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.
Yes, and also about regulating personal pleasurable behavior as a method of social control."Sins of the flesh" are all about regulating women's bodies or denigrating women in general, within a patriarchal social structure.
Yes.
Alex is right, and he says all the same stuff I've been saying on this subject around here for years. So I guess I'm as smart as an Oxford grad. Who knew? Aww... Who am I kidding. I knew.
Obeying someone merely because they give you a command or a directive isn't moral at all. After all, that was the excuse used by substantial numbers of defendants at Nurenberg. So I very much disagree with the notion that Christian morality as you articulate it is superior.
And I'd say, 'no.' I think Alex waffles between...
Well, the question was "Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality?"
Sam is indeed mistaken, so Alex is correct in saying so. (His reasoning may or may not be faulty. I wouldn't know. I didn't watch the video.)
Why wouldn't they describe different kinds of people?If it is just a matter of 'taste,' then we don't need to have designations of sociopath/psychopath in our psych manuals
Why wouldn't they describe things that people hate?If it is just a matter of 'taste,' then we don't need to have designations of ... evil in our ethics manuals.
I think Alex waffles between implicit and explicit value, axiologically speaking.
Did you actually mean to use "intrinsic/extrinsic" both times? That would be my guess, but I wanted to point that out. Or did you mean that he waffles both with "implicit/explicit" values and "intrinsic/extrinsic" values?Besides, I think Alex waffles by conflating intrinsic value with extrinsic value.
Why wouldn't they describe different kinds of people?
Why wouldn't they describe things that people hate?
I think this next bit is just a typo, but in two different posts you say these things:
Did you actually mean to use "intrinsic/extrinsic" both times? That would be my guess, but I wanted to point that out. Or did you mean that he waffles both with "implicit/explicit" values and "intrinsic/extrinsic" values?
Okay, why do you think he waffles between intrinsic and extrinsic value? I took him to mean that nothing has intrinsic value. Is there something that you think he believes has intrinsic value?The former.
However, murdering people is a different value type, and NOT one of taste. If it is just a matter of 'taste,' then we don't need to have designations of sociopath/psychopath in our psych manuals or evil in our ethics manuals. Yet, WE DO!
Morality doesn't really even exist under the atheistic world view. Without God there would really be nothing "right" or "wrong" about anything.
I watched the video, but unless I am missing something, Cosmic Skeptic gets Harris' position from The Moral Landscape wrong. Harris acknowledges that well-being is a subjective standard to base morality upon. He claims we cannot find an objective moral foundation to justify a moral system. When Harris talks about objective measurements of moral choice, he means that if people agree to subjectively use well-being as a foundation, we could then objectively measure, in most cases, if an action was increasing or decreasing well-being. I don't see the flaw with Harris' idea. It is ultimately subjective. It is similar to how we use measurements; we subjectively choose a unit of measurement (standard or metric) and then we can objectively determine the volume or distance of a thing.When one atheist disagrees with another about morality, it sounds a little like what we find in the following video by atheist and Oxford graduate, Alex O'Conner (a.k.a. 'Cosmic Skeptic' on youtube).
In the 20 minute video below, Alex takes a little umbrage with fellow atheist Sam Harris's view that human morality has some kind of substantial 'objective' quality to it. Rather, Alex thinks human morality is firmly 'subjective.'
Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality? Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Or don't decide ...
Harris acknowledges that well-being is a subjective standard to base morality upon.
I've read his book, though it's been a while. I've also see Alex and RationalityRules debate this topic.Does he? [I have not watched the video, but my impression of Harris is that he does not acknowledge this.]
I didn't say they did.Again with the psychopaths and sociopaths.
Having those labels has nothing to do with murder...nor do they even make someone a "morally bad person".
So, it'd be okay if one's own therapist happens to be a sociopath then, or to act in ways that are supremely 'care-free'?They just describe clusters of personality traits. There's many people who score high on one of those scales that lead happy successful lives.
He does more than acknowledge it; it's part of his entire argument. I don't see how Cosmic Skeptic missed that.Does he? [I have not watched the video, but my impression of Harris is that he does not acknowledge this.]
If so, does that mean that there is no conflict, since both people in the video agree than morality has no objective basis?
So, it'd be okay if one's own therapist happens to be a sociopath
then, or to act in ways that are supremely 'care-free'?
I'm glad you asked. As IF you needed to, right?Sure.
Why not?
There are people who talk about morality as if it was objective across all four corners of the Earth.So, just straight off the bat, we see Martha Stout extol the principle (and really virtue) of maintaining "the precept of confidentiality," as if it's somehow an objectively appreciable value that needs to be protected and administered.
There are people who talk about morality as if it was objective across all four corners of the Earth.
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?