|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Ok once more unto the breach....
quote: a)i)So you did... ii)Influence yes, I have yet to quote him verbatim as if the opinions expressed should carry particular weight because of who is expressing them.... iii)So you say, given that it fails to recognise that from subjective points of view others moral choices can be distastefull I beg to differ... iv)You quote Parts of what I say then infer a different meaning, lets take a look at that below in b)i)... b)i)No I am not misrepresenting you, for that matter I am not even making an effort to represent you, else why would the passage in question start
quote: How can I be misrepresenting you when I start by saying you have not yet done it? This means that I was pointing out that you have yet to put forward any evidence for innate ideas or objective morality, what I was not doing was telling you what your arguments had been or for that matter redefining them to suit myself... And if you are refering to
quote: A carefull, come to that a cursory reading shows that it continues
quote: Meaning that I feel that introducing the concept of disobedience on that scale renders any claims for an objective morality moot... So no I didn`t misrepresent you but your reply sure did attempt to misrepresent me... ii)But how in such a world as a subjective observer do you demonstrate a difference between them disobeying an objective morality or having a different subjective morality? As I said above disobedience on that scale renders the question moot... iii)Who says particular acts are morally insignificant? You are yet again failing to acknowledgee that from a sujective POV acts do have moral significance *BUT* that significance is not constant across all members of the population.... IOW you are misrepresenting my subjectivism to be a school of thought where all acts are equally morally insignificant I OTOH claim that acts are morally significant but that significance is not a universal constant but is variable between members of the population... And you have consistently done so... iv)begs the question by assuming an objective morality... Also given that a certain semitic tribe (aparently) came rushing out of the desert ripping unborn babies from their mothers wombs, and that said Semitic tribe belived in God and hence according to you an objective morality I reject the assertion that moral turpitude is any more likely in the case of subjectivism.... Or was infanticide good from an objective standpoint when commited by a certain Semitic tribe? c)i)Again begs the question by assuming objective right and wrong, and from my position immersed in my subjective morality I would not only have a moral right to apply an RGK to you but I would be compelled (by my subjective code) to do so.... ii)The attempt is the important thing.... iii)No might makes history, people subjectively and as individual entities judge what is right... d)Even though she in all likelihood made a bad situation worse? The whole Hitler - Mother Theresa dichotomy implys that she being opposite to Hitler is a parragon of objective good, how can objective good worsen a situation? So yes she is not the best example and no she doesn`t suffice... e)Not at all, all you did here is restate your orriginal false dichotomy that either God and objective morality exsists and that one follows from the other or that neither do, it is immediately obvious that there are other possibilities... f)So I take it you lacked the wit to spot that my statement was a lampoon of yours? If as you claim god is the giver of an objective morality, surely you feel that were God to tell you to push geriatric ladies into oncoming traffic you would not really be as correct as society you would be more correct, after all God told you to do it and thus it was an objectively moral act.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Reminds me of Feynmans Story of the 7 percent solution in the book "Surely you`re joking Mr Feynman!"...
To cut a long story short he and Murray Gell-Man worked out that proton-neutron coupling was V instead of T, looking back through the papers to find out where the idea that it was T had came from he traced it down to an article that he remembered reading before and remembered thinking "that doesn`t prove anything!" about... Basically it was because the whole decision that the coupling was T was based on the last point on the graph, which its generally a bad plan to rely on because if it were that good you could collect data for a point further along.... So yes scientists do take things on authority, BUT if something wrong gets in it tends to be later exposed by better data.... Science is tentative, it is also self correcting.... [This message has been edited by joz, 11-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: So science then in essence never PROVES anything, only suggests something to appease the mind for the time being until another "suggestion for the evidence" arrives.Even after such evidence arises it may take some 50 or so years for science to admit they are wrong due to embarassment, or $. Yes almighty science does have a god it's called funding money, oh yeah and those handful of "super scientists" that decide what can be published in the official journal of lies. Right and wrong exist. In the same way left and right exist. Do you question the existance of left and right? It's really very simple. I've seen it said before "it's good to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out" Let's be careful now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, it may seem weird but it is better than holding a dogmatic position that is immune to evidence. only suggests something to appease the mind for the time being until another "suggestion for the evidence" arrives.[/b][/quote] Appease the mind? Not hardly. It is an answer to the question based on wht evidence we have available. Lets say your best friend has suddenly become secretive and so has your girlfriend, an they seem to be sharing the same secret. Suspicious yes? You begin to think they are having an affair. But then, you come home to a surprise party. New evidence, so you change your conclusion about the affiar and conclude that they were planning the party. Why is this so hard to grasp?
quote: This seems to be a number you pulled out of your proverbial butt.
quote: Don't assume we all have an almighty god just because you think you do.
quote: hmmm.... just like the rest of the freaking world eh?
quote: Maybe you should learn about the peer review process. Anybody know which thread that discussion was in?
quote: That is about as bad as a false analogy can get.
quote: You mean as an absolute entity or as a concept we use when dealing with directions?
quote: Yes, but why don't you get it? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
I would have thought that right and left were a good analogy for subjectivism, after all if I stand facing you and you stand facing me my right is your left.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: Is it possible to move the entire universe three inches to the left? ------------------It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell [This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: whose left?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: Here we go again lets take from the old testament. Pull out an incident and say "how could a Godly people do this, what does this say about God."-1st the o.t is a historical record, recording events as they happened and not always in accordance with God would have wanted. -2nd we are now under grace, (New testament)and God does not expect or condone any such action on our part.(this is the part John so dislikes, suggesting God has changed, when if fact he has not) -3rd God used his people to deal out his judgement in the old testament. Not always but quite often. this is totally off topic but it boils my blood to see this blatant misuse of the old testament times. My argument is also poorly presented for lack of the wisdom to properly convey from mind to word my meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: a)Nope that wasn`t my argument, my argument was that historicaly a people that believed in God and hence according to ol` buddy boy objective morals were just as likely to act in a nauseating fashion..... Ergo the whole criticism that subjectivism leads to moral turpitude is rendered moot, because it it demonstrably true that a belief in an objective morality makes not a jot of difference... b)If you honestly can say that you think the old testament is a history rather than a mythology I have a nice bridge to sell you.... c)But if God condoned such actions in the past and he does not now surely John is right to say she has changed.... d)So is an act of infanticide objectively moral if it happened on the express orders of a certain (pre nazarene carpenter) semitic tribal deity? e)It isn`t off topic bud you just didn`t understand quite where I was going with it....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Sure just define yourself to be external to the universe and move yourself....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
Sorry again my wording is crap. I meant i was off topic not that you were. Please forgive me this was a very spontanious post, i should know better by now. I struggle always with the slow to speak quick to listen slow to anger thing.
------------------saved by grace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
Here is a little nugget of something i got from guess who (c.s lewis and his book mere christianity). Hopefully this will make sense and shed some light on this idea of a "moral law" that exists.
Okay he's saying that science is a good thing, that it externally observes things and comes to conclusions based on these observations.(put very simply). Now he's saying we can't externally see a moral law right? How would you? If something was observing us as we do "electricity or cabbages" they would only observe what we do and never get the slightest idea of a moral law. hope i'm making sense thus far. Now he goes on saying (and i think we can all agree here) is that the only thing we are really in the know about is man. We are men we have inside knowledge on man, not just observations. Right? Now do we consider nazi morality just as good as civilized morality. Just an example; asking do we consider one morality better or worse than another? I'm going to stop here partly because I'm going to confuse myself and it's usually in my experience better not to get to far into an idea without some criticism. ------------------saved by grace
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024