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

[Ken-1122]

It’s fixed, just like the elephant in the parable about the six blind men.

What isn’t fixed, for you, is the ability to say why something is right or wrong. All you can put forth is feelings.

Assuming you are right, what is the advantage of having the Christian point of reference over mine?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahh... so when pressed to defend your absurd position, you would rather run away with your tail between your leg? Yeah.......I'm not surprised; I've seen it before.

It's a little early to be declaring yourself King of the Jungle, isn't it? You didn't address anything I've thus far said, and I'm pretty sure most folks here reading this thread can see that. If they think that what I've said is absurd, they too need to get educated, and I'm just the one to let them know this.

So, maybe back up and review the past several posts that have transpired between us and see if you can squeeze some juice out of the lemons I've handed you. If you can't, then I guess we kind of know where your moral sensibilities lie ...

 

[Hammster]

Assuming you are right, what is the advantage of having the Christian point of reference over mine?

The advantage is that you have access to truth, and not just feelings.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's a little early to be declaring yourself King of the Jungle, isn't it? You didn't address anything I've thus far said, and I'm pretty sure most folks here reading this thread can see that.

Point to something you've said that I have not addressed, and I'll address it.

 

[Ken-1122]

The advantage is that you have access to truth, and not just feelings.

I have access to truth? Why is the Christian point of reference better than that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Point to something you've said that I have not addressed, and I'll address it.

Nope. I'll just let you trot around over in your territory, puffing out your chest in a self-assured, resolute, non-academic manner.

When you have something of substance to share with us so as to "show up" the complete absurdity of what I've so far said (...ie. again, "so far"), then maybe knock on my door.

Until then... get a good book on Ethics and read.

 

[Hammster]

I have access to truth? Why is the Christian point of reference better than that?

Because it’s true. Why do you think it’s not?

 

[Ken-1122]

Nope. I'll just let you trot around over in your territory, puffing out your chest in a self-assured, resolute, non-academic manner.

IOW; another unsubstantiated claim. I'm sure if I had neglected to comment on your claims, you would have been more than happy to point that out to me.

When you have something of substance to share with us so as to "show up" the complete absurdity of what I've so far said (...ie. again, "so far"), then maybe knock on my door.

Make another absurd claim again, and I will dismantle it again. Fair enough?

Peace

 

[Ken-1122]

Because it’s true. Why do you think it’s not?

Unless the Christian point of reference is aligned with mine, it can't be the truth. I find truth better than non-truth

 

[Hammster]

Unless the Christian point of reference is aligned with mine, it can't be the truth. I find truth better than non-truth

But you don’t have a truth. You have feelings. Not only can’t you say why something is wrong, you have no solid basis for right and wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

IOW; another unsubstantiated claim. I'm sure if I had neglected to comment on your claims, you would have been more than happy to point that out to me.

Another? ... so, let me get this straight: what you're really trying to imply is that you're not trotting around here in your own solipsistic perceptual space, making bold but superficial claims against Christians (and whomever else, even other secularists with alternative views to yourself, I suppose too), all the while continuing in your bold assertions about the veracity of your own private perceptionyet having nothing to back up and support your point of view other than that you have your own private moral perception (one that you're not particularly trans-parent about epistemologiclaly or socially (where your behind the scenes network of friends might put additional ideas in your mouth as to "what to say to all of those idiotic Christians....)

Does the above sound like I'm close? Or am I throughly wrong that you're pushing what is essentially a kind of "Khan-job" on everyone else here?

Make another absurd claim again, and I will dismantle it again. Fair enough?

Peace

Absurd to you; and I do so much want to see your efforts to "dismantle" what it is you so far think I've said. Because, so far, I see no demonstration on your part to "dismantle" my UUMP that I use more or less as a point of coherent reference (as briefly described back up in posts #347, #370). Whether it's axiomatic can be debated, sure, but I have faith in humanity to a moderate degree and I think you'll find few allies in your attempted dismantling of it.

Now we come to the rational demonstration of it and in this demonstration all I have to do is ask the following questions to show the innane psychological quality of your personal moral point of view: Do you really want to go on record here and admit that you don't mind if someone applies to you the "Cry Uncle Scenario" I've described (or worse)???

And not only that: do you want to also assert that you'll get up from that painfully empirical experience and then proceed to assert that it's still quite morally "ok" for you to assert your own Cry Uncle bullying in return upon other people in the world in which we live if and when you so happen to feel the desire to dominate them???

When you're done answering these rational questions, being as simple to consider as they are, you can then tell me which sources and references you're going to use [that is, sources for Ethics] to then "dismantle" this one principle.

I'm waiting to see what your superior point of view has at its disposal and ready to unleash upon my moral Enterprise other than your own "Cry Uncle" campaign that could only be based upon an assumed counter principle of "social power" or "predatory advantage."

 

[Bradskii]

It is a fixed point because there are reasons for the differing views.

They aren't views. They are commands. Totally at odds with each other.

 

[Bradskii]

Absurd to you; and I do so much want to see your efforts to "dismantle" what it is you so far think I've said. Because, so far, I see no demonstration on your part to "dismantle" my UUMP that I use more or less as a point of coherent reference (as briefly described back up in posts #347, #370). Whether it's axiomatic can be debated, sure, but I have faith in humanity to a moderate degree and I think you'll find few allies in your attempted dismantling of it.

Your 'principle', for what it's worth, is nothing more than saying that people don't like to get hurt. Well, I don't think you're breaking any new ground here. Apart from the fact that it's not a moral principle but a basic position anyone would need from which to develop a moral principle. And as a 'standard' you admit that you don't even have any moral authority associated with it:

"A "standard," however, requires a moral authority and a humanly recognizable cognition about that authority. It's this second part that I'm unable to directly produce."

Which is precisely what the discussion is about. Whether there is or is not a moral authority. And, in passing, you ain't going to be able to produce one because one doesn't exist.

There have been umpteen posts on reciprocal altruism, empathy and the evolutionary basis for what we might describe as a conscience which dictates, to a great extent, what we describe as moral acts. It's been explained in some detail. And your 'principle' in response is simply that people don't like getting smacked in the mouth. And...that's it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your 'principle', for what it's worth, is nothing more than saying that people don't like to get hurt. Well, I don't think you're breaking any new ground here. Apart from the fact that it's not a moral principle but a basic position anyone would need from which to develop a moral principle. And as a 'standard' you admit that you don't even have any moral authority associated with it:

"A "standard," however, requires a moral authority and a humanly recognizable cognition about that authority. It's this second part that I'm unable to directly produce."

..... Maybe go back and read all that I actually said in relation to the limits and processing for this principle that I know I spoke about, however briefly. I'd suggest that you don't cut me short here. I said nothing about this principle being either groundbreaking or a one that will stand on its own as far as serving as an ethical framework, let alone an authority..

By the way, if you're familiar with the difference between Emotivism, Intuitionism and Prescriptivism, then you might glean my general direction with where I intend to go if here. All my UUMP does is put a kind of conceptual "training-wheels" on what should be obvious but isn't to so many sociopaths everywhere.

So, yeah. It's not new ground and I never said it was. I'm merely giving an initial entry point for the moral conversation. I'm surprised---shocked really---that with all of your seemingly saavy torpedoing of everyone that you so often tend to do around here, you couldn't see this point of mine straight off.

Which is precisely what the discussion is about. Whether there is or is not a moral authority. And, in passing, you ain't going to be able to produce one because one doesn't exist.

Oh, there is a moral authority. And it resides indirectly within the human species and it comes out especially when self seeking individualists (or morally relative socieites) assert themselves in extreme and socially disharmonious ways (usually physically and politically) against many, many other moral actors (or moral socieites) who do understand the unspoken existence of the rationality and social functionality of the UUMP.

You can deny it, but it'll eventually manifest itself from among the surrounding populations like it did against Hitler and Germany; Emperor Hirohito and Japan; Mussolini and Italy. ETC. ETC. ETC.

There have been umpteen posts on reciprocal altruism, empathy and the evolutionary basis for what we might describe as a conscience which dictates, to a great extent, what we describe as moral acts. It's been explained in some detail. And your 'principle' in response is simply that people don't like getting smacked in the mouth. And...that's it.

Un no. That's not it and yet again, it's not meant to serve as a one-stop shop for some explicit moral directives that serve authorities who will not only further delineate it in WRITTEN form, but also enforce it. The UUMP is simply the first step in an initial moral recognition, the opening of the door, so to speak. If you can't realize this, I pity you. Of course, you could then go to read Barbara J. King's book, Evolving God, and have something to talk about in the next step (but still not the final one) I'd take in identifying a substance and authority for 'correct ethics and morality.'

See, the great thing in my line of Ethical thought is that I don't even have to posit God yet to affirm what any normal, socially and mentally developed Tom, Dick or Stuzy should already know before puberty.

 

[Bradskii]

No. That's not it and yet again, it's not meant to serve as a one-stop shop for some moral directives and the authorities who will not only further delineate it in WRITTEN form, but also enforce it. The UUMP is simply the first step, the opening of the door, so to speak. If you can't realize this, I pity you.

You keep bringing this up as if it's something special. You've even given it an acronym for heaven's sake...'the unspoken existence of the rationality and social functionality of the UUMP.'

Maybe you think it's thoughtful and insightful. Profound. It isn't. It's a deepity. It's pretentious. It adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation. Let me know when you have something constructive to say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You keep bringing this up as if it's something special. You've even given it an acronym for heaven's sake...'the unspoken existence of the rationality and social functionality of the UUMP.'

Maybe you think it's thoughtful and insightful. Profound. It isn't. It's a deepity. It's pretentious. It adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation. Let me know when you have something constructive to say.

Is that all you have to say? ..... that's not much. I don't think anyone around here on CF who has read all that I've written in various posts in this thread will be particularly moved by your retort here.

All you have in your corner is a flip of the coin for "HOPE," Bradskii. But that hope is a sad one, and you know why don't you?

It's a sad one because all you have is an emotive reaction in which you "Hope to God" that God doesn't exist and that His Son didn't exist or rise again from the Dead. But I get it---some people are willing to "take that risk." I'd say power to 'ya, but I'm not an advocate of Nietzsche.

 

[Bradskii]

It's a sad one because all you have is an emotive reaction in which you "Hope to God" that God doesn't exist and that His Son didn't exist or rise again from the Dead. But I get it---some people are willing to "take that risk."

I don't base my morality on wishful thinking. Or emotive reactions. You are clearly not reading what is being written.

I base my morality on my naturally evolved conscience, together with all the other concepts that have been explained you so many times. If God does turn out to exist then that conscience will appear to have been God-given as opposed to having evolved naturally. In which case, nothing would change except the genesis of that particular characteristic.

I take full responsibility for the decisions I make and the life I lead. I do nothing simply because I have been told to do it. I want reasons. And if I personally disagree with those reasons then so be it. Nobody else can make that call except me. You can look over your shoulder every time you need to make a moral decision. That's up to you. But I answer to no-one excpet myself and my fellow travellers.

 

[Ken-1122]

But you don’t have a truth. You have feelings. Not only can’t you say why something is wrong, you have no solid basis for right and wrong.

No; on post #404 you said I have access to the truth not just feelings. Are you changing it now?

 

[Ken-1122]

Another? ... so, let me get this straight: what you're really trying to imply is that you're not trotting around here in your own solipsistic perceptual space, making bold but superficial claims against Christians (and whomever else, even other secularists with alternative views to yourself, I suppose too), all the while continuing in your bold assertions about the veracity of your own private perceptionyet having nothing to back up and support your point of view other than that you have your own private moral perception (one that you're not particularly trans-parent about epistemologiclaly or socially (where your behind the scenes network of friends might put additional ideas in your mouth as to "what to say to all of those idiotic Christians....)

Does the above sound like I'm close? Or am I throughly wrong that you're pushing what is essentially a kind of "Khan-job" on everyone else here?

You're wrong.

Absurd to you; and I do so much want to see your efforts to "dismantle" what it is you so far think I've said. Because, so far, I see no demonstration on your part to "dismantle" my UUMP that I use more or less as a point of coherent reference (as briefly described back up in posts #347, #370). Whether it's axiomatic can be debated, sure, but I have faith in humanity to a moderate degree and I think you'll find few allies in your attempted dismantling of it.

On those posts you spoke of a Universal Moral principle. When I tried to get more details of this principle, you refused to give answers.

Now we come to the rational demonstration of it and in this demonstration all I have to do is ask the following questions to show the innane psychological quality of your personal moral point of view: Do you really want to go on record here and admit that you don't mind if someone applies to you the "Cry Uncle Scenario" I've described (or worse)???

Of course not! But the fact that I don’t want it done to me, does not make it a universal moral principle.

 

[Hammster]

They aren't views. They are commands. Totally at odds with each other.

Not at odds. Different reasons. Remember, it’s important to understand the whole thing, and not just pick a line here or there to try to advance your view, like you did. And like you did with my post.