The Moral Argument

[quatona]

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.

As far as I can tell, neither of his labels fit me. (His definition of "objective" doesn´t seem to be the same that moral realism uses. E.g. his definition includes a dog´s views whereas - I think - moral realism´s doesn´t).
But what´s the point in talking labels when my position is there to read quite clearly, anyway? It´s just his way of avoiding to address my actual position.

 

[quatona]

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.

Which post would that be?

 

[anonymous person]

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.

I have been wrong many times here. God is using everyone he brings into my life to help me. I do pray for you all, not as much as I should I admit.

I have several times asked you personally for forgiveness for the wrong I have done to you. You still seem to hold it against me.

Is that right?

 

[anonymous person]

As far as I can tell, neither of his labels fit me. (His definition of "objective" doesn´t seem to be the same that moral realism uses. E.g. his definition includes a dog´s views whereas - I think - moral realism´s doesn´t).
But what´s the point in talking labels when my position is there to read quite clearly, anyway? It´s just his way of avoiding to address my actual position.

Talk to me.

You are a cognitivist right?

Do you need me to explain what that means?

 

[anonymous person]

Which post would that be?

908

 

[quatona]

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?

There´s just no point in having a conversation with an dishonest individual such as you, from a purely human perspective.

 

[quatona]

Talk to me.

You are a cognitivist right?

Do you need me to explain what that means?

No, as I said I don´t care for your labels. Address my positions as described. Don´t expect me to fall for your dishonest tactics.

 

[anonymous person]

There´s just no point in having a conversation with an dishonest individual such as you, from a purely human perspective.

Then why are you having a conversation with me?

 

[anonymous person]

No, as I said I don´t care for your labels. Address my positions as described. Don´t expect me to fall for your dishonest tactics.

But you label me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Talk to me.

That's what keeps you here, isn't it? The attention?

That's why you're here and not on your blog, even though you paid for a domain name. You want an audience, and it doesn't matter to you whether they are booing or applauding, so long as they are paying you attention.

 

[anonymous person]

I never got the aversion to being labeled.

I am a man. That is a label.

I live in America. I am an American. That is a label.

I am an adherent of reformed epistemology. I am a reformed epistemologist. That is a label.

I am a Christian. That is a label.

I am a Divine Command Theorist. That is a label.

I just do not see why there is this revulsion and adamant desire to not be labeled.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

You tell us: if Yahweh commands you to be dishonest, it is still bad?

 

[quatona]

But you label me.

Actually, I am trying my best to address your arguments, I am not trying to fit them into philosophical labels.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is using everyone he brings into my life to help me.

Yes, Jeremy, we are all simply instruments being used by someone else to make you better. It's all about you.

 

[anonymous person]

That's what keeps you here, isn't it? The attention?



That's why you're here and not on your blog, even though you paid for a domain name. You want an audience, and it doesn't matter to you whether they are booing or applauding, so long as they are paying you attention.

Turning attention from our discussion to my motives for being here is itself disingenuous. It is to introduce a red herring into the discussion.

Now I went back through our conversations and found no question which you asked that I did not answer.

If there is a specific one you had in mind, I would ask you present it so that I may answer it.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, Jeremy, we are all simply instruments being used by someone else to make you better. It's all about you.

You seem to have a problem with me benefiting from our discussions. Is that not why we are all here? To benefit from one another, to encourage and help one another?

 

[anonymous person]

Actually, I am trying my best to address your arguments, I am not trying to fit them into philosophical labels.

So you have something against philosophical labels?

But why? What is so bad about telling me whether or not I am right or wrong about your position?

You seem to not want to be misunderstood, and yet you balk at telling me if I understand you aright?

Why is that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Turning attention from our discussion to my motives for being here is itself disingenuous. It is to introduce a red herring into the discussion.

Not disingenuous if your motives are disingenuous.

Now I went back through our conversations and found no question which you asked that I did not answer.

I knew you wouldn't. LOL. I knew you wouldn't go back to the threads and answer them. Slip back into your hole now, J.

If there is a specific one you had in mind, I would ask you present it so that I may answer it.

You may answer it, after you said that you would?

 

[anonymous person]

You tell us: if Yahweh commands you to be dishonest, it is still bad?

This is a red herring. We are not talking about Yahweh.

I asked if it was objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest and still have not received an answer.

 

[quatona]

I never got the aversion to being labeled.

I am a man. That is a label.

I live in America. I am an American. That is a label.

I am an adherent of reformed epistemology. I am a reformed epistemologist. That is a label.

I am a Christian. That is a label.

I am a Divine Command Theorist. That is a label.

I just do not see why there is this revulsion and adamant desire to not be labeled.

I´m sure you see it quite fine. There is no need to talk in philosophical categories when the position is clearly there to read. At best, it´s just a redundant deviation. At worst...well...I guess we both know.

Btw. have you already forgotten your pompous resolutions you made yesterday?