keane

29 ms·

271.
by keane 10y ago
>> It should be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of history and modern homo sapiens cultures that there is no such thing as "Moral Objectivity" Actually observing what humans do (history, culture) as you propose would
272.
by keane 10y ago
>> no one has been able to show this external source. For a start, look up Nihilism on Wikipedia or Moral Anti-realism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: this is why people are Nihilists and Anti-realists. >> And I th
273.
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 n
274.
by keane 10y ago
True, it's unavoidable some humans are always going to be wrong. But, in the same vein as earlier, we can't reason that because (some) humans don't care about what is true, humans should continue to not care about what is tru
275.
by keane 10y ago
>> The argument is that for morality to be objective, something external must be the source. This is what Hume shows. Can you refute his observation by providing a source of objective morality that is Empirical/not external&#x2F
276.
by keane 10y ago
Can you refute the Is-Ought problem or not?
277.
by keane 10y ago
The argument isn't to "prove...that morality is objective" or, for that matter, to prove God exists. It is just an observation that "For morality to be Objective, this is the necessary dependency: God". It's no
278.
by keane 10y ago
>> This is quite literally nothing more than the age old 'there cannot be an objective morality without a higher power Indeed, the argument is quite storied. Since Hume's observation in 1738, it has never been refuted. Foll
279.
by keane 10y ago
Ultimately I believe my position is as knowable as many things. But as you notice, the wider point is that anytime we believe that humans have objective value or that it is objectively wrong to, say, murder a human, we have departed from st
280.
by keane 10y ago
>> They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures... This is what Is-Ought is negating. We can't observe a Fact ("Is") and conclude a Value/Moral Fact ("Ought"). Your observance of str
281.
by keane 10y ago
You've underestimated the reach of the Is-Ought problem. Again, we can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy". You, like Sam Harris, start by ignoring the Is-Ought problem and
282.
by keane 10y ago
Can you be more specific? What is the fallacy?
283.
by keane 10y ago
>> doesn't get you anywhere It is the only way to understand statements about morality as objective and real rather than as invented delusions that can be ignored. >> Which religion, and which timeframe? This is now the w
284.
by keane 10y ago
Maybe, but if an Atheist is to propose/claim an Objective "moral higher order" they do so with an acceptance of a standard just as outside of Empiricism as the Theist's.
285.
by keane 10y ago
Both Atheists and Theists sometimes act in accordance with various suggested Norms and sometimes do not. However, the observation is that if Atheism is true this has implications for morality, namely moral facts do not actually exist. I exp
286.
by keane 10y ago
>"Morals can be created and defined to help humans [X]" No one is foolish enough to deny that human societies can employ ethical codes and that doing so can help a society survive or thrive. But what is debated is if there exis
287.
by keane 10y ago
I very much agree with the evaluation that philosopher/biographer James Harris concludes with here: it is easy and extremely common to misunderstand Hume as a Moral Anti-realist or as a Moral Subjectivist. Reading David Hume's arg
288.
by keane 10y ago
I'm frequently on a network that performs below 2.0 Mbps (with fast.com recording it as 2.0 Mbps, 1.6 Mbps, and 900 Kbps), generally with around 20% packet loss on the third hop (Verizon, now Frontier). Netflix streams perfectly. It is
289.
by keane 10y ago
I'm very glad you found it useful!
290.
by keane 10y ago
>>[mgraupner] Why is there so little moral left in this world? >>[psadri] Does nature by default have morals? Morality is the differentiation of actions proper and improper; generally defined 'morals' is that language
291.
by keane 11y ago
Disappointed once again in the immediate cynicism here but by now I should know not to be surprised by it in any community where nothing is sacred.
292.
by keane 11y ago
While both humans and animals may practice empathy, cooperation, or other behaviors that help them as individuals or groups to survive or thrive, this falls short of 'morality'. Morality is positions about what one should do: eg &
293.
by keane 11y ago
Buddhism is merely a method to accept Nihilism (Nihilism being "the belief that all values are baseless"). The Anathapindika records that the Buddha taught that there was no Creator God (issara-karaṇa-vāda), therefore there were n
294.
by keane 11y ago
Peter Thiel was greatly influenced by Girard at Stanford [1] and he worked to create the nonprofit that supports the proliferation and application of Girard's theories, Imitatio [2]. You can get an idea of some of Girard's thought
295.
by keane 11y ago
metaethics and the thought of John Wesley
296.
by keane 11y ago
The suggestion of "spontaneous speech" comes from not only a "highly rehearsed" intonation but is perhaps primarily the result of extreme editing, as discussed in this revealing audio post looking at the practice by On t
297.
by keane 11y ago
The author of the paper speculates that deontologists arrive at their belief via an emotional psychological process while consequentialists employ a more "cognitive" process. But these observations of psychology, as you write, are
298.
by keane 11y ago
>so many beliefs people have about morality rest on assumptions: my beliefs must be rational, founded on evidence, or else they are invalid. This is a very important observation. Moral language is fundamentally Imperatives: statements ab
299.
by keane 11y ago
Buddha taught that there was no God, therefore there were no morals, that the universe was deterministic, but that even so humans should strive to act with loving-kindness. Perhaps in your estimation this is a simple truth. Jesus' call
300.
by keane 12y ago
To take the opposing position, use of hallucinogens or other psychotropic agents will physically alter the brain and may cause real, permanent effects, e.g. HPPD¹. The consequences and danger are something I choose to avoid and I would enco

More ›