he appealing to? He could easily be an ethical non-naturalist.

I'm not even quite sure that he's a moral realist, but I think he should classify himself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism does entail nihilism. That is not analogous to saying atheists are nihilists. Most atheists I know are moral realists.

They just have no grounds for being such.

None to your knowledge that satisfy you, anyway.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Because he was responding in the context of your definition of "objective," which has gone through at least 3 alterations by the way.

Pointing out to me the context in which he gave his response does nothing to show that several deductions cannot be made from the response. Deductions like:

He is a non-nihilist. He believes that raping children is intrinsically immoral. He does not dare admit that the act in question is an amoral act, i.e that it is neither good or bad.

He is a cognitivist. He believes that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false. He does not deny that moral sentences express propositions at all. He affirms they do.

Finally he believes that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This is evidenced by his use of the phrase even if in his previous statement. The even if lets us know that he believes his particular ethical sentence i.e. "raping children is wrong" refers not to some subjective feature of the world, but to an objective feature that stands over and against all of the subjective notions of pedophiles, for example.

So yes, much can be deduced from what he said, regardless of why he said it.

 

[anonymous person]

He hasn't said anything to establish that he is an ethical naturalist. What facts of nature is he appealing to? He could easily be an ethical non-naturalist.

I'm not even quite sure that he's a moral realist, but I think he should classify himself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If he tells me he is an ethical non-naturalist I will be very surprised.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So yes, much can be deduced from what he said, regardless of why he said it.

Much can also be twisted, contorted, and lied about. Given that you've proven untrustworthy, I'd much prefer that quatona articulate his own position, rather than have you articulate it for him.

 

[anonymous person]

Errr... you just said that you "never said" that atheism precludes moral realism. Now you're backtracking to your original position.

I used the term "atheism" in a different sense in my first statement than I did in my latter. Thus the confusion. My fault.

 

[anonymous person]

Already did in my most recent PMs to you. Quite a nostalgia trip that was. I'm sure there's more, but they don't come to mind right now.

Ok. I will post the questions I find in the PM's here and ask you if there are anymore. How's that?

 

[anonymous person]

Desperation mode has kicked in, as it typically does, when he exposes himself.

What makes you think I am desperate? Is that being charitable? I said I used the terms equivocally and thus made it possible for what I said to be misunderstood.

 

[anonymous person]

Much can also be twisted, contorted, and lied about.

That can be said of anything anyone writes or says.

Given that you've proven untrustworthy, I'd much prefer that quatona articulate his own position, rather than have you articulate it for him.

If he points out anything I said that was wrong then we can go from there. How's that sound?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What makes you think I am desperate? Is that being charitable? I said I used the terms equivocally and thus made it possible for what I said to be misunderstood.

Wouldn't be the first time you've used terms equivocally.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What makes you think I am desperate?

The "woe is me" sermonising about your wrongs and how God is correcting them through us. The preaching, platitudinous promises of prayer, and insincere contrition for your disingenuous tactics all point to desperation.

 

[quatona]

Then you are a moral realist afterall, specifically an ethical naturalist.

Don´t tell me what I am. I don´t care for your labels.
If you want to engage me on my positions, address my positions as I gave them.

 

[bhsmte]

What makes you think I am desperate? Is that being charitable? I said I used the terms equivocally and thus made it possible for what I said to be misunderstood.

The tendency for intellectual dishonesty, rears it's ugly head, when you back yourself into a corner, ignore certain questions, start preaching and assume you can read the minds of others.

I always respect another person's beliefs, but I do not respect, intellectual dishonesty.

 

[anonymous person]

Don´t tell me what I am. I don´t care for your labels.
If you want to engage me on my positions, address my positions as I gave them.

Reference my post where I made certain deductions from your statement about rape. If any of those deductions were wrong, you have the opportunity now to point them out.

 

[anonymous person]

The tendency for intellectual dishonesty, rears it's ugly head, when you back yourself into a corner, ignore certain questions, start preaching and assume you can read the minds of others.

I always respect another person's beliefs, but I do not respect, intellectual dishonesty.

Ok fair enough. You do not respect intellectual dishonesty.

Is there something objectively wrong with being intellectually dishonest? Is that bad even if the dishonest person thinks it is good?