Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

I guess it is a bit ambiguous. No, I mean't some sort of reality outside of the person. Dare I say, not objective reality?

OK, then I'll continue as I was going to continue and agree with you.

 

[o_mlly]

... do you want to play this nonsense game about "truth"?

Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?

Truth is nonsense? Really?

I see that you are no longer willing to reply. OK, I'll let you go. Our exchange requires the participants to be both rational and honest. You appear to be the former so I suspect you came to see the outcome and rather than continue decided it was time to for you bail out. So long.

 

[Larniavc]

we DONT WANT PREACHING HERE,

If you could refrain from the preaching that’d be nice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You did. Torture and murder. You implied I thought that, because it's a relative matter (killing in the context as described), then there could be a morally acceptable murder.

Then nail something to the mast for heaven's sake...

Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism" since it too often confuses people with its ambiguity, and it essentially signifies little more than a mere descriptively laden "people are subject to diverse views and influences and we see a plurality." Let's say instead that:

Ethical knowledge and moral decisions are complicated by many social, psychological and epistemological factors, all of which may or may not diminish any one person's culpability for immoral conduct, especially in either objective or absolute terms if and when metaphysics [or theology] is brought in for further consideration. ​

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Truth is nonsense? Really?

Why does your grammar keep interfering with our conversation? That is *NOT* what I said. I said the *GAME* was nonsense. What game is that? The game about what "truth" is. (Which was never the subject of our conversation, until you tried to push it that way.)

I see that you are no longer willing to reply. OK, I'll let you go. Our exchange requires the participants to be both rational and honest. You appear to be the former so I suspect you came to see the outcome and rather than continue decided it was time to for you bail out. So long.

I'm pretty sure the "direction" this part of the conversation was going was "Jesus = Truth" and that I am "supressing" it. This is what happens when you build your view of those that don't follow your god around a couple of sentences in a single polemic by a preacher you admire.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism" since it too often confuses people with its ambiguity...

No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.

No we won't. We'll ignore your simplistic use of the definition. Why? Because like other choices, we each analytically "choose" how we're going to denote our words and as to how we actually think they signify certain referents. The truth of the matter is, moral relativism doesn't say much or clarify much, let alone liberate anyone from certain moral conditions that they may be culpable for.

..... And you can stop with your soft but constant insinuations that I'm somehow suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect in discussing this.

Thank you.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm pretty sure the "direction" this part of the conversation was going was "Jesus = Truth" ...

And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.

"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."​

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.

"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."​

I tracked this convo back to where it emerges from a deleted post, and I see no sentence of this sort from either of us.

 

[o_mlly]

I tracked this convo back to where it emerges from a deleted post, and I see no sentence of this sort from either of us.

I'd never heard of "vertical morality" so I did a quick search.

What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.

The post is in the parallel thread that morphed into a morality issue and was a reply addressed to you: "Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era".

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.

"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."​

Your nested quote in post #410 was broken and makes it look like I wrote your reply, so I'll reply to this one again.

Yes, you found this quote that you wrote

What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.

in a different thread. Why should I remember what you wrote elsewhere yesterday? (Or even think to look there?) I couldn't tell from the first message I quote here if it was you or I that allegedly had said the thing in italics. I know know it is you talking about this thread from a different thread.

What I wrote in post #405 was not a statement about what you had claimed in a different thread that your argument here was about. It was a PREDICTION about what I thought would happen if we continued (or I allowed the converation) to drift to "what is truth?". It is not only not a conversation I find interesting (as it is all philosophical mumbo-jumbo), but it is a conversation that for many Christians ends up in defining truth to be dependent on God/Jesus. Ugh.

We could resume the moral discussion if you like, but I am not going to discuss the nature of "truth".

 

[o_mlly]

in a different thread. Why should I remember what you wrote elsewhere yesterday?

? The post was a direct reply to you.

It was a PREDICTION about what I thought would happen ...

And you were wrong.

We could resume the moral discussion if you like, but I am not going to discuss the nature of "truth"

OK.

Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?

Change that to, "Do you desire to know the reality of the physical world?"

 

[Bradskii]

No we won't.

You're still not proposing anything. You're still not making any sort of argument whatsoever. You're not contributing anything at all.

How about making a commitment to whatever position it is that you might hold and explain it?

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism"...

So you think that supporting an absolute morality (it's the very basis of the discussion) is too hard and you want to talk about something else? Let me know when you've started the new thread.