Materialist Derangement Syndrome on Display

_{Barry Arrington

November 18, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have already coined the term “Darwinist Derangement Syndrome.” See here. Closely related to DDS is MDS (“Materialist Derangement Syndrome”), which pathology Mark Frank aptly demonstrates in this exchange:

Barry: Here is a self-evident moral truth: “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.”

Mark Frank:

Usually you define self-evident as leading to absurdity. What kind of absurdity results from holding it is not evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

(We must have held this debate over 100 times on UD by now – but I never saw an answer to this).

Mark keeps asking over and over for someone to demonstrate to him why a self-evident truth is true, when he has been told over and over again that self-evident truths cannot be demonstrated – self-evident principles are not conclusions that one reasons to; they are premises upon which all reasoning is based.

Mark, maybe you will finally get it if you ponder these questions. What kind of absurdity would result from denying that:

2+2=4

That a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense

That the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees

That you are conscious

That a finite whole is greater than or equal to any of its parts

BTW, you also suggest that William Lane Craig would deny that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. This statement is outrageously false. Do you have no shame sir?

Alan Fox comes in a close second with this gem of MDS:

Comment 57 posted at 3:14: “Moral absolutes, there ain’t!”

Comment 58 posted at 3:20: “all [people] deserved the universal right to life.”

Psychologists talk about the concept of “cognitive dissonance,” the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting beliefs. People cope with cognitive dissonance by engaging in dissonance reduction. Alan appears to be able to deny a concept and then affirm it six minutes later. His dissonance reduction coping strategies must be a marvel to behold. Alternatively, Alan may well be a closet ID proponent shilling as a materialist. That would make sense.

Comments

MF: The point is that a proof will in the end come down to self evident points, and such will obly further be arguable on what happens when one tries to dismiss or deny. In this case we see a studious attempt to take the pose of skepticism, you prove to me. Actually, it is, the opposite: the long since settled general consensus, pivoting on the value and equality of human life is that wantonly taking life is something that we have no right to. I have shown what happens if that is denied, and where it ends which is absurd, chaotic and horrific -- clan blood feuds. For, we will never shake the concept that one's own life is valuable, and that of those one cares about naturally. So, the issue is really just to extend that caring to all people. The burden is on the foot of those who would implicitly deny by dismissing through selective hyperskepticism. And in that context, the matter on the table is that to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a young child is self-evidently wrong. Let's see if anyone will be so bold as to deny -- not merely pose on skeptical questions, about it. That strange reluctance shows us the point, doesn't it? For, it implies that the objectors who propose to convert morality into subjectivism, know that there is something precious about this paradigm case of innocent helpless life that should not be violated. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

KF #22 and the OP itself. I am not asking for reasons why murder is wrong. We can all agree that it is wrong and provide reasons for that view. What I want is an objective proof that it is wrong. To succeed in being objective such a proof clearly cannot make an appeal to someone's feelings (that would be subjective), in particular it must be a proof that works for someone like Thompson who does not care about other people's suffering. (I am not saying Thompson has to be able to follow it. He may be too stupid. But it must follow logically for someone with his lack of feelings.) So emotional descriptions of how awful it is or how we love life or the possibility of leading to widespread murder and blood feuds are irrelevant. Those are subjective appeals to people who love life and disapprove of murder and blood feuds. They don't work for someone who does not care about them. Barry has sort of responded by saying these objective truths are self-evident and therefore not amenable to proof or reasons. When challenged as to how you can recognise a self-evident truth he said because denying it leads to absurdity. When asked what absurdity comes from denying that torturing children for personal amusement is wrong there is no response. Notice that if/when this absurdity is forthcoming it has to be objectively absurd. It cannot appeal to subjective feelings about what is right or what one ought to do or is obligated to do.Mark Frank_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

I have already showed enough above on why murder is wrong, if such proof were needed. The fact that we love our own lives and cherish ourselves where we can easily see that others are as ourselves should be enough. More than enough. The CI extension to the letting loose of widespread murder and the blood feuds that would result are a further point. And so forth as -- with all due respect -- you do know or should know long since. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

KF #20 - we may not have a duty to explain to prove to Thompson that what he did was deeply wrong - but if it is an objective fact that we was wrong then there should be some way of proving he was wrong. Otherwise how does it differ from our joint subjective outrage at what he did?Mark Frank_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

MF: we have no duty to the psycho-/socio- path, to try to prove to his satisfaction that his insanity is insane. Such a one for whatever reason has become blind or calloused to proper moral restraints and, on proving a menace, is properly to be removed from where he can act out vile fantasies. Whether we just put to an asylum, or in addition impose penalties on criminal law would seem dependent on the degree to which we can rightfully deem such a one responsible enough to have known and acted better. For, recognising that one OUGHT not to do Z, is separable from one's feelings or impulses towards Z. Mere absence of revulsion sufficient to turn aside, or even a strong attraction to Z do not justify Z. And if we have responsible awareness and ability to form a sound opinion and judgement regarding Z, then we are responsible to refrain from Z regardless of feelings or absence thereof. For instance, regardless of temptation to adultery and a faded attraction to one's wife, one has sworn duties to refrain from adultery and to cherish one's wife. And, as a blessing, acting with love towards one's wife will often rekindle appropriate affections. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

#18 WJM
You establish it by the fact that it requires no evidence, argument or additional information in order to apprehend that it is true.
The heart of our disagreement is how to tell the difference between child torture for personal pleasure being a self-evident moral truth and being an almost universally agreed subjective reaction. In both cases no evidence, argument or additional information is required. So this will not settle the issue. Now take a real case of child torture for personal pleasure - the Jamie Bulger murder.. Thompson was judged to have shown no remorse and to be a psychopath (less certain for Venables). How do you set about proving to Thompson that he was wrong? As a moral subjectivist, I don't have to - I just accept that his morals are wildly out of synch with most of humanity and we all want him put away for life. But if it is objectively true that he was wrong then there should be some kind of way of making it apparent. Or do you just keep on telling him it is self-evidently true? In which case how do our positions differ in practice?Mark Frank_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

But how do you establish that it is per se self-evident?
You establish it by the fact that it requires no evidence, argument or additional information in order to apprehend that it is true.William J Murray_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

...our recognition of the inherent value of that child and his person.
Exactly. Innocent (especially young) people deserve not to suffer at the hands of psychopaths and we all support a police and judicial system that can deal with the psychopath on our behalf. Do you, KF, extend the same human rights to homosexuals? Would you allow gay men to marry and live in legal, stable relationships, bothering nobody? If not, why not? Is a self-evident moral principle involved or is it just blind prejudice that guides you?Alan Fox_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

PHV, here is an example: error exists. As a live mind you understand this. Now, try to deny it, and see what happens -- it is undeniable. Likewise, consider a red ball on a table, A. This partitions the world W = { A | NOT_A }, from which LOI, LNC and LEM immediately arise from simply the recognition of world partition. Likewise, if A exists, we can ask why and seek a reasonable answer. Simple as these seem to be, much follows from them, they are not empty repetitions of the order, a bachelor is an unmarried man. Likewise, that it is immoral to kidnap, torture rape and murder a child is self evident and that self evidence manifests our recognition of the inherent value of that child and his person. Advice: if you want to try to deny or obfuscate this one, don't do it in the presence of X, who lost his young son just in this way. Think about these things a little bit. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

B Arrington,
1. That there are no self-evident truths of any kind.
I’ve never considered this exact question, but the first thing that comes to mind is that tautologies are “self-evident truths.” So no. That also disposes of 3.
2. That there are no self-evident moral truths, including the statement “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.”
Not quite.
3. The idea of “self-evident truth” is incoherent.
No.
4. Some truths are not self-evident. Therefore, no truths are self-evident.
No.
5. None of the above.
No. What I believe is that there are self-evident logical truths, and that there may be self-evident moral truths. But I can’t distinguish a “self-evident” moral truth from a truth that just feels right to me. There are certainly moral truths that feel self-evident to me—freedom is good, happiness is good, needless suffering is bad. But I can’t prove them objectively. And I suspect that you can’t either, because we keep asking how you’d do it and you keep telling us that we’re liars if we don’t feel the same way you do. Since I can’t distinguish a “self-evident” moral truth from a personal preference, I can’t say I cleave to an objective moral truth. All my moral truths are ultimately subjective, because I can’t appeal to anything outside of my own head to prove or support them. The corollary is that I don’t think anyone else can identify truly objective moral criteria, either. I think the inability of any objectivists to point out actual objective standards supports that position. “Self-evidence” doesn’t cut it, for many reasons: your report of what’s “self-evident” is a subjective one, other people have different “self-evident” truths, “self-evident” truths change over time, etc. I think the closest you can come is the easy case—torturing children for fun. I think you use that question because it’s easy. No one will, in the real world, disagree with you, so it feels objective. We all share that moral principle.
You are correct in this sense. There really is no conversation that we could have that would be sufficient to convince a person that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. The truth is either apprehended on its face or it is not. Someone who denies it is stating, in essence, there is no moral truth at all. Therefore, trying to convince that person they should accept this moral truth by appealing to still more basic principles of moral truth is futile.
Except that doesn’t logically prove your point. It’s entirely possible, and I think the truth, that in a subjective, relativist world, functioning human beings in our society would self-select for people who share that principle. So everyone would share it, even though it’s not truly objective. It’s like claiming that everyone has shoes. Of course they do, it’s just a matter of objective fact. Look around you in the office, who’s not wearing shoes? Q.E.D., right? No, it’s a faulty argument. It’s a feel-good argument, not a substantive one. Bad facts make bad law. I’ve been trying to pull us towards a more useful and interesting hypo—what about the borderline cases? What about slavery? It wasn’t “self-evidently” wrong for generations of otherwise decent human beings. At some point, it became “self-evidently” wrong. Or is it “self-evident” at all? I can’t tell, because “self-evidence” isn’t actually an objective criteria in this case. It’s just what you feel, which isn’t what everyone else feels, and isn’t what everyone else has felt throughout history.
Finally, just so I am clear about this as well, do you accept the proposition “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure” as self-evidently true?
Is this is where you ban me for not answering the question the way you intended me to? No, I accept that it’s true for me because I believe the welfare of children is a moral good, torture is a moral wrong, etc. You might call those things self-evident for me, because I’m hard-pressed to break it down into any more granular principles. But I can’t prove that they’re self-evident for other people, and in fact empirical evidence suggests that they’re not. Other people can and have disagreed with these principles. When they do, the rest of us take action to stop them, not because the guilty party secretly feels like what they did was wrong, but because the rest of us feel that it’s wrong and put our beliefs into action. It doesn’t matter to us whether a killer sincerely believes that God ordered him to do it, mes rea is satisfied if he knew his actions would result in the death of an innocent person. That’s the rule a consensus of us have put into place, but there’s no objective criteria for determining whether it’s correct or not. Since I answered six questions of yours, would you indulge me and answer two of my own? I assume your feeling for self-evident truths covers cases that are less unanimous than child torture. Is it morally wrong to resist arrest if you sincerely believe that the officer is abusing his authority? Is it possible that you're wrong? (I suspect, however, that this debate will end as most of your discussions do--a triumphant declaration of victory in a new post, and banning to ensure that it's true. Do you ever wonder if your frequent resort to banning people who disagree with you reflects on the strength of your arguments?)Pro Hac Vice_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Oops reposting with blockquotes! Barry:
Finally, just so I am clear about this as well, do you accept the proposition “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure” as self-evidently true?
“It’s a trap!!!" /Admiral Akbar We all agree that torturing babies is abhorrent, impossible to conceive of (I hope),beyond all reason, utterly intolerable. But how do you establish that it is per se self-evident? The ethical reason for not torturing babies is that a baby’s right to life pre-empts any justification for harming a baby. The right to life of those millions industrially murdered by the Nazi regime should have been protected by that right. We have the right to intervene and prevent genocide because we have an ethical obligation to those being murdered; an obligation to protect them as far as we are capable.Alan Fox_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Finally, just so I am clear about this as well, do you accept the proposition “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure” as self-evidently true? "It's a trap!!! /Admiral Akbar We all agree that torturing babies is abhorrent, impossible to conceive of (I hope),beyond all reason, utterly intolerable. But how do you establish that it is per se self-evident? The ethical reason for not torturing babies is that a baby's right to life pre-empts any justification for harming a baby. The right to life of those millions industrially murdered by the Nazi regime should have been protected by that right. We have the right to intervene and prevent genocide because we have an ethical obligation to those being murdered; an obligation to protect them as far as we are capable.Alan Fox_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

WJM: I note, that it is on attending to and understanding a SET in light of experience of the world as a rational, aware, insightful mind, that one sees it true and necessarily true on pain of absurdity. I think in too many cases modern or ultra-modern absurdities pivot on a sort of induced secondary misunderstanding. Put another way: if you believe an absurdity to be true and reject or even stoutly resist correction, then there remains only the inversion that tries to label the true as false or incomprehensible. and yes, such is delusional, which looks uncomfortably like an ever spreading state of mind in our civilisation, which seems more and more bent on the march of folly. Notice above, how I have tried to awaken clean rational insight to see clearly that which should be intuitive, and to see clearly what happens on attempted denial. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

PS: In case games are afoot, we can define numbers from collecting sets from the empty one up, thence the continuum [by decimal or similar fractions of countably infinite terms], then negatives then by sqrt - 1, a complex plane x + j*y, which defines a plane. this can be set with origin on side AB of a triangle and with re axis along AB. The j*y axis will be such that a rotating vector of sufficient length r = sqrt(x^2 + y^2) in the plane, Z, will sweep C. Angles, planarity etc and straightness are all locked in. Parallel lines can be defined in the plane Z by setting y = m*x + c and displacing by changing c, one who understands will see the nature of being parallel in Z and will see that it necessarily holds; if necessary by deducing length of a perp to the line as it intersects the other. Such a space will have the parallel line premise necessarily holding, and holding on pain of absurdity on denial.kairosfocus_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice Just so I am clear here, for which of the following are you arguing? 1. That there are no self-evident truths of any kind. 2. That there are no self-evident moral truths, including the statement “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.” 3. The idea of “self-evident truth” is incoherent. 4. Some truths are not self-evident. Therefore, no truths are self-evident. 5. None of the above. WJM: “The definition of “self-evident” is that the proposition is apprehended as true on its own merit, without any need for argument or evidence.” PHV: “Then conversation over. You have declared it to be self-evidently true that you are correct, and that it is unnecessary (and perhaps impossible) to support that statement with argument or evidence.” You are correct in this sense. There really is no conversation that we could have that would be sufficient to convince a person that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. The truth is either apprehended on its face or it is not. Someone who denies it is stating, in essence, there is no moral truth at all. Therefore, trying to convince that person they should accept this moral truth by appealing to still more basic principles of moral truth is futile. Finally, just so I am clear about this as well, do you accept the proposition “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure” as self-evidently true?Barry Arrington_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

MF: In a flat plane -- and, strictly a triangle is planar and its points define a plane -- it seems clear that angle sum triangle holds, as does the equivalent parallel lines postulate: equidistant straight lines in the same flat plane will be at the same separation anywhere. That is locked into what parallel means in this context. The assertion that this does not hold (as was used to create non-Euclidean Geometries) is equivalent to leaving such a space, e.g. a "triangle" on the curved surface of the earth. The problem was that evidently such spaces had not been thought through as possible. Notice Wolfram Math world:
In three dimensions, there are three classes of constant curvature geometries. All are based on the first four of Euclid's postulates, but each uses its own version of the parallel postulate. The "flat" geometry of everyday intuition is called Euclidean geometry (or parabolic geometry), and the non-Euclidean geometries are called hyperbolic geometry (or Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss geometry) and elliptic geometry (or Riemannian geometry). Spherical geometry is a non-Euclidean two-dimensional geometry. It was not until 1868 that Beltrami proved that non-Euclidean geometries were as logically consistent as Euclidean geometry.
KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Interestingly, I think, Christ referred in his parable of Lazarus and the rich man, to the compassion of the street-dogs towards him in his indigence, licking his sores.' And it's a well-know fact these days that mammals often evince a degree of empathy, even spirituality (e.g. elephants mourning) that would put the conscienceless human being to shame, were it not on the direct inspiration of the Creator, since they lack free will (at least, of such a nature as we have, since, intuitively I cannot conceive of them as mere robots.) So, incandescent vilification of the rich man in the parable by Jesus, decidedly out of temper with the words of the author of that otherwise beautiful hymn, All Things Bright and Beautiful. Somehow,.... 'The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate.' ... doesn't quite cut it. Jesus can be gentle, meek and mild... and ... not gentle Jesus meek and mild...Axel_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Different wiring, I suppose one might say. Or perhaps a plain absence of wiring (and certainly no PCB), one might say of the psycho.Axel_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

I think you relativists are correct, in that you have to have a conscience to automatically perceive a truth as self-evident - the kind of conscience most people have. A psychopath, who would, ipso facto, be a relativist, although I doubt that all relativists would be psychopaths, since atheists, baulking at logic and reason leading to conclusions they find unacceptable, cannot see the implications of their relativism in terms of morality. If a psychopath murdered someone and, while driving with his victim's body in the boot of his car, was stopped for a routine matter by traffic police, he almost certainly wouldn't turn a hair, whereas it is a self-evident truth to most people that, in the psychopath's shoes, a more ordinary Joe might even faint with the fear of his crime being discovered, so intense would his feeling of guilt be felt.Axel_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Incidentally interesting that Barry included: That the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees That of course was once thought to be self-evidently true but it isn't true in general - only in Euclidean geometry.Mark Frank_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Barry In the past I have asked you how are we to tell a self-evident statement from one that appears obviously true to pretty much everyone (given that apparently obviously true statements have so often turned out to be false). You have responded that by saying that denying self-evident statements leads to absurdity – indeed your provide examples above. So once more: What kind of absurdity results from holding it is not evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?Mark Frank_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

<bloc
The definition of “self-evident” is that the proposition is apprehended as true on its own merit, without any need for argument or evidence.
Then conversation over. You have declared it to be self-evidently true that you are correct, and that it is unnecessary (and perhaps impossible) to support that statement with argument or evidence. Arrington goes one step further and implies that anyone who disagrees is lying. This is an even simpler than the “grand sez who” – the grand “because.” Why? Because. How can you tell? Because.
Can you delineate the set of “self-evident” moral truths? Is it self-evidently true that abortion is wrong? That God exists as part of a trinity? That lying is wrong? To murder children for some reason other than pleasure?
None of this matters – it is all smoke thrown up to avoid the simple fact that either the statement given is self-evidently true or it is not. All you are trying to do now is avoid the reasoning that necessarily will follow from agreeing that the statement given is self-evidently true. The existence of questionable or debatable moral statements is irrelevant to the point that the given statement is self-evidently true.
The point of those questions is to illustrate that you can’t tell which moral truths are self-evident. If your determination of whether a truth is “self-evident” is down to your subjective moral process, then it isn’t an objective standard anymore. In other words, even if there is some common core of objective moral standards out there, if you can’t objectively determine what’s in it, then we’re still in a relativist world.
For example, in the abortion conflict, the moral relativist has no reason to consider the view that their position may be wrong because, in their view, morality is all subjective anyway.
Once again, you are making an enormous (and erroneous) assumption and calling it logic. It still isn’t logical. Nothing about relativism precludes people reconsidering their positions. As a moral relativist, I can and do consider that my positions might be wrong. As a practical example, I used to strongly support capital punishment. A friend argued that I was morally wrong to do so. I considered their arguments and ultimately agreed. What about relativism would logically preclude that process?Pro Hac Vice_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

To a relativist, this looks like you just picked a moral statement that in practice we’d all agree too, labeled it “self evident,” and used that as a dodge to escape the need to actually identify external objective moral criteria. Your position is still ultimately “I sez.”
The definition of "self-evident" is that the proposition is apprehended as true on its own merit, without any need for argument or evidence. There is a difference between agreeing that a proposition is true, and agreeing that it is self-evidently true. Just "agreeing" with the proposition is not enough to warrant it as "self-evidently" true. "It is immoral to torture children for personal pleasure." Do you require any debate, argument or evidence before agreeing that this statement is true? Do you need to examine the belief system and moral structure of the person doing the torturing? Do you need to know the social mores of where the torturer lives? Do you need to check their lawbooks? Or, is all the information you need to agree that it is true contained in that statement? If so, then you agree that the statement is self-evidently true by definition.
Can you delineate the set of “self-evident” moral truths? Is it self-evidently true that abortion is wrong? That God exists as part of a trinity? That lying is wrong? To murder children for some reason other than pleasure?
None of this matters - it is all smoke thrown up to avoid the simple fact that either the statement given is self-evidently true or it is not. All you are trying to do now is avoid the reasoning that necessarily will follow from agreeing that the statement given is self-evidently true. The existence of questionable or debatable moral statements is irrelevant to the point that the given statement is self-evidently true.
In other words, if two people disagree about a moral principle, do they have any way to resolve the dispute objectively?
Perhaps they do; perhaps not. It depends on whether or not they will agree to more fundamental moral statements that can be extrapolated towards a rational resolution in their conflict. The problem is that under moral relativism, there can be no expectation of resolving moral conflicts objectively, because no binding, objective criteria is assumed to exist. For example, in the abortion conflict, the moral relativist has no reason to consider the view that their position may be wrong because, in their view, morality is all subjective anyway. Perhaps they can be emotionally manipulated to change their mind, but lacking an agreed, binding, presumed-objective criteria, there is no means by which to logically argue the relativist out of their current moral view. Only if the two parties agree that there is an objective moral basis that binds all humans, and agree on certain fundamental moral premises (such as the self-evidently true moral statement above), AND agree that humans are prone to error and failures of logic, only then then can there be a rational debate where we expect that one of us is wrong and can be rationally convinced to change their views given a conclusive argument.William J Murray_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

To a relativist, this looks like you just picked a moral statement that in practice we'd all agree too, labeled it "self evident," and used that as a dodge to escape the need to actually identify external objective moral criteria. Your position is still ultimately "I sez." Can you delineate the set of "self-evident" moral truths? Is it self-evidently true that abortion is wrong? That God exists as part of a trinity? That lying is wrong? To murder children for some reason other than pleasure? In other words, if two people disagree about a moral principle, do they have any way to resolve the dispute objectively?Pro Hac Vice_{November 18, 2013
November
11
Nov
18
18
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply