|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conversations with God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Morality having no truth value is not the same as a denial of moral fact.
A moral fact would be that Texans think Oklahomans don't wash on Sundays. I will not dispute that Texans think this. The moral judgement being that Oklahomans are smelly dirty critters. That now forms a meme in your morality, like thousands of others. What is the truth value of this morality? It hasn't got one. We talk about your morality being true. That's shorthand for your moral judgements being compatible with mine. No, I do not deny moral facts, which have a truth value. I deny the concept of a truth value as applied to morality.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Really? Because a moral fact is the same thing as a moral truth and you certainly denied that.
quote: No, it isn’t. If you want to communicate you really shouldn’t make up your own meanings.
quote: Obviously it does. Whether or not Texans believe that Oklahomans don’t wash on Sundays has a truth value. Whether or not Oklahomans don’t wash on Sundays has a truth value. Whether Oklahomans are smelly dirty critters has a truth value. Whichever you meant you are not only wrong to call it a moral fact you are also wrong to say it doesn’t have a truth value. But they aren’t moral facts since none of them has any moral component. They are just putative facts.
quote: That would be another case of you inventing your own terminology and causing confusion. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
That would be another case of you inventing your own terminology and causing confusion. That may be so but that still doesn't negate the fact that relative morality is the only morality that exists in our world. And no matter how the ivory tower may twist their philosophies because of it we do not need to accept FGM as some morally acceptable cultural practice.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
This is a discussion site. You can do your processing on your own time.
My rants are part of my processing. Phat writes:
You should always go out of your way to avoid confirmation bias.
Your problem is that you went out of your way to avoid confirmation bias... Phat writes:
Not at all. Lack of confirmation for one idea is not automatic confirmation of the opposite (if there even is an opposite).
... and ended up confirming the opposite.... Phat writes:
I haven't concluded that a god or gods doesn't exist. I've concluded that there's no reason to think that they do exist, the same as there's no reason to conclude that leprechauns exist.
How did you conclude that God did not exist when you once believed He did exist? Phat writes:
Wrong. As I have told you before, I have heard strange noises, etc. I didn't make the same mistake that you make and assume an explanation.
...you realized that you never heard any audible answers or encouragements from the Deity Himself, right? Phat writes:
The onus is on you here to expalin how those scholarly explanations are wrong.
You probably read a few scholarly articles on the phenomenon of inner voices and of how it was generally depicted among psychotics. Phat writes:
Something that is not real can not "become unreal".
How did God become unreal to you? Phat writes:
Take out the word "merely". All books are a product of humans - and I respect the Bible as a book more than you do.
How did the book become merely a product of humans... Phat writes:
Again, the onus is on you to explain why your particular doctrines come directly from God while those in the Qur'an and Book of Mormon do not.
... and not a rhema word confirmed through the Holy Spirit? Phat writes:
The same way that you willfully and actively choose to deny that leprechauns are real.
Matter of fact, how did you willfully and actively choose to deny that the Holy Spirit is real? Phat writes:
And you yourself claim that you once believed in Santa Claus. You yourself claim that you once accepted such beliefs."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So you're infallible.
I will NOT doubt...and would feel personally ashamed were I to embrace doubt willfully. Phat writes:
Just out of curiosity, have you actually seen True Grit or are you just quoting somebody who quoted somebody who quoted somebody who quoted somebody who quoted somebody? AZ can and likely will use the vain imaginations of J.Noble Daggett...."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Except you say that it doesn’t exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Your poor interpretation.
Morality certainly exists, subjective and relative, peoples' moral opinions exist.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If there aren’t any moral truths, that’s nihilism, not relativism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Moral truth as in someone's opinion? Subjective? Born of acculturation?
Or are you thinking some other kind of moral truth?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Relativism is the idea that the truth-value of moral statements is relative. The idea that moral statements have no truth-value is nihilism. You’ve explicitly claimed the latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Again, your misinterpretation.
Regardless, moral opinions (truths) have a truth value. Is your definition of moral truth limited to the subjective opinion of the holder born of the holder's experience or does it include something else?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Again the problem is that you say things you don’t mean.
quote: My definition of a moral truth is simple. It is a moral claim that is true. If it’s just a subjective opinion that would be doubtful. Is it your assertion that - in the case of morality - subjective opinions are always true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Is it your assertion that - in the case of morality - subjective opinions are always true? From whose perspective? And a follow on, please. Other than personal subjective opinions are there other sources of moral truths?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That is an irrelevance if the claim is actually true.
quote: Shall we sort out your position before we get on to the more complex and nuanced subject of mine. In your first post to this subthread you asserted:
Where does this eminent philosopher get off on calling differing opinions on morality differing truths?
Now it seems that not only did you misread the essay, you actually agree with the position you falsely attributed to him. The position you angrily reject in the quote above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
From whose perspective?
That is an irrelevance if the claim is actually true. And who makes that determination?
Shall we sort out your position before we get on to the more complex and nuanced subject of mine. Sure.
The position you angrily reject in the quote above. Ok.
your first post ... you asserted ... you misread the essay ... you actually agree ... you falsely attributed ... You got me. We done? If so, who then makes the determination that a moral truth is true? And, other than personal and shared opinions, where does this moral truth come from?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024