How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Ken-1122]

No, the law doesn't get to decided what Justice actually "is"; the Law gets to enforce what is preseently discerned as the pragmatic need in society with bill proposals and enactments and enforcements that are deemed appopriate. At the time.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. At my subjective level, Justice is what I consider to be fair. At the legal level, the Department of Justice decides. If you disagree, what do you believe it is?

Epistemologists will aver that Knowledge isn't simply information and Truth isn't necessarily information that actually aligns with reality.

See. It can get trickly. That's why I study Epistemology as a part of my philosophy studies. But for the moment, I suppose that's neither here nor there in this discussion on Ethics.

So according to you, knowledge is not information, and truth is not information that aligns with reality; right? So what is your answer to those questions?

The problem with that is that "subjective perception" is itself own to the evaluations of both "subjective perception(s)" AND subjective perceptions can come in varying qualities, some are 1st order levels of conceptual cognition, some are 2nd order or higher levels, where we Frame the frames and anayze the frames that we place on the frames that we think we're working in when attempting to make sense of our sensory data of the world around us. ... It gets complicated in ways that Frege and later Neuro-Scientists found out.

So according to you, what is the nature of human reality?

Reactions that don't make up reality. I guess that's one angle of consideration. It is, as you were implying previously, a common one.

As I said before; for the most part I am not attempting to make up reality, I more so just react to it.

 

[Ken-1122]

No.

So according to you; there is a contradiction between what the bible says vs what God says concerning right vs wrong? If this is not what you are saying; please explain.

 

[Hammster]

I came across the term 'sealioning' yesterday. It's apparently an internet term describing how some people keep asking inane questions as a means to further what they think is a decent argument from their pointof view. This is a classic example.

You already know full well that people disagree on moral problems. What one does in any given situation depends on said given situation, so your question as it stands is effectively worthless. So let's use something specific.

So hey, the guy next door wants to shoot his neighbour because his dog fouled his lawn. Well gee, our consciences are giving us different instructions. Heavens to Bettsy! What's a boy to do? Well, I dunno...not having divine guidance I'm really at a loss. I guess he has just as much right to think he can shoot the guy as I have to say he shouldn't.

Such an unsolvable problem. Lucky we have you to tell us what the answer is.

I guess that’s a no.

 

[Hammster]

So according to you; there is a contradiction between what the bible says vs what God says concerning right vs wrong? If this is not what you are saying; please explain.

No, there’s no contradiction.

 

[gaara4158]

No point in trying to convict them of a crime then.

Why not?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, there’s no contradiction.

So what makes your way of believing better than mine?

 

[Hammster]

Why not?

Because there’s no real right or wrong. They’d be right in what they did.

 

[Hammster]

So what makes your way of believing better than mine?

You’ll have to be more specific. Here’s my first post.

“Actually, I know that atheists can and do believe murder is wrong. They just don’t have an objective reason for believing it.”

That’s still my point.

 

[Ken-1122]

You’ll have to be more specific. Here’s my first post.

“Actually, I know that atheists can and do believe murder is wrong. They just don’t have an objective reason for believing it.”

That’s still my point.

So what is your objective reasoning for believing murder is wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

Because there’s no real right or wrong. They’d be right in what they did.

There is a big difference between what is legal/illegal vs what is right/wrong. People aren't convicted of crimes for doing wrong, they're convicted for doing things that are illegal.

 

[Hammster]

So what is your objective reasoning for believing murder is wrong?

God’s sovereignty. My subjective reasoning is that I don’t want to be murdered, and I don’t want loved ones to be murdered.

 

[Hammster]

There is a big difference between what is legal/illegal vs what is right/wrong. People aren't convicted of crimes for doing wrong, they're convicted for doing things that are illegal.

There’d be no basis for the law if everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess that’s a no.

It is unanswerable. You need the relevant conditions to be able to answer it. Should someone eat meat or kill their neighbour will require completely different moral responses. I mean, what is there about that that you don't understand? I can't make it any clearer. I even gave you an answer to your shooting-the-neighbour hypothetical.

 

[Hammster]

It is unanswerable. You need the relevant conditions to be able to answer it. Should someone eat meat or kill their neighbour will require completely different moral responses. I mean, what is there about that that you don't understand? I can't make it any clearer. I even gave you an answer to your shooting-the-neighbour hypothetical.

It’s not unanswerable since someone else actually answered.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s not unanswerable since someone else actually answered.

The question was what does one do if one's conscience tells you something different to someone else's conscience. That is ENTIRELY dependent on the situation. My response to my neighbour if he declares it's wrong to eat meat is COMPLETELY different to him claiming it's ok to shoot the guy next door.

Again, what is there about this that you don't understand? It cannot be made any clearer.

 

[Hammster]

The question was what does one do if one's conscience tells you something different to someone else's conscience. That is ENTIRELY dependent on the situation. My response to my neighbour if he declares it's wrong to eat meat is COMPLETELY different to him claiming it's ok to shoot the guy next door.

Again, what is there about this that you don't understand? It cannot be made any clearer.

If your neighbor shoots his other neighbor because his dog keeps pooping in his yard, and he thinks it’s okay, on what basis is he wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

God’s sovereignty. My subjective reasoning is that I don’t want to be murdered, and I don’t want loved ones to be murdered.

If God actually had sovereignty, people would be doing as he says yet few people do. He has no more sovereignty than I have.

 

[Ken-1122]

There’d be no basis for the law if everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

Actually the fear that everybody will attempt to do what is right in their own eyes is why we need laws!

 

[Bradskii]

If your neighbor shoots his other neighbor because his dog keeps pooping in his yard, and he thinks it’s okay, on what basis is he wrong?

I've given you the answers. I keep giving them to you. I explain them in detail. I repeat them time after time. This is not a conversation in good faith. You are not the SLIGHTEST bit interested in listening to anything you are being told.

I don't know why I made the attempt in the first place as it's par for this course. But I thought I'd actually try to put things as simply as possible so that even if you didn't agree then you'd at least understand. But it's plainly obvious that you have no interest in even doing that.

One can only agree that your signature is about as as apt as any I've seen in this forum.

 

[Hammster]

If God actually had sovereignty, people would be doing as he says yet few people do. He has no more sovereignty than I have.

What makes you think He should rule like you think He should?