Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disproving Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality via the Copernican Principle and Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Ziku View Post
    Homosexuality is a sin worthy of capital punishment. But I would also rim Goku. No homo.
    Originally posted by Kajin_Style
    I have this illness called "Having-a-Heart" and gives me this irrational sense of empathy and care for my fellow man.

    Comment


      Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
      Considering your qualifications for how the universe should exist, should it not be literally impossible to defy God's nature? Immoral acts should translate to "impossible" from what you're saying.

      But also, if the God in question had directly caused the slaughter of cities and the murder of children, then does that make murder more of a moral act than being atheist?
      None of the slaughters in the Bible ever happened anyway. For whatever reason, those are myths the Jews made up.

      1) There is no evidence for the Plagues in Egypt, least of all the plague of Blood or the Plague of the First Born. The real God never did this.
      2) There is no evidence of Joshua and company massacring a race of half-angel giants. The real God never did this.
      3) Saul might have massacred a city at the instruction of Samuel, but that just makes Samuel a False Prophet. the real God had nothing to do with this.
      ​​​​​​​etc.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Wade View Post

        None of the slaughters in the Bible ever happened anyway. For whatever reason, those are myths the Jews made up.

        1) There is no evidence for the Plagues in Egypt, least of all the plague of Blood or the Plague of the First Born. The real God never did this.
        2) There is no evidence of Joshua and company massacring a race of half-angel giants. The real God never did this.
        3) Saul might have massacred a city at the instruction of Samuel, but that just makes Samuel a False Prophet. the real God had nothing to do with this.
        etc.
        My main point was the first one, about how it should be against the laws of physics to do an immoral act.

        I would add that you should stop using the Bible if you don't fucking believe in it, dude.
        Originally posted by Wade
        Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

        Comment


          Originally posted by Chibz View Post

          The thing is it need not be mere preference. You are correct in that if someone hypothetically said they don't care about explanatory power that they wouldn't hold the values. But this is irrelevant to if the values are justified in holding. I justify morality in a priori which can work just fine in epistemology. Further I'd argue to have explanatory power is indispensable to our very existence. You can't assent to the negation of explanatory power without affirming the assertion. I would also point out that they would have beliefs that contradict that position. This is based on an induction in the latter case but I'm open to be wrong outside a hypothetical here.

          Well I already have an account for why people have varying moral views. Of course there will be rational agents(whether human or alien) that will have variations in their moral framework. But again, I would say they are still participating in the Good and I would still hold we can break their motivations into virtue/vice distinctions. Keep in mind that unlike a lot of other moral realists, I don't hold to evil having a positive existence. Vices like cruelty are an absence of a good rather than the presence of an evil. Mere disagreement is not enough to say that morality is dependent on subjectivity. But I think morality is in the same kind of venue that math or logic are. Both of those things are not justified via reference point to reality(for the record, I don't think I've read any philosopher regardless if they are secular that would disagree that these are a priori. Maybe some radical empiricist would? But that's about it. Not saying they are right because of this, just that I'm not alone in thinking this)

          You said you can't have true and honest belief in this stuff without more concrete evidence. Alright, well what is your epistemological framework you work from? Like what do you believe justifies knowledge?
          Sorry for my late response, I was actually enjoying this conversation quite alot but I had to leave to work on a few projects lol. I also took the time off to listen to a few debates on realism vs antirealism to see if there was anything that could help me create a productive discussion, but alot of it really does seem to be limited by our language unfortunately. Even still I will try to continue this to the best of my abilities.

          I would certainly agree that having explanatory power is an indispensable tool for our existence, but who said we need to exist in the first place? Should we really, truly exist? This again all comes down to a question of subjectivity that seems completely inescapable, which is why I say that I prefer to skip the meta discussion for most moral discussions and just test a person's consistency, since we usually share many of our moral values and in the case of people who don't - say, a traditionalist who uses evolutionary biology as a basis for his moral framework to declare that non-whites should be mass-deported - then there are plenty of avenues I can choose to attack from to test their consistency on that as well and expose a contradiction, and from there work to help them discover what it is they truly value ("if evolutionary biology is moral and right, then isn't the extinction of the white race merely the work of said evolutionary biology and why should we care about preserving your existence in direct contradiction to the selective pressures that have been put in place by other competing members?").

          I'm fine with saying that this is all completely unjustified. Ultimately, if it's between that and simply hoping that there is an objective moral standard, I'd rather stay honest to myself and remain agnostic on the issue. As for your question on what would convince me, I really do not know. Moral realists themselves, from the debates I've listened to, don't really seem to know how to even go about uncovering an objective moral truth in the first place, so I honestly have no earthly idea on what that kind of evidence would look like. For most potentially dramatic shifts in worldview, I tend to be a pretty staunch empiricist, but I am able to recognize that alot of these types of questions will typically fall outside of that domain. In the case of moral realism, I really would have to think about it an awful lot to really come to an idea of what type of evidence I would need to be convinced of its validity, but that's especially hard to do when the realists themselves have no consensus on how to discover moral truths.
          Last edited by Helly; February 3rd, 2020, 01:14 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X