Noah's Ark

[VirOptimus]

That is a problem for you to resolve, but you do not resolve it by pretending that the problem isn't there. How do you prove objective morality exists? By being honest with yourself. You know as well as I do that the Nazis were evil, and you are just squirming because you don't like one potential answer to the question of where objective morality comes from.

No I dont and neither do you, now, that didnt get us anywhere.

And no, I really deny the existance of morality, its just religion and I dont believe in god(s).

You claim it, you prove it.

 

[Goonie]

That is a problem for you to resolve, but you do not resolve it by pretending that the problem isn't there. How do you prove objective morality exists? By being honest with yourself. You know as well as I do that the Nazis were evil, and you are just squirming because you don't like one potential answer to the question of where objective morality comes from.

It comes from humanity. Next!

 

[VirOptimus]

It comes from humanity. Next!

I really think we are in agreement but have different view on what "exist" mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It comes from humanity. Next!

 

[lesliedellow]

No I dont and neither do you, now, that didnt get us anywhere.

There is a (true) story about an anthropologist who was a moral relativist. Then one day she happened upon a tribe which practised female circumcision. She immediately felt outraged, but then realised that her own philosophical position prevented her from condemning the practice.

 

[Goonie]

There is a (true) story about an anthropologist who was a moral relativist. Then one day she happened upon a tribe which practised female circumcision. She immediately felt outraged, but then realised that her own philosophical position prevented her from condemning the practice.

Ah argument by anecdote, not exactly a winning formula.

 

[VirOptimus]

There is a (true) story about an anthropologist who was a moral relativist. Then one day she happened upon a tribe which practised female circumcision. She immediately felt outraged, but then realised that her own philosophical position prevented her from condemning the practice.

This makes what point?

 

[VirOptimus]

Its pretty good but far from perfect as I think he has a lot of unproven underlying suppositions. I think he also misrepresents where moral philosophy is right now as a science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its pretty good but far from perfect as I think he has a lot of unproven underlying suppositions. I think he also misrepresents where moral philosophy is right now as a science.

He acknowledges that you can't get the topic well covered in only a half an hour talk.

 

[VirOptimus]

He acknowledges that you can't get the topic well covered in only a half an hour talk.

Im in full agreement there.

But his point is more to "sell" secular moral then to actually explain moral philosophy.

 

[lesliedellow]

If I have got nothing in particular to say, I can do it in less than half an hour.

 

[quatona]

So they were abhorent to you. Big deal, and who should care about that?

And who should care about you saying "they were objectively evil"?

Do you think the Nuremberg trials should have been conducted upon the basis of your subjective feelings?

They have been conducted on basis of subjective standard.

 

[quatona]

Like I said, who cares about your view.

Do you feel people would care more about my view if I claimed it to be objective?

Who would have cared about it if the Nazis had won the war, convinced the population of Europe that murdering Jews and other undesirables was the moral thing to do, you would have no basis for saying they were acting immorally. In fact, in that society you would be the immoral one for opposing state sponsored genocide.

And how do you plan to solve the problem of people having different views?
Last time I checked the Nazis were moral objectivists. So claiming your morals to be objective doesn´t seem to help much with anything.

 

[lesliedellow]

And who should care about you saying "they were objectively evil"?

They shouldn't, but they should care about the reality of evil, and, if you want evidence that people intuitively know that there is such a thing as evil, just trawl the web for atheists announcing religion to be evil.

They are wrong about religion of course, but they know exactly what the word means, and they do not imagine themselves to be expressing a purely personal opinion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not saying they are evil is not condining their abhorrent politics and massmurdering way.

Evil is a lazy and stupid term which means nothing IMO.

Your post is a giant strawman which only shows that you dont understand moral philosophy.

You mean he doesn't understand 'navel gazing' don't you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you also think that we can't say that something is beautiful without an objective standard that indicates what is objectively beautiful?

Sure it's "just" our opinion when we condemn certain actions. I fail to see what your problem with that is though.

People from widely differing cultures often render the same 'subjective' opinion regarding beauty (not to be confused with desirability), and that across ethnic lines. If this happens a lot it can be said to be 'objective' can't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

(Sorry, ran out of Emoji's for this incredibly pathetic presentation.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Sorry, ran out of Emoji's for this incredibly pathetic presentation.)

I am so sorry that you could not understand it. Tell me which parts were too difficult for you and I will gladly help.

 

[VirOptimus]

You mean he doesn't understand 'navel gazing' don't you?

What point do you think you are making?

 

[VirOptimus]

People from widely differing cultures often render the same 'subjective' opinion regarding beauty (not to be confused with desirability), and that across ethnic lines. If this happens a lot it can be said to be 'objective' can't it?

No, it cant.