BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
shart1780 said:I don't understand why you claim that people with no moral fiber are wrong in any way.
I'm not sure if I've actually said that...
shart1780 said:I don't understand why you claim that people with no moral fiber are wrong in any way.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I'm not sure if I've actually said that...
shart1780 said:It seems to me like all Melon is saying is that right and wrong truly is decided by culture.
AEON said:
For all the post-accident debate, when a police officer arrives and begins taking notes, one truth will be clear: an accident happened. And in time, other truths will be determined. Ultimately, a description of the accident will emerge that corresponds to reality.
shart1780 said:
I'm assuming you believe it, otherwise I could come to the conclusion that you don't have a problem with people who have no morals.
You would get many different opinions that will most likely lead to false conclusions, but that doesn't have any bearing on the facts on what actually happened - it would have bearing on the opinions of what happened.BonoVoxSupastar said:
Not exactly. Not always. Let's say one of the persons involved is an elderly woman. Let's say she's also a different race than all the others involved.
So the elderly woman is obviously shaken by the experience, she feels she was in the right away. But after some forceful debate she's convinced it's her fault. And some of the onlookers may have gender, age, or racial bias so their views may be slanted.
So then what do you get?
AEON said:
You would get many different opinions that will most likely lead to false conclusions, but that doesn't have any bearing on the facts on what actually happened - it would have bearing on the opinions of what happened.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But when the accident is reported it's now "fact". Although that fact won't be really what happened.
Irvine511 said:
not to speak for Melon, but i think his passionate arguments against any kind of mutilation are less because it's objectively wrong in a cosmic sense and more because he (and we) have been raised in a society that has arrived at the consensus that mutilation is wrong. culturally objective? maybe? i dunno.
AEON said:
You are actually making the case for objectivity in this statement. You are saying there is such a thing as "what really happened."
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well of course when we're making the scenarios up, we'll know there's a "what really happened", but in real life that police report would be fact. And that's where it would end.
AEON said:
So you are asserting there is not a "what really happened" in real life accidents?
AEON said:
My question, for this discussion, was basically: “do Objective Moral Laws exist?” – It was not: “Do we know all of the Objective Moral Laws.”
AEON said:
Were the Nazi's right to burn Jews because most of the country's population loved Hitler and were anti-Semitic at the time?
WildHoneyAlways said:
Your logic is deeply flawed here.
Irvine511 said:
not to mention historically inaccurate.
Originally posted by shart1780
I don't believe we are, but some people can't seem to decide. I can see no logical reason why an atheist would come to the conclusion that there really is a right or wrong way to live or life, yet they cast judgments of right and wrong on others every day. As far as I see see it atheists who feel the need to make such judgments are hypocrites. Why claim to know anything about the idea of right or wrong if you don't claim to have any concrete grounds to make such assertions?
An atheist assumes that human beings have moral value, but he has neither a rational or ontological foundation for such a presupposition. A theist believes humans have moral value because they are created in the image of God.silja said:
An atheist would likely say that you do not need divine grounds for moral judgements. That we do not enjoy inflicting pain on others or causing them harm* because we recognise our own humanity in their pain.
silja said:
That the human spirit therefore is imbued with a sense of right or wrong. That this sense of right or wrong is our moral compass in life but that this moral compass is not objective since it springs from our individual perception of what ‘harm’ is.
AEON said:
An atheist assumes that human beings have moral value, but he has neither a rational or ontological foundation for such a presupposition.
AEON said:
An atheist assumes that human beings have moral value, but he has neither a rational or ontological foundation for such a presupposition. A theist believes humans have moral value because they are created in the image of God.
How would an atheist define “spirit?”
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Nice assumption.
silja said:
‘Believe’ being the operative word. Your ‘proof’ of moral value is that man is created in God’s image. If there is not God then it’s a lost argument. An atheist’s ‘proof’ of moral value is that humans have a sense of right or wrong whether they believe or not – except that I find it hard to believe that an atheist would use the word proof in this context.
Use ‘mind’ then. I have no preference either way.
You know, we could have an argument about the merits of different concepts of ontology but it’s a bit outside the subject of this thread.
AEON said:
And their assumption turns out to be right (either by accident or philosophically "piggy-backing on theism) - but they can offer no reason WHY it is right. And because they offer no reason why it is right, the atheistic assumption of human moral value can, and does, change quite frequently. It has no anchor in reality.
I do not beat another individual because that would be violating their rights, I would be right if I harmed an agressor to protect my rights or liberties, homosexuality or practically any sexual kink between consenting adults that doesn't infringe upon other parties is alright. We are not imbued with divine moral goodness, there is no outside force whatsoever, we have individuals living their lives and the rights that they have must take precedence - the rights of the individual and the ability to excercise their liberties both positive and detrimental can define the borders of a society in a manner more considered and less arbitrary than religion.And their assumption turns out to be right (either by accident or philosophically "piggy-backing on theism) - but they can offer no reason WHY it is right. And because they offer no reason why it is right, the atheistic assumption of human moral value can, and does, change quite frequently. It has no anchor in reality.
silja said:
Concrete grounds? An atheist would likely say that you do not need divine grounds for moral judgements. That we do not enjoy inflicting pain on others or causing them harm* because we recognise our own humanity in their pain. That the human spirit therefore is imbued with a sense of right or wrong. That this sense of right or wrong is our moral compass in life but that this moral compass is not objective since it springs from our individual perception of what ‘harm’ is. Is it causing damage to your feet and spine by wearing stiletto heels? Well, a good doctor will tell you so, but many women still wear them. ‘Harm’ and ‘pain’ come with sliding scales and that adds to the complexity of the issue.
*I’m excluding those with sociopath-like personalities. They are mentally ill and should not be used as examples – and this includes anyone who would ‘chop up babies in little pieces’.
A_Wanderer said:
You are making the claim that it is without rationalism, that point is invalidated if the materialistic view is built from a rational position of individual rights and liberties...-