Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is applied to my statement.
The various statements regarding morality on this thread are opinions because they cannot substantiate their opinions with evidence.
My statement that their statements are opinions has evidence.... see the sentence above.
Im applying the exact same standard to my statement as I am their and yours... and that standard is evidence.
These judgments are based on what is; that is, there is a normative level against which Jeremy's behaviours can be compared to determine whether his behaviours are abnormal.
We develop expectations based on the normative data and then ask whether Jeremy's behaviour is commensurate with those expectations. I'm oversimplifying of course, but only so as to correct your misunderstanding about how 'abnormal' is defined. It's not "presupposed" in the way you think it is.
Google how psychologists diagnose clinical psychopathy and you will have your answer.
(emphasis added)You still have not answered the question I am asking.
What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought to be empathetic and remorseful as opposed to apathetic and callous?
The only thing I can see is that you might be hinting that Jeremy should be empathetic and remorseful because most people are empathetic and remorseful.
But why should he be empathetic just because most other homo sapiens are?
That is akin to saying left-handed or ambidextrous people should learn to use only their right-hand because most people are right handed!
Is that not prima facie absurd?
Right.
It is like saying Jeremy is left-handed. This trait is abnormal because most people are right-handed.
You are just describing stuff here.
You are telling what is, not what ought to be. This is what Conscious Z is trying to tell everyone here. It seems only he gets it.
Bingo. All you have done is tell me that you look at certain traits and say that x y and z traits that Jeremy exhibits are not observed that much in most people.
It goes again back to the left hand, right hand thing.
Most people are right handed, left handed people could be labeled as abnormal in the sense they have a trait that appears less frequently.
I can delightfully agree with everything you wrote.
You still have not answered the question I am asking.
What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought to be empathetic and remorseful as opposed to apathetic and callous?
The only thing I can see is that you might be hinting that Jeremy should be empathetic and remorseful because most people are empathetic and remorseful.
But why should he be empathetic just because most other homo sapiens are?
That is akin to saying left-handed or ambidextrous people should learn to use only their right-hand because most people are right handed!
Is that not prima facie absurd?
I am not concerned with how they diagnose psychopathy. I know how they do.
What I am concerned with is their and your grounds or basis for saying that a homo sapien should possess trait x and if they do not they need treatment.
What is their standard? What is their rule? What grounds are they saying a person should or ought to be empathetic?
Why ought people be loving? Why ought people be kind?
(emphasis added)
It´s entertaining to see how you, Walker, the guy who intitially came here to propagate moral objectivism and and moral realism, are now emphatically deconstructing these ideas.
You do that by introducing an infinite regress tactic: Whenever your "Why should [X]?" questions are answered [Y], you move to the next meta-level and ask "And why should he [/Y]" and so forth. You are mingling morality, meta-morality, meta-metamorality etc. (Not exactly proper philosophy, but I guess you will ask me: "On what grounds or basis do you demand that I should do proper philosophy?" So, ok.)
I notice that you and your alter ego are not convinced of any presented grounds for demanding that someone should do X. Fine - we needn´t play this infinite regress game any further, once we have learned how it works.
What you don´t seem to realize is that the same tactic can be successfully used to deconstruct your own version of moral objectivism and realism: What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?
What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?
(emphasis added)
It´s entertaining to see how you, Walker, the guy who intitially came here to propagate moral objectivism and and moral realism, are now emphatically deconstructing these ideas.
You do that by introducing an infinite regress tactic: Whenever your "Why should [X]?" questions are answered [Y], you move to the next meta-level and ask "And why should he [/Y]" and so forth. You are mingling morality, meta-morality, meta-metamorality etc. (Not exactly proper philosophy, but I guess you will ask me: "On what grounds or basis do you demand that I should do proper philosophy?" So, ok.)
I notice that you and your alter ego are not convinced of any presented grounds for demanding that someone should do X. Fine - we needn´t play this infinite regress game any further, once we have learned how it works.
What you don´t seem to realize is that the same tactic can be successfully used to deconstruct your own version of moral objectivism and realism: What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?
He should because it is in my interests, so I say that hoping to influence him.How would "God says so" make Jeremy moral, particularly given that it must be taken on faith and there are multiple conflicting variations of it?
Considering that Jeremy (the case study, not the poster) is a psychopath, why should he even care about what God says? He has dismissed every moral claim presented to him thus far, so why wouldn't he dismiss moral claims derived from religion? He might respond with a yawning "So what?" Not even religion can make Jeremy adhere to moral obligations if he cannot grasp what it means to be morally obligated.
Atheists here have given their answers. Now it is your turn.Shifting the burden over to me is not answering the question.
So, are you the theist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful, or are you the theist claiming that people should not be empathetic or remorseful?I am not the atheist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful.
I am not concerned with how they diagnose psychopathy. I know how they do.
What I am concerned with is their and your grounds or basis for saying that a homo sapien should possess trait x and if they do not they need treatment.
What is their standard? What is their rule? What grounds are they saying a person should or ought to be empathetic?
Why ought people be loving? Why ought people be kind?
If you know how a qualified psychologist diagnoses, then you have the answers to your questions.
It's not like you can meet that burden, is it?
Your inability to meet this burden glaringly obvious, in the form of threads such as this one.My ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is a red herring.
Atheists must only lack belief in deities.Atheists must...
Myself and others have answered. So, what next? You have yet to respond to post #3.give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist.
As I do not come from the land of false dichotomies, I do not see these particular questions as properly formed.Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?
My ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is a red herring.
Atheists must give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist. Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?
Your inability to meet this burden glaringly obvious, in the form of threads such as this one.
Myself and others have answered. So, what next? You have yet to respond to post #3.
As I do not come from the land of false dichotomies, I do not see these particular questions as properly formed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?