EvC Forum: Underlying Philosophy

sac51495 writes:

You still haven't answered the question. Is something always wrong if it causes any distress, pain or suffering for someone?

Didn't you read the second part of that sentence? You must have, you quoted it next. So, did you not understand it?

If something causes distress, it must be either right, or wrong.

No it mustn't, since those are subjective terms, and too strong of a term to put on just everything.

Or do you admit that there is an "in-between"?

Of course there is an in between, I never denied that.

So basically, you have no definitive standard for determining right and wrong, or an ambiguous one if there is one.

Yep. No one has. Not even you.

This means the only "thing" that can determine right and wrong (in your world) is, ultimately, yourself. You are the ultimate, deciding factor in making moral decisions (in your world, that is). You have said that other factors come into play, such as experience, but you ultimately have to decide what right and wrong is, since, after all, you have to first interpret your experiences and your evidences before you can make a moral decision.

Of course, who else? I take responsibility for my choices, I do not waver them to someone else.

And by the way, there are no "brute facts", meaning that there are no facts that are just facts in and of themselves.

Of course there are. Do you know what the word fact means? It is a provable concept. Meaning that when I say "This table is blue" and it turns out to be red, "the table is blue" is still a fact, but one that was proven wrong.

They first require an interpreter that can provide good reasons for why they are true. For example, just because I say, for example, "it is a fact that the sky is blue", it isn't necessarily true, not until I provide a reason for why it is true.

Really? Then what is the reason why the sky is blue? I think you can see quite well that the sky is blue without having a reason for it being so. And yes, I know the reason the sky looks blue.

Anyways, you are the ultimate, deciding factor when making moral decisions for yourself.

Quite rght, as is everybody. At least, everybody I know, religious or not.

So from where did the moral arise that says that your morals in some way affect other people, i.e., why is something that is right in your mind, right for your neighbor, or vice-versa?

It is not necessarily the case, but fortunately, most people agree with one another on morals.

Just because you have come to the decision that murder is wrong (in some cases), why is murder wrong for me in those cases?

It might not be, that would depend on the cases.

Why does rape disrupt society?

Do I really have to take you through all the steps? Ok, rape disrupts society because it causes pain and suffering and distress and all sorts of nasty things that create an unhealthy environment. I suppose you're now going to ask me why rape causes those things. Must I really explain that to you too? Or are you finally going to think this through yourself?

Tell that to a starving cannibal. So would you be willing to share yourself with me, if I was starving?

No, in that case, you can drop dead. You don't have to eat human flesh you know.

I guess you were talking about when I stated such things as "God is real". But these were merely statements about my beliefs, not arguments for the existence of God.

"God is real" is a statement of fact. A statement of fact with no evidence behind it. That's why I said what I did.

I was answering the questions that I asked you, so that you wouldn't then complain and tell me that I can't answer my own questions.

You haven't answered the question. "God is real" is in no way an answer to anything, because, you know, evidence and all that.

So we now have a new definition of "condone". So if someone doesn't condemn something, they condone it? So wouldn't this mean that because you haven't specifically condemned my coming over and killing you, you have condoned it? Let me go find my gun, and if you'll give me your address, I'll be happy to come over and fulfill your wishes...

And again you ignore the second part of the sentence. If I were to set up rules under which i was to be murdered, and never said that I in fact, did not want to be murdered, and then gave you my address. Then YES, I would be condoning my own murder. Why did you leave out the second part of the sentence? Because it cl;early shows god condones slavery?

Another interesting question that is raised about slavery: if it is wrong for people to work for people without being paid (while being forced to do so), then is it wrong for oxen to work for people without being paid (while being forced to do so)?

No.

Or perhaps you would say that it is different for oxen to work for people, and for people to work for people (unpaid). This raises another question: would it be wrong for an ox to work for an ox (if it were possible)?

If the Ox was paid and wasn't forced to, then no. Otherwise, yes.

Wouldn't this constitute a belief about the nature of reality (that reality leaves evidence behind)? You must know something about the nature of reality, or you wouldn't ever refer to reality, especially when you make explicit statements about the nature of reality, such as "reality leaves behind evidence".

I guess it would. But didn't I already say that? Anyway, you can show me that reality doesn't leave any evidence behind?

WHAT?!!! You don't know?

No, I don't know how I would come up with "an orderly universe in which there are certain laws of logic that apply to nature, and in which you have the ability to rely on your memory...etc.". And no, I don't know how all that coul've gotten here from an explosion. It didn't of course, so that doesn't really matter.

You don't know why your memory is reliable, and countless other things?

And neither do you. For you are not omniscient.

You have just admitted that your worldview has such huge holes in it, that it really isn't anything but a hole...

Irony, I love it.

And if the term "explosion" isn't satisfactory, then just insert "a rapid expansion of space", or whatever would satisfy you.

A rapid expansion fo space-time would suffice. I still don't know how all this got here from that though. Wanna know why not? Cause I don't know that much about physics really. Also, of course, no knwing something's origin does not mean you can't know about the thing itself.

As a Christian I don't believe that animals have an aesthetic sense (or at least not in the way that humans do), because the ability to sense beauty, and to be able to be in a relationship with God, and to be able to think logically etc., are all things we are able to do as a result of our being created in the image of God.

And he accuses me of having a world view with holes in it.

I'm sorry, but "I don't believe they do" is not a very strong argument.

Now of course, this reason doesn't satisfy you.

Quite. Can you guess why?

But all I am doing is standing on my Christian worldview, as I should, if I wish to be consistent, that is.

You could try a realistic worldview, for one. No, I'm not saying all Christians have an unrealistic worldview.

So in your world, if animals have an aesthetic sense, where did it come from?

It evolved with them. Having an aesthetic sense helps selecting the best genes.

Something that looks like this:

probably doesn't has genes as healthy as something that looks like this:

4 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Zucadragon
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 0/3