{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/28/2017 11:59:15 PM
40
[quote]To argue against evil, you must assume an objective good. Yet, such a source cannot exist under the atheistic presuppositions.[/quote]1. Theism doesn't grant an "objective" good it just shifts the "subjectivity" up to God's decree. This is not morality in any useful definition of the term we've conceived of to help us distinguish right and wrong in accordance with human life.
2. Secular objective morality actually can exist for the same reason good and bad moves in chess can exist. Objectively there are moves in chess in any situation beneficial to a player winning the game, and detrimental to the player winning the game. If the object of the game is to win, then making a move detrimental to your chances of winning is objectively bad. Objectively there are things which are beneficial to human life and detrimental to human life. This is actually even simpler than the chess analogy since it can be reduced to, if the object of human life is human life, then doing something detrimental to human life is objectively bad.
Now you can expand this to theism if you'd like and say, "Ah yes well in theism the object is to align your beliefs and actions as closely with God's as possible, and so any action not aligned with God's is objectively bad," however at that point your "moral system" has been completely separated from the quality and flourishing of human life. If your morality has nothing to do with what is right and wrong in interacting with and benefiting living beings then it's essentially not a moral system.
And then you can say, "Ah well God's decrees are in alignment with what is most beneficial to life!" which they actually aren't but at that point God is useless since if he's just agreeing with things that are beneficial to life we can already find out those things by living and the moral standard exists without him since it's acknowledging there is are objective parameters independent of God's will which determine morality of an action. Thus God is made moot if this approach is taken even from a theistic standpoint.
[quote]According to atheism[/quote]According to atheism, the claim "There is a God," does not have sufficient evidence for belief. That is it. Anything else written after "according to atheism" is some sort of extra add-on that is not at all according to atheism. Atheism is the stance on exactly one issue. So no, to everything that followed this.
English
-
[quote]Anything else written after "according to atheism" is some sort of extra add-on that is not at all according to atheism.[/quote] To be fair, plenty of atheists like to lump in other beliefs and call it the same thing themselves. I've ran into a number of them that even equate the "reasonableness" of the atheistic point of view with those other beliefs. Stuff like this is a result of a ton of people on both sides arbitrarily deciding on their own definitions.
-
Yeah they call themselves the "atheism+" movement and anyone is free to write, "According to atheism+" and put whatever after it.
-
I'm not referring to a specific movement that identifies as being separate.
-
They don't have to have an "atheism+" jacket to be synonymous with the movement.
-
To an extent, yes. But the point I was making is that there are people who refuse to wear that jacket or even wear someone else's jacket and say they own it.
-
Your chess example is rubbish at supporting the existence of secular objective morality. It's actually a wonderful example of subjectivity. The move that one player deems is wonderful, beneficial to him winning the game, is at once detrimental to his opponent. So depending on which side of the move you're on, you'll perceive the move differently. And no, Christianity does not simply move the subjectivity up to God's level. That would make it as subjective as any other personal opinion. The good must be inherently part of God's nature, non-created and existent by nature just as He is. And thirdly, while atheism is technically the belief that there is no god, you must be willing to acknowledge the implicit ramifications of that viewpoint, not the least of which are the non existence of objective morality and the ultimate worthlessness of existence.
-
Atheists if anything believe that life is amazing, and is worth something. From our point of view, you had a very small chance to be born into this world, because millions of sperm fought for the one egg. And we believe you only live once, so life is so much more important. Also, morality is based on empathy.
-
To the first point: Where does that worth come from? Ultimately, all life will cease. There will be no one to remember the life you say is "amazing" and "worth something." To the second point: Who are we empathizing with?
-
Nobody has to remember my life accept friends and family. Life is worth living because we only live one time, and that is it. We base morality on a main rule: empathy It is defined as: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another This is what morality is based on
-
[quote]Your chess example is rubbish at supporting the existence of secular objective morality.[/quote]It's actually perfectly sound. It describes a situation in which there are parameters and there are objectively good and bad options within those parameters. I'm sorry it went over your head. [quote]And no, Christianity does not simply move the subjectivity up to God's level. That would make it as subjective as any other personal opinion. The good must be inherently part of God's nature, non-created and existent by nature just as He is.[/quote]That is moving the subjectivity up one step and everything I'd said applies to it. [quote]And thirdly, while atheism is technically the belief that there is no god[/quote]No it's most popularly not believing that there is a God. There are then atheists who may choose to take it one step further and assert that there is no God but that would be a separate claim. [quote]implicit ramifications of that viewpoint[/quote]The only implicit necessay ramification is that the subject does not believe a God exists.
-
You are incorrect in your application of the chess example. To apply it to objectivity you would have to apply it evenly to both players, otherwise each player's perception would color and shift their view of the rightness or wrongness of a move, as shown by their varying perceptions of the same move. You could apply it to objectivity, and do so perfectly coherently, by instead using the general rules of chess as imposed on both players. If either player made a false or rule breaking move, the set of rules would step in and correct them, no matter how beneficial that move might be to the one who made it.
-
Edited by U124926: 3/1/2017 12:33:47 AM[quote]You are incorrect in your application of the chess example. To apply it to objectivity you would have to apply it evenly to both players, otherwise each player's perception would color and shift their view of the rightness or wrongness of a move, as shown by their varying perceptions of the same move.[/quote]No, because it's analogy meant to exemplify the concept of objectively correct actions within parameters. The world isn't a chess game, and moral actions aren't hand motions, and people aren't chess pieces. This is the nature of an analogy. Now you can be intellectually dishonest here and avoid the point or you can acknowledge or take issue with the point which the analogy perfectly makes, that there are objectively correct actions within set parameters of a situation. Let's see what you do.
-
No, because it's analogy meant to exemplify the concept of objectively correct actions within parameters. The world isn't a chess game, and moral actions aren't hand motions, and people aren't chess pieces. This is a the nature of an analogy. Now you can be intellectually dishonest here and avoid the point or you can acknowledge or take issue with the point which the analogy perfectly makes, that there are objectively correct actions within set parameters of a situation. Let's see what you do.[/quote] Define objectivity. What are the requirements for something to be objective? Give me an honest definition to work with and I'll address it, but not until we're working with the same understanding.
-
[quote]Define objectivity. What are the requirements for something to be objective?[/quote]That which exists physically, conceptually, or otherwise, independent of conscious interpretation. For instance, 3 is a greater quantity than 2. This is an objective fact based on the nature of quantities. For instance, the logical absolutes, identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle. Within a given set of parameters there can be further objectives, that which exists physically, conceptually, or otherwise, independent of interpretation as true of those parameters. In a deck of cards there are 52 unique cards. Objectively, within the parameters of drawing one card from the deck, because of the quantitative truth of mathematics, there exists the conceptual and physical fact that you have a 0.019 chance of picking the four of clubs, independent of conscious interpretation. It's really a very simple concept.
-
So, for something to be objective, it must simply be "the way it is," no ifs ands or buts. There must be no wiggle room, no leeway, no vagueness to it. It is what it is, and that's just the way it is. It must be unbiased and unswayable. Is that a fair paraphrase?
-
No. It is exactly as I stated. I'll help and edit your post for help in explaining:[quote]So, for something to be objective, it must which exist physically, conceptually, or otherwise, independent of conscious interpretation. For instance, 3 is a greater quantity than 2. This is an objective fact based on the nature of quantities. For instance, the logical absolutes, identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle. Within a given set of parameters there can be further objectives, that which exists physically, conceptually, or otherwise, independent of interpretation as true of those parameters. In a deck of cards there are 52 unique cards. Objectively, within the parameters of drawing one card from the deck, because of the quantitative truth of mathematics, there exists the conceptual and physical fact that you have a 0.019 chance of picking the four of clubs, independent of conscious interpretation. Is that a fair paraphrase?[/quote]Yes, it's not really a paraphrase because that's good since "paraphrasing" is often just a way to sneak in terms and baggage to argue about where it's unnecessary.
-
Forgive me for not clarifying. I was simply attempting to ensure that we're working with the same concept, to avoid is talking past each other or any other types of confusion. But let's apply that concept of unbiased-ness, this concept of "It is how it is," to your chess example. If you and I are playing chess, and you make a move that is beneficial to your victory, yet disadvantageous to mine, was it objectively a good move? No. It can't be. Our labeling of it as a "good move" or "bad move" changes based on who defines it. Our definition of the move would be biased toward our own desires. That's subjectivism. However, if we look at the legitimacy of your move, if your love is completely allowed within the parameters of the rules of chess, then no matter how detrimental to my victory it might be, I cannot argue that it is an objectively acceptable move. The rules of chess are completely unbiased, they are objective. They don't care who's playing or who's winning, they are unchanging, they simply "are what they are."
-
[quote]But let's apply that concept of unbiased-ness, this concept of "It is how it is," to your chess example.[/quote]You just went straight past the easy definition of objectivity I laid out back to your "the way it is" and "unbiased" thing. Why did you ask me for a definition of objectivity so we'd be on the same page if you're then going to disregard it and be on a completely different page? [quote]If you and I are playing chess, and you make a move that is beneficial to your victory, yet disadvantageous to mine, was it objectively a good move?[/quote] As I said, it's an analogy meant to exemplify the concept of objectively correct actions within parameters. The world isn't a chess game, and moral actions aren't hand motions, and people aren't chess pieces. This is the nature of an analogy. Now you can be intellectually dishonest here and avoid the point or you can acknowledge or take issue with the point which the analogy perfectly makes, that there are objectively correct actions within set parameters of a situation. Let's see what you do.
-
Fine. Our perceptions of the move are different based on our conscious interpretation of its ability to help us reach our end goal. However, the rules of chess themselves exist conceptually and outside the realm of conscious interpretation. Nothing will change a legitimate move into an illegitimate move, or vice verse. However, you refuse to understand the fact that if an objective morality does exist, as you seem to be suggesting by your analogy, it will permeate everything, including this chess game you used as an example. To deride my viewpoint because "the world isn't a chess game and moral actions aren't hand motions" is completely absurd and contradictory of you, considering your attempt to use them to exhibit the same truth. Therefore, you can choose to be ignorant of the point I'm making, or you can find issue with it and point out that specific issue rather than contradicting yourself in an attempt to discredit my viewpoint.
-
The chess analogy is still sailing straight over your head. Forget about it and simply take the point that there are objectively correct actions within parameters since you're having so much trouble. [quote]To deride my viewpoint because "the world isn't a chess game and moral actions aren't hand motions" is completely absurd and contradictory of you, considering your attempt to use them to exhibit the same truth.[/quote]You're focusing on something completely irrelevant. Address the fact that there are objectively correct actions within parameters and stop talking about chess, chess is irrelevant beyond demonstrating that there are objectively correct actions within parameters. If you understand that then the chess part of the lesson is over because it taught you the information needed already. Understand?
-
But your application of the chess analogy didn't teach me anything other than the fact that we'd interpret the move differently if we were playing against one another, thus demonstrating subjectivism. But the chess analogy aside, I recognize your point that objective morality exists within parameters. I actually agree wholeheartedly that objective morality does exist within parameters. But for it to be objective, we don't have the liberty of setting the parameters. If we set the standard, it's really just an extension of our personal subjectivity, thus defeating the purpose of objectivity. If society sets the standard, it will be based on the conscious interpretation of society, so we're simply shifting the subjectivity up to society's level. Subjectivity at any level is still subjectivity.
-
[quote]But your application of the chess analogy didn't teach me anything other than the fact that we'd interpret the move differently if we were playing against one another, thus demonstrating subjectivism.[/quote]Then you're not a very good learner. It's an analogy meant to exemplify the concept of objectively correct actions within parameters. The world isn't a chess game, and moral actions aren't hand motions, and people aren't chess pieces. This is the nature of an analogy. Now you can be intellectually dishonest here and avoid the point or you can acknowledge or take issue with the point which the analogy perfectly makes, that there are objectively correct actions within set parameters of a situation. Let's see what you do. [quote]we don't have the liberty of setting the parameters[/quote]That's right, which is why [quote]Objectively there are things which are beneficial to human life and detrimental to human life. This is actually even simpler than the chess analogy since it can be reduced to, if the object of human life is human life, then doing something detrimental to human life is objectively bad.[/quote]Do you accept that there are things which are detrimental to human life physically, conceptually, or otherwise, independent of conscious interpretation?
-
Who's life? Because there are a lot of choices in life that don't really benefit me, but may very well benefit someone else. If I take a bullet for someone, for example, that's absolutely detrimental to my own life, yet beneficial to their life. There's no conscious interpretation needed to establish that. But according to a definition of right and wrong as that which is beneficial and detrimental, respectively, to human life, my sacrificial act is simultaneously wrong and right. Reconcile that.
-
[quote]Who's life? Because there are a lot of choices in life that don't really benefit me, but may very well benefit someone else[/quote]Doesn't matter, we're starting from the top down to go broad to specific. First we have to acknowledge that there are things which are detrimental to human life physically, conceptually, or otherwise, independent of conscious interpretation. Do you acknowledge that?
-
Of course.
