Ok once more unto the breach....
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
a)i)we all make arguments from authority, ii)you even admitted locke's influence on your thinking... iii)there was no misrepresentation of nielsen, and i've seen no misrepresentation of your views... iv)i quote you verbatim... if you don't mean to say a thing, say something else...
b)i)now you're vastly misrepresenting what i said... there isn't even the semblance of my words there... ii)people obviously *can* commit genocide in a world where objective standards of good and evil exist... iii)it seems intuitively true that when a people believe a certain act is without moral significance, iv)no matter how abhorrant it is in reality, they are less hesitant about committing the act
c)i)but you'd have no right to give me an rgk, even if you could... ii)for the heck of it, assume you can't... assume your attempt ends in failure... assume germany and japan won ww2... iii)might makes right?
d)she might not be the best example, but she'll suffice
e)no, i'm giving a reason why objective morality exists... if God doesn't exist, if all there is is nature, you are correct... all things are reduced to opinion... the group with the most power can enforce its opinion, no matter what it is, and it'll be no better or worse than anyone else's
f)i believe i already said that... yes you could, in your world, with or without the voice in the head... and you'd be just as correct as society... no right, no wrong, only opinion and the will and means to enforce it
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:
You (plural now) have yet to...
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:
you have yet to show that people cannot commit genocide etc if objective morality exsists
A carefull, come to that a cursory reading shows that it continues
quote:
and if you argue, as I am sure you will, that people can disobey objective morality I fail to see the relevance of claiming that moral subjectivism leads to said distastefull attitudes....
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.....
™ Version 4.2