3 ms·

>>moral code tends to be derived from… No one is foolish enough to deny that various societies develop moral codes, generally based on their experiences (eg, p

by keane 10y ago

>>moral code tends to be derived from… No one is foolish enough to deny that various societies develop moral codes, generally based on their experiences (eg, pain). The question is whether moral statements (eg, "Humans should not murder") are objective and Real (they refer to some objective Moral Fact) or whether this was just a delusion we invented and used to survive. >>but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and emotion No. This is the entire Is-Ought argument. Saying "Hume is wrong" does not refute Hume. You would need to give a reason. >>looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. >>But to me, saying…is false. As expected, that's not a refutation. >>That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further.

0134340 10y ago
You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? The principle you adhere to destroys itself with even the faintest intellectual rigor. The more you try to make logic of illogic, religion, the more it waters down your version of truth. It happened to me also. What I then believed as a Christian became so watered down that it was far and away anything resembling Christianity. >>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order. >>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further. Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'. Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.
- keane 10y ago
  >You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? You're right that if the reasoning given for seeking, knowing, or relying on truth was "because man seeks truth" this would be an invalid reason, subject to the Is-Ought problem. But that's not the reason I encourage you to know truth. >The more you try to make logic of illogic… As far as Christianity, there seems to be sort of a divide between a Western tradition that intended to show Christianity as ultimately reasonable (ie, scholasticism in the Church of Rome, the Church of England, many Protestant denominations) and groups that sort of just admit the system is fundamentally unreasonable and mystical such as the Orthodox, Roman mystics like John of Ruusbroec, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I sort of side with the latter. >Yes, it can.… It metaethics, an individual human's decree/decision is subjective. Maybe start by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism >I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it. "I used to be a nihilist but then I thought, what's the point?"

by keane 10y ago

0134340 10y ago

You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? The principle you adhere to destroys itself with even the faintest intellectual rigor. The more you try to make logic of illogic, religion, the more it waters down your version of truth. It happened to me also. What I then believed as a Christian became so watered down that it was far and away anything resembling Christianity. >>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order. >>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further. Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'. Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.

keane 10y ago
>You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? You're right that if the reasoning given for seeking, knowing, or relying on truth was "because man seeks truth" this would be an invalid reason, subject to the Is-Ought problem. But that's not the reason I encourage you to know truth. >The more you try to make logic of illogic… As far as Christianity, there seems to be sort of a divide between a Western tradition that intended to show Christianity as ultimately reasonable (ie, scholasticism in the Church of Rome, the Church of England, many Protestant denominations) and groups that sort of just admit the system is fundamentally unreasonable and mystical such as the Orthodox, Roman mystics like John of Ruusbroec, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I sort of side with the latter. >Yes, it can.… It metaethics, an individual human's decree/decision is subjective. Maybe start by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism >I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it. "I used to be a nihilist but then I thought, what's the point?"