This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#281C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/23/2013 8:52:09 PM
kozlo100 posted...
You've looped, but let's try this again.

He answers no, informing you that he never stated that raping a person is always objectively wrong. What is your response?


In this particular debate, fudrick/Thuggernautz/Faust_8 have been saying that some atheists can in fact believe that rape is objectively wrong anyway. I don't think they've given me a clear answer about their personal opinions on whether rape is objectively wrong except Thuggernautz. I'd have to go back and check.

If I was discussing this with an atheist willing to be logical about the implications of their beliefs, I would then show him that you cannot 100% logically support the view that raping someone is better or worse than not being a rapist. The only way to make that claim is to place your beliefs about human value on a subjective basis. To say that humans have value, though all of us agree that they do, is not a factual statement that can be empirically proven or is apparent to everyone. And then once they've admitted that no moral belief can be proven "better" or "worse" than another moral belief, I would point out that nobody actually lives that way.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#282fudrickPosted 1/23/2013 9:22:23 PM
C_Mat posted...
And then once they've admitted that no moral belief can be proven "better" or "worse" than another moral belief, I would point out that nobody actually lives that way.


Actually, everyone throughout history has lived this way. That's why moral values differ so greatly throughout time and between cultures. Honestly this is so obvious you must be trolling at this point.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#283Faust_8Posted 1/24/2013 1:01:26 AM(edited)
In this particular debate, fudrick/Thuggernautz/Faust_8 have been saying that some atheists can in fact believe that rape is objectively wrong anyway.

No I haven't, I've explicitly stated the opposite, you're an idiot, stop posting if you're going to consistently ignore anything said by anyone that's not you.

Hell even Thuggernautz just said this:

I know you would, but tough ****. I personally don't think that rape is objectively wrong. I think it's wrong for subjective reasons.

You literally ignore our claims then say we make ones that only you have been making. Hence why you're the OW of morality debates; nothing but projecting your arguments onto your opposition.

You're not even worth listening to if you're just going to pull this **** again and again.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#284C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 1/24/2013 7:12:01 AM
Thuggernautz: Because there are objective frameworks for morality that do not rely on a God; moral universalism does not necessarily require a God.

Thuggernautz: Yes, they can. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make their claim any less valid or valuable. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Thuggernautz: There are atheists that believe in objective morality, too; as there are many different frameworks for such.

fudrick: Atheists do not necessarily lack that belief [in objective moral values and duties]. Again, educate yourself.

Sorry if I misrepresented you, Faust, I was thinking of the wishy-washy answers from the other two.

No offense, but I'm done trying to have a conversation with you guys. You're constantly misquoting me and refusing to answer simple questions. If we were actually having a public debate where other people could hear the cop-out responses you've been giving, you would never get away with this crap. At this point, even if I could get you to cooperate with logic to the point where you'd see that you were wrong, you'd never admit it, so there's just no point.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#285ThuggernautzPosted 1/24/2013 9:30:17 AM(edited)
C_Mat posted...

I didn't say reason is independent of the mind. I said it's independent of opinion. It feels like your strategy in this debate is to misquote me, then argue against something I didn't even say. Do you disagree with my statement that reason is independent of opinion?


Yes, I do disagree with that statement. Reason stems from and is coloured by opinion. You can have a reasoned argument between, say, both sides of the stem cell debate. That reasoning occurs under the banner of different opinions. Have a look at these synonyms for reason. I will highlight the ones where opinion really matters:

Synonyms
noun. cause - motive - occasion - ground - mind - intellect
verb. argue - think

No, I said you can't justify whether something is right or wrong based on how many people believe it. Nothing you've said has disproved that notion, but call me names if you want. As far as I'm concerned, only telling me what a terrible person I am for not accepting your "logic" is a pretty weak rebuttal.


I can, the courts can, jurors can, but it seems you can't. I take the views of my peers and my culture very seriously in these regards. It's a great shame that you don't.

Oh, and FYI, yes I did say that atheists could believe in an objective moral framework. I personally don't, and I don't know enough about those frameworks to argue in their favour. But the point of posting those wiki links is to show that secular moral absolutism is a very real thing, and has been favourably argued for since the time of Plato.
#286fudrickPosted 1/24/2013 9:28:37 AM
It's like he thinks atheists are a hivemind or something. If one of us says that it's not necessary for all atheists reject some other belief, that must mean that we specifically hold that belief.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#287Faust_8Posted 1/24/2013 10:45:00 AM
We don't answer your questions because you demand simple answers for complex questions, and you interpret our answers in the most self serving way.

Asking a question and assuming there is only one way to arrive at a conclusion, when the ENTIRE DEBATE has been about there not being only one way to arrive at that conclusion, is just about the most dishonest thing ever. Do you really think our grasp of morality is so tenuous, a simple yes or no question will reveal our error? Do you really think we haven't thought this out, just using different reasoning? Do you think that my answer is not supported by my reasoning?

Do you assume atheists are stupid? You're sure acting like it.

Claiming that answering yes to your loaded question proves I believe in objective morality is laughable and ignorant, and that you either forgot or never payed attention to our arguments concerning the intellectual, secular, subjective reasoning that can be a basis for morality. If you HAD, you would know that it was on that basis that I answered yes, not "derp he believes in objective morality but is deluding himself derp."
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#288fudrickPosted 1/24/2013 10:47:10 AM
And wait, isn't C_Mat the one who refused to answer the following questions?

fudrick posted...
C_Mat posted...
(1) Do you personally feel that there are moral rules that other people should follow?
(2) Are there moral rules that other people should follow?


A few questions:

How is 2) different from 1)? Do you mean to ask if it is empirically demonstrable that there are moral rules inherent to the universe and independent from humans that other people should follow? As it is, I think most people would take these questions to mean the same thing.

What exactly do you mean by "should follow"? Do you mean that there are beneficial aspects to society that come from following these moral rules? Do you mean that people are compelled by an external force to follow these rules regardless of whether they produce beneficial aspects to society?

I think these questions must be cleared up before anyone can give an appropriate answer to your original questions, and before any answers given to those questions can be appropriately analyzed.

---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#289kozlo100Posted 1/24/2013 11:01:02 AM
I'm going to quote you a little bit out of order here, forgive me.

C_Mat posted...
And then once they've admitted that no moral belief can be proven "better" or "worse" than another moral belief, I would point out that nobody actually lives that way.


Do they not? Consensus is a thing. Chocolate ice cream is not objectively better than vanilla, but if we lived in a society where pretty much everyone liked chocolate more we're not going to sell a lot of vanilla. Would you cite such a society as evidence that chocolate actually is objectively better based on the fact that 'people live that way'?

To say that humans have value, though all of us agree that they do, is not a factual statement that can be empirically proven or is apparent to everyone.


This statement is much more complex than I think you realize.

To start with, you assert that all of us agree that humans have value, yet also assert that it is not apparent to everyone that humans have value. That's contradictory. If it is not apparent to everyone, then why do we all agree on it?

Then you have a pretty thorny job in front of you in defining value in such a way that 'empirically' or 'factually' showing humans have it requires something more than pointing to the fact that humans will, on the whole, tell you that they value other humans. Value is an inherently and necessarily subjective term. Nothing has value in the absence of a person to desire that thing.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#290fudrickPosted 1/24/2013 11:39:13 AM(edited)
Is it just me, or do people nearly invariably jump to ice cream flavors as examples during discussions about sujectivity and objectivity? Kinda funny.

kozlo100 posted...
This statement is much more complex than I think you realize.

To start with, you assert that all of us agree that humans have value, yet also assert that it is not apparent to everyone that humans have value. That's contradictory. If it is not apparent to everyone, then why do we all agree on it?

Then you have a pretty thorny job in front of you in defining value in such a way that 'empirically' or 'factually' showing humans have it requires something more than pointing to the fact that humans will, on the whole, tell you that they value other humans. Value is an inherently and necessarily subjective term. Nothing has value in the absence of a person to desire that thing.


Plus, the entire concept of morality (from the human perspective, which is really all we can discuss) practically hinges on the idea that humans have value. If there's no value to human life at all, what are we even discussing?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious