Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

– Sarah Palin

Comments
---Mustela Nivalis: “If by “definition” you mean my moral standard, it’s something I’m working on being able to articulate, hence my participation in discussions like this one. Thank you for sharing my path for a little while.” Peace!StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
StephenB at 165, Mustela Nivalis: “The other conversation that could be had would end similarly: “Since I have more power than you, I conclude that my moral standard is the true absolute so you shall be my slave.” A conversation informed by the natural moral law could not end that way. Only fanaticism uninformed by reason, and the notion that morality doesn’t exist, promotes that kind of response. Is "natural moral law" a synonym for "absolute moral standard"? You still haven't demonstrated how to resolve disagreements over the nature of this moral law or standard. I cannot distinguish between your position and the more simply stated "This is what I believe." That's fine that you believe it, and I probably even share most of your moral standards, but that doesn't make them absolute. Further, even if they are absolute, you haven't shown how to demonstrate that. Evidence doesn’t lead to the self evident principles of right reason; evidence is interpreted in their light. How do you know that the principles you perceive to be self evident are actually right? If you can't articulate your position rationally, it really does come down to "This is what I believe." That's not a compelling argument. Are you prepared to answer my other two questions: What is your definition of morality? Why do you care about this discussion? If by "definition" you mean my moral standard, it's something I'm working on being able to articulate, hence my participation in discussions like this one. Thank you for sharing my path for a little while. I find this discussion interesting from a purely intellectual level because I genuinely don't understand your position and I would like to.Mustela Nivalis
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Sorry, that should read: Only two possibilities exist: Objective morality or personal preferences, and the latter always leads to "might makes right." So, ultimately, its Objective morality vs. "Might makes right."StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
----Mustela Nivalis: "The other conversation that could be had would end similarly: “Since I have more power than you, I conclude that my moral standard is the true absolute so you shall be my slave.” A conversation informed by the natural moral law could not end that way. Only fanaticism uninformed by reason, and the notion that morality doesn’t exist, promotes that kind of response. Only two possibilities exist: Objective morality or “might makes right.” ----“That is a false dichotomy; many philosophers have defined systems of morality that are not objective or absolute in the sense of existing independent of human minds but that nonetheless are not mere personal preference.” Which philosophers did you have in mind? Describe their “system of morality.” Why was it not based on their personal preference? ----“Be that as it may, the core problem with this defense of the existence of an absolute moral standard is that the consequences of not having one, even if they are as dire as you claim, have no bearing on whether or not one exists. We need positive evidence or arguments for its existence. Evidence doesn’t lead to the self evident principles of right reason; evidence is interpreted in their light. Are you prepared to answer my other two questions: What is your definition of morality? Why do you care about this discussion?StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
StephenB at 162, Since radical Islam Buddhism, and Darwinism all reject the inherent dignity of the human person, all are, to that extent, unreasonable and incapable of explaining why wanton murder is an evil act. Many Buddhists would disagree strongly with you, since a major precept of Buddhism is the sanctity of all living creatures. Further, "Darwinism" or, more accurately, modern evolutionary theory, is a scientific explanation of empirical observations, not a moral system. As Sesame Street says, one of these things is not like the others. I've read your post several times and I still don't see that you've explained how to resolve the differences between these two "absolute" standards of morality. At best, they can tell the tyrant only that they “prefer” to be treated well, to which the tyrant can say, “I prefer not to treat you well. By your own definition of morality, one preference is as good as another, which means that your preferences are no more valid than my preferences. Since I have more power than you, I choose my own morality which assures me that you should be my slave. The other conversation that could be had would end similarly: "Since I have more power than you, I conclude that my moral standard is the true absolute so you shall be my slave." Follow the logic of subjectivism, skepticism, and relativism all the way through. There are only two options available: The objective moral law or might makes right. Thus, anyone who questions the former accepts the latter by default. Another way to test these propositions is to try defining morality yourself. I have already provided my definition and expounded on it. If you do go through this exercise, you will find that only two options are available: Objective morality or personal preference. That is a false dichotomy; many philosophers have defined systems of morality that are not objective or absolute in the sense of existing independent of human minds but that nonetheless are not mere personal preference. Be that as it may, the core problem with this defense of the existence of an absolute moral standard is that the consequences of not having one, even if they are as dire as you claim, have no bearing on whether or not one exists. We need positive evidence or arguments for its existence.Mustela Nivalis
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
----Mustela Nivalis: "How would you resolve the disagreement between such a person [Islamic Terrorist] and, say, a Buddhist monk who holds a different view of absolute morality?" Reason first recognizes the natural moral law and concludes that all human beings have “inherent dignity.” Since radical Islam Buddhism, and Darwinism all reject the inherent dignity of the human person, all are, to that extent, unreasonable and incapable of explaining why wanton murder is an evil act. If humans have no inherent dignity, then there is no reason, in principle, why they cannot be murdered. That is not to say that all Muslims, Buddhists, or Darwinists support murder. The point is that they can provide no moral justification for condemning it. ---"Here, again, you appeal to reason rather than intuition. On which do you base your view of absolute morality and why?" You first asked me “how” we know about the natural moral law, to which I tried to explain that, through intuition, we have the innate ability to use our reason to apprehend it. I am not putting reason against intuition, I am simply answering a specific question that you asked in a specific context. One good way to test these propositions is to simply perform a reductio ad adsurdum. Assume that humans do not have inherent dignity. If follows, then, that they have no objective grounds for claiming that they deserve to be treated with respect. At best, they can tell the tyrant only that they “prefer” to be treated well, to which the tyrant can say, “I prefer not to treat you well. By your own definition of morality, one preference is as good as another, which means that your preferences are no more valid than my preferences. Since I have more power than you, I choose my own morality which assures me that you should be my slave. Follow the logic of subjectivism, skepticism, and relativism all the way through. There are only two options available: The objective moral law or might makes right. Thus, anyone who questions the former accepts the latter by default. Another way to test these propositions is to try defining morality itself. If you do go through this exercise, you will find that there are only two options: Objective morality or personal preference. The latter always leads to might makes right. Yet another way to test these propositions is to ask yourself why you even care about this discussion. If you think it through carefully, you will find that your concerns have a moral base that goes beyond personal preferences.StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
----Mustela Nivalis: "How would you resolve the disagreement between such a person [Islamic Terrorist] and, say, a Buddhist monk who holds a different view of absolute morality?" Reason first recognizes the natural moral law and then concludes that all human beings have “inherent dignity.” Since radical Islam Buddhism, and Darwinism all reject the inherent dignity of the human person, all are, to that extent, unreasonable and incapable of explaining why wanton murder is an evil act. If humans have no inherent dignity, then there is no reason, in principle, why they cannot be murdered. That is not to say that all Muslims, Buddhists, or Darwinists support murder. The point is that they can provide no moral justification for condemning it. ---"Here, again, you appeal to reason rather than intuition. On which do you base your view of absolute morality and why?" You first asked me “how” we know about the natural moral law, to which I tried to explain that, through intuition, we have the innate ability to use our reason to apprehend it. I am not putting reason against intuition, I am simply answering a specific question that you asked in a specific context. One good way to test these propositions is to simply perform a reductio ad adsurdum. Assume that humans do not have inherent dignity. If follows, then, that they have no objective grounds for claiming that they deserve to be treated with respect. At best, they can tell the tyrant only that they “prefer” to be treated well, to which the tyrant can say, “I prefer not to treat you well. By your own definition of morality, one preference is as good as another, which means that your preferences are no more valid than my preferences. Since I have more power than you, I choose my own morality which assures me that you should be my slave. Follow the logic of subjectivism, skepticism, and relativism all the way through. There are only two options available: The objective moral law or might makes right. Thus, anyone who questions the former accepts the latter by default. Another way to test these propositions is to try defining morality yourself. I have already provided my definition and expounded on it. If you do go through this exercise, you will find that only two options are available: Objective morality or personal preference. Another way to test it is to go through the other exercise that I recommended. Explain why you care about this matter at all. Again, you will find that your concerns have a moral base.StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
StephenB at 143, Other people are discussing the issue of your definition of morality, so I'll stick to this issue: "I’m still interested in understanding exactly how you would resolve a disagreement between two people who each claim to have absolute moral standards. How can reason be applied to positions that are held intuitively rather than logically?" Give me an example, and I will try to demonstrate. The first one that leaps to mind is the morality of Islamic terrorists. These individuals, whether the zealots who fly airplanes into buildings or those who organize them, truly believe that what they are doing is moral, by an absolute standard. Those of us they are attacking disagree. How would you resolve the disagreement between such a person and, say, a Buddhist monk who holds a different view of absolute morality? All religious doctrines must pass the test of reason. Here, again, you appeal to reason rather than intuition. On which do you base your view of absolute morality and why?Mustela Nivalis
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
StephenB:
You are using an objective measurement when you place us side by side. The yardstick simply uses numbers to express the reality.
As I illustrated above with my carnival chalk-line, objective standards can be of human devising. We agreed on a definition of tall and employed an external standard (the chalk line) to decide who is tall and who is short, for our purposes. Similarly, yardsticks and even the current definition of a meter (the distance traveled by light in free space in 1/299,792,458 second) are standards of human devising, attained by means of human consensus. It does not follow that my chalk line reflects a definition of "tall" that is transcendent or of other than human devising. Similarly, the definition of meter is neither transcendent nor something of other than human devising. Both are useful in making objective decisions regarding heights and lengths; both are of human devising, reflecting human consensus; neither are transcendent. Your claim for "objective morality" is much stronger. Your claim is that there are knowable standards of morality that are objective in the sense of transcendent and not of human devising. Your analogies vis measurement of height trade on more ordinary examples of "objectivity" that reflect non-transcedent standards and procedures of human devising. Hence they don't speak to the central assertion of your claim, with which we are taking issue.Voice Coil
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
To clarify: We seem to agree that two categories exist, but I think you put morality in the first class of things, whereas I put it in the second. fGfaded_Glory
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
There are two different categories here, one is the objective reality that we can all perceive to a greater or lesser extent, things like Colosseums and Roman huts, and the other is the inter-subjective description and valuation of that reality that may vary over times and places and is a function of our nature as individual human beings existing within various cultures and social structures. I don't know of many who would think that these are all one and the same thing. I certainly don't and therefore your comments don't really seem to apply to me. fGfaded_Glory
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
---faded glory: "To illustrate that, if you told an ancient Roman that the Colosseum is 189 meters long (don’t you just love the internet ) it would mean as little to him as telling him that slavery is wrong. To us, today, both statements have meaning." If you told him that the Colosseaum is no larger than his one room hut on the grounds that no one has yet heard of the word "meter," he would protest on the grounds that it really is larger as measured by whatever objective standard they were using at the time. The one thing he would not do is say that the Romans can conduct their games and entertain their audiences inside his living room because the apparent differences in dimensions were mere subjective opinions.StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
---Voice Coil: "I can determine “taller” versus “shorter” without a stick, however, and need no outside measure to decide that Shaq is taller than you. I just stand you side by side, learn something that is quite meaningful, and can certainly use the words “taller” and “shorter.” You are using an objective measurement when you place us side by side. The yardstick simply uses numbers to express the reality. It the difference wasn't objective, then I could simply say that the differences are merely your perception. Indeed, let's go with that. Though I am under six-feet tall, and although my vertical leap is (well, let's not go there) I can, nevertheless, dunk the ball better than Shaq, and if some objectivist says differently, that is merely his perception. In fact, it is my firm subjective conviction that I can dunk over Shaq, and it is just as valid as your opinion that I cannot. Fair enough?StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Clive, as you are probably aware, I bungled the quote at 147. To the question, "What is wrong with the world," Chesterton answered, "I am."StephenB
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
To illustrate that, if you told an ancient Roman that the Colosseum is 189 meters long (don't you just love the internet :) ) it would mean as little to him as telling him that slavery is wrong. To us, today, both statements have meaning. fGfaded_Glory
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Stephen, the measure of length is actually a very nice example of an inter-subjective yardstick. There is nothing absolute or objective about the meter or the inch, they are arbitrary units of measurement, invented by people at certain times and places and over time more and more universally adopted through cultural and social developments. Very similar to moral codes, I think. fGfaded_Glory
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
StephenB:
The point is that measurements which decide relative height can be established only by objective standards...Without that objective standard, one cannot use the words “tall” or “short” in any meaningful way.
I can determine "taller" versus "shorter" without a stick, however, and need no outside measure to decide that Shaq is taller than you. I just stand you side by side, learn something that is quite meaningful, and can certainly use the words "taller" and "shorter." Now say I now run a carnival ride that has been throwing people out of their seats on the back turn. I note that all the victims are short people, so I tell my partner, "Only tall people on this ride." He rightly asks, "what do you mean by tall?" I think again about the victims, recall the tallest victim, guestimate his height, and draw a chalk line on the wall. "This tall," says I. My partner thinks about the lawsuits, to which he is more adverse than I, so he holds out two fingers and says, "Add this much to play it safe." We agree, I erase my line, and draw a new one. Here we have an objective standard, to be sure, one that enables my partner and I to use the words "tall" and "short" meaningfully for our purposes. An objective standard of human devising, arrived at through negotiation, useful in a specific context.
Subjective morality is a logical impossibility.
Only once you've defined morality in a specific, narrow way. Hence you're back to reciting your definition of morality in support of your definition of morality.Voice Coil
December 16, 2009
December
12
Dec
16
16
2009
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
----Voice Coil: "I top 6 foot 3 inches, relatively tall. Except amongst my NBA teammates. There I’m relatively short.* The point is that measurements which decide relative height can be established only by objective standards. The measuring stick must be outside of you. The same objective standard that makes you shorter than Shaq makes me shorter than you. Without that objective standard, one cannot use the words "tall" or "short" in any meaningful way. Similarly, without an objective standard of morality, one cannot logically speak of being more or less moral. Just as height is meaningful only with respect to an objective standard of measurement, morality is meaningful only with respect to an objective standard of goodness. Subjective morality is a logical impossibility.StephenB
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Perhaps those who run this blog would like to explain the reasoning behind placing this ad on their site. http://hopenhagen.org/home/mapriddick
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
StephenB;
That is like saying that someone is very tall or that someone is very short, but the means for measuring height need not be objective. One can assess or measure morality only if morality is objective. If morality is not objective, then one cannot be more or less moral. That should be evident.
I top 6 foot 3 inches, relatively tall. Except amongst my NBA teammates. There I'm relatively short.* *not really for either.Voice Coil
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
----Voice Coil: "I find it an exercise devoid of content to state that the “true meaning of morality” includes reference to an external standard, and then conclude thereby that no system of values that omits reference to an external standard can be morality, by definition. Your definition is essentially a statement of your position. It is an empty exercise assert the correctness of that definition in support of your position. In so doing you have simply asserted your position again." That is like saying that someone is very tall or that someone is very short, but the means for measuring height need not be objective. One can assess or measure morality only if morality is objective. If morality is not objective, then one cannot be more or less moral. That should be evident.StephenB
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Very interesting Clive, and, yes, that man could write. Your snippet reminds me about the time that Chesterton was invited to join a group of celebrated intellectuals to analyze the subject, "What is wrong with the world?" After most of the other commentators had provided their answers in the form of a long lecture, Chesterton offered his own account of what was wrong with the world-----he said, "ME!"StephenB
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
StephenB:
IT is to state that which must be stated for intellectual clarity. The true meaning of morality...
I find it an exercise devoid of content to state that the "true meaning of morality" includes reference to an external standard, and then conclude thereby that no system of values that omits reference to an external standard can be morality, by definition. Your definition is essentially a statement of your position. It is an empty exercise assert the correctness of that definition in support of your position. In so doing you have simply asserted your position again. None of the above, however carefully crafted, provides answers to my original question that go beyond "one just knows" and now, "it is true by (my very strongly held) definition." We'll convert disparaging remarks vis the rationality of persons who don't find these formulae convincing into further intensifiers, also empty of content.Voice Coil
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
StephenB, Here's a gem I found from GK Chesterton's book What's Wrong With The World on morality as seen by evolutionists:
It will be said that not the wildest evolutionist really asks that we should become in any way unhuman or copy any other animal. Pardon me, that is exactly what not merely the wildest evolutionists urge, but some of the tamest evolutionists too. There has risen high in recent history an important cultus which bids fair to be the religion of the future--which means the religion of those few weak-minded people who live in the future. It is typical of our time that it has to look for its god through a microscope; and our time has marked a definite adoration of the insect. Like most things we call new, of course, it is not at all new as an idea; it is only new as an idolatry. Virgil takes bees seriously but I doubt if he would have kept bees as carefully as he wrote about them. The wise king told the sluggard to watch the ant, a charming occupation--for a sluggard. But in our own time has appeared a very different tone, and more than one great man, as well as numberless intelligent men, have in our time seriously suggested that we should study the insect because we are his inferiors. The old moralists merely took the virtues of man and distributed them quite decoratively and arbitrarily among the animals. The ant was an almost heraldic symbol of industry, as the lion was of courage, or, for the matter of that, the pelican of charity. But if the mediaevals had been convinced that a lion was not courageous, they would have dropped the lion and kept the courage; if the pelican is not charitable, they would say, so much the worse for the pelican. The old moralists, I say, permitted the ant to enforce and typify man's morality; they never allowed the ant to upset it. They used the ant for industry as the lark for punctuality; they looked up at the flapping birds and down at the crawling insects for a homely lesson. But we have lived to see a sect that does not look down at the insects, but looks up at the insects, that asks us essentially to bow down and worship beetles, like ancient Egyptians.
Clive Hayden
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
---Voice Call: "But stating that (to paraphrase) “moral standards must be extrinsic, otherwise they wouldn’t be moral standards” is simply to repeat your particular definition of moral standard. One doesn’t establish anything “by definition.” IT is to state that which must be stated for intellectual clarity. The true meaning of morality must be emphasized to dramtatize the irrationality of those who claim allegiance to it's name even as they declare that it can also be something else, ---that it can be subjective or ---or that it can be created---or that it can be worked out, none of which are logically possible. Many come to this site insisting that one can be moral while questioning the existence of the very objective moral standards that define morality. If the moral standard doesn't exist, then obviously they cannot conform to it, which means that they can't be moral.StephenB
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
A good human being is one that operates according to the way he was designed, namely to practice virtue and pursue that end for which he was made. ---"Mustela Nivalis: "This assumes that human beings were designed. Unless you have some objective, empirical evidence for that claim, it is no more convincing than the assertion that an absolute moral standard exists." That statement was not designed to show that objective morality exists but rather to show that if there is no objective moraltiy, there can be no morality at all. You will notice that I have carefully defined morality so that we would both know what I am talking about. Subjective morality cannot exist; it is an illusion. ---"I’m still interested in understanding exactly how you would resolve a disagreement between two people who each claim to have absolute moral standards. How can reason be applied to positions that are held intuitively rather than logically?" Give me an example, and I will try to demonstrate. Meanwhile, I will give you one of my own. Remember, morality cannot exist without reason, and reason cannot exist without morality. Consider the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill, [which should be translated as "Murder,"), meaning that one cannot take the life of another person without a very good reason. At the one extreme is pacifism, which forbids even self defense, and at the other extreme is reckless homicide. Both extremes are unreasonable, are they not? All dogmatic assertions about morality, or anything, for that matter, must pass the test of reason. All religious doctrines must pass the test of reason. Truth and Goodness are inseparable as I tried to show earlier. That is why, by the way, that those who question the standards for objective moraltiy also tend to question the standards of reason itself. It happens everyday on this site. ----"(By the way, as I mentioned to another participant, I am not opposed to the idea of an objective moral standard in principle, and I believe that such a standard would relate to human nature. I simply don’t see how to defend such a standard purely from intuition." Well, remember, intuition is not exactly the same thing as perception or subjective interpretation. The natural moral law is written both "in nature," and in "the human heart." We "perceive" something that is really there; we don't just "conceive" it. That is what we call conscience. Nevertheless, it is inate, that is, it is built in to our human nature as a faculty of knowing, much like the mind is a built in faculty for knowing. It is also primative and incomplete. It needs instruction and development, and, it can be compromised and even deadened, but it is there nevertheless. Can you imagine, in the name of epistemological clarity, walking up to a nightengale and asking, "Where did you learn that song?"StephenB
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Try it this way: Clive:
I am showing you that the standard is extrinsic first…
OK. But stating that (to paraphrase) “moral standards must be extrinsic, otherwise they wouldn’t be moral standards” is simply to repeat your particular definition of moral standard. One doesn’t establish anything “by definition.”Voice Coil
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
I am showing you that the standard is extrinsic first...
OK. But stating that (to paraphrase) "moral standards must be extrinsic, otherwise they wouldn't be moral standards" is simply to repeat your particular definition of moral standard. One doesn't establish anything "by definition."
Voice Coil
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Voice Coil,
Do you really want to respond that you know that your ethical standards are objective because standards in ethics are by definition objective?
I am showing you that the standard is extrinsic first, meaning not conventional, and objective, not subjective and could be opposite what they are with just as much validity as they claim in any position.Clive Hayden
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
StephenB at 137, A good human being is one that operates according to the way he was designed, namely to practice virtue and pursue that end for which he was made. This assumes that human beings were designed. Unless you have some objective, empirical evidence for that claim, it is no more convincing than the assertion that an absolute moral standard exists. I'm still interested in understanding exactly how you would resolve a disagreement between two people who each claim to have absolute moral standards. How can reason be applied to positions that are held intuitively rather than logically? (By the way, as I mentioned to another participant, I am not opposed to the idea of an objective moral standard in principle, and I believe that such a standard would relate to human nature. I simply don't see how to defend such a standard purely from intuition.)Mustela Nivalis
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply