Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes the right answer will render the question irrelevant. But that doesn't excuse replacing the right answer with a wrong one.
That is true only if you have proved the replacement IS a wrong answer. It cannot be presumed to be.
Quote:
And that seems to be what you are arguing here. Your primary argument against subjective morality is that it makes the morality question irrelevant. But that is a classic example of an Argument From Adverse Consequence, and it is not valid evidence against the argument.
You continue to reveal your ignorance of fallacies and their application. I have not and make no claim of adverse consequence . . . simply pointlessness (neither good or bad) . . . IF there is no objective moral truth to be discovered subjectively. The exercise becomes irrelevant by the dominant animals' assertion of their "morality." In short . . under pure subjectivity . . . there is nothing to discover and no point in trying.
Quote:
For the sake of argument, even if I agreed with your above post, that would not be a logical argument against relativism or subjectivism, nor would it support objective morality. It's only effect is to prejudice the thought process, to make people want to find an answer that is not there.
No . . . it is to force you to establish that there is no objective moral truth . . . not presume it . . . because the search engine is subjective. You do not do that with anything else in science.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-18-2010 at 11:32 AM..
It cannot be presumed to be. You continue to reveal your ignorance of fallacies and their application. I have not and make no claim of adverse consequence . . . simply pointlessness (neither good or bad) . . . IF there is no objective moral truth to be discovered subjectively. The exercise becomes irrelevant by the dominant animals' assertion of their "morality." In short . . under pure subjectivity . . . there is nothing to discover and no point in trying.
But that in no way refutes the logic that there is no objective moral truth. It only shows that you don't happen to like the consequence of their being no objective moral truth.
Which is a thinly disguised argument of adverse consequences. Otherwise, why post it? It does nothing to prove or disprove the issue, it only alleges consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No . . . it is to force you to establish that there is no objective moral truth . . . not presume it . . . because the search engine is subjective. You do not do that with anything else in science.
That was already done, but only in the context of specific arguments made by tigetmax24. The presumption is only applicable against tigetmax's world view, and I'm not arguing here that it is universal. In other words, if you make the arguments tigetmax has made, then we can not presume an objective moral truth. (You will have to go back and read the post to see how we got to that point.)
But that in no way refutes the logic that there is no objective moral truth.
Quote:
Mystic:
No . . . it is to force you to establish that there is no objective moral truth . . . not presume it . . . because the search engine is subjective. You do not do that with anything else in science.
Quote:
Boxcar:
That was already done, but only in the context of specific arguments made by tigetmax24. The presumption is only applicable against tigetmax's world view, and I'm not arguing here that it is universal. In other words, if you make the arguments tigetmax has made, then we can not presume an objective moral truth. (You will have to go back and read the post to see how we got to that point.)
There is no logic that can establish that there is no objective moral truth . . . only that we have not found any yet. Like anything else in science . . . the fact that everything we do is subjective (unavoidably) does NOT preclude finding sufficiently objective truths. Truths cannot be presumed not to exist just because we are subjective seekers of it. There is no basis in logic for you to assert that there is no objective moral truth on the basis of human subjectivity . . . since it is unavoidable in ANY of our investigations.
There is no logic that can establish that there is no objective moral truth . . . only that we have not found any yet. Like anything else in science . . . the fact that everything we do is subjective (unavoidably) does NOT preclude finding sufficiently objective truths. Truths cannot be presumed not to exist just because we are subjective seekers of it. There is no basis in logic for you to assert that there is no objective moral truth on the basis of human subjectivity . . . since it is unavoidable in ANY of our investigations.
To save time, I will only tell you this Mystic:
In this thread I am demonstrating Tiget's belief system is incoherent. Accordingly. I have adopted some of his premises for the sake of argument.
You have jumped in the argument mid-stream, so some of it might not make sense to you. You will have to go back and carefully read what has been written before to understand why certain presumption were made. But it may not be worth your time because an argument that refutes tiget's world view may not refute yours. This is especially true given that I am arguing from premises I don't even believe in, and I have only adopted for argument because they are a natural consequence of Tiget's beliefs.
In this thread I am demonstrating Tiget's belief system is incoherent. Accordingly. I have adopted some of his premises for the sake of argument.
You have jumped in the argument mid-stream, so some of it might not make sense to you. You will have to go back and carefully read what has been written before to understand why certain presumption were made. But it may not be worth your time because an argument that refutes tiget's world view may not refute yours. This is especially true given that I am arguing from premises I don't even believe in, and I have only adopted for argument because they are a natural consequence of Tiget's beliefs.
Your argument (and belief system) rest on a well known logical fallacy.
Other than laying out the absurdity of moral relativity, what "argument" have I offered? As for my "belief" system, how can you offer an enlightened assessment of something that you are completely ignorant about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
The bible reveals that God cannot lie.
True statement that I proudly affirm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
We know the bible is accurate because it is the word of God.
This is total fabrication. I never ever asserted any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
We know the word of God is accurate because the bible reveals God cannot lie.
Ditto...pure fabrication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Isn't it obvious how blatantly circular your reasoning is?
Round-n-round we go.
The only thing "obvious" and "blatant" here is your total lack of honesty. I always thought that Marine's actually valued things like honesty and integrity. I'm both saddened and disappointed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
You have no basis to believe that God is good, and your only response to that is "what reason do I have to believe God is evil?". But of course, the fact that you lack evidence to believe he is evil is not an argument that God is good. It simply means you don't know.
You're the one repeatedly asserting that it's somehow logical to presume that the God of the Bible could be evil. I, quite reasonably, ask you to explain and you refuse to have the conversation. Then, you turn around in a post such as this one, and try to hit me over the head with it. Complete nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
There's no logical basis for your claim God is good simply because you have no evidence that he is either good or evil.
My simple assertion has been that the Bible asserts that God is good. You apparently disagree. I ask why you disagree, and you refuse to have the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
And please re-state your assessment of objective vs. relative morality if you want me to respond. I'm not sure exactly what it is you want me to respond to.
If you want to continue this conversation with me you will have to stop adding editorial comments about me personally and address only our arguments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
