originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Pinke
Well the argument posed in the OP is an ontological argument. Epistemology of morality and "how you think of morality" are the same thing. Ontology
deals with existence. The part you quoted from me was asking everyone to state their ontological moral view. Are the relative or absolute or not at
You appear to be trying to force people into a binary in an effort to make your argument easier.
Oh it most certainly does. As a moral skeptic claims there is no moral knowledge to be had. He cannot make moral judgements, but everyone makes moral
judgments when they are the ones being wronged.
It's not a claim to objective moral knowledge when someone reacts to how they are attacked or hurt, sorry. Nor is it a complete 'release' of moral
responsibility. You can lay doubt on moral truths whilst still running a Kantian 'according to my maxim' system of morality without falling into
your poorly concealed philosophical pit trap.
With extreme skepticism you can argue that 'fairness' isn't a moral truth and people are violating it by expecting it ... but even then, gravity is
often expected, it's not an objective truth in space is it? You can be skeptical about the state of gravity whilst knowing to accept it in certain
circumstances. Same way, you can accept cultural morality without believing it's a fact.
I don't hold those views, but you haven't demolished them.
This statement makes absolutely no sense lol. You believe there are objective moral fact FOR most...I don't think you know what objective means. If
something is objective true it is always true for all things.
Why do you think I wrote objective with these pretty little marks on either side: 'objective'
Sorry, but you're trying to pull this whole Moses of the highway routine but there is nothing Christian or enlightened about how you're acting. I
know exactly what objective means, I added caveats because I'm basically saying that as far as our species in our time goes, for the most part we all
agree that certain things are wrong. For most people in a lot of situations there 'may as well' be objective moral values.
The reason I didn't write a whole chapter defining terms and using precise language is because I'm not studying a university unit for you. Even if I
didn't know what the word objective meant, for all you know I've come up with a whole new way of looking at something. I didn't, it's a known
philosophical argument, but you would be too busy gazing at your navel and worshiping your own word salad to care. Enjoy eating that.
You are confusing belief with truth. Just because you believe the situation changes the truth of a moral fact doesn't mean your right.
No, this is a William Lane Craig (trademark) tap dancing effort to shift the burden of evidence onto other people, but it really amounts to another
poorly concealed pit trap. The argument is basically:
1. There are objective moral truths
2. I'm not claiming to know what they are, that's ontological, and therefore you pointing out that I have no idea what they are doesn't mean you
win! In fact ...
3. I win
The fact of the matter is, both you and Craig are Christians (or perhaps you're Catholic, I don't care) either you know what these truths are, or
your religious world view is about as useful as an inflatable donkey in an ancient Roman Colosseum when it's time to feed the animals and you're
You don't know people can be conditioned to exist without any morals whatsoever . Second evil people does nothing to tear apart my belief in moral
Actually, we know extensively which parts of the brain can be removed to cause people to lose their moral centering. We also know early life
circumstances which are, by their vulnerable nature, outside of a child's control which will make the child much more likely to turn to a life of
So I'd argue that yes, 'evil' humans cause a problem for your world view unless you're comfortable believing that your God sets up millions of
people to fail every year. Some schools of Islam and Christianity get around that obstacle by claiming its because God 'hates' the people in those
circumstances. I think that's reprehensible and I'm pleased most Christians don't follow that idea.
Anyway, I enjoy philosophical threads, they're lots of fun, and I've actually been pretty nice to you in the past ... but you're far too wrapped up
in winning a conversation than actually understanding or experiencing one. I'm sincere when I say this, you're potentially shutting yourself off
from new understandings of your topics by trying to just shut everyone else down.
Also I missed the bit in Jesus's letter to the Corinthians where he spake unto them, 'lol, I'm pretty sure ye don't know what that word means,
therefore I posit God.'