Ed George asserted that morality is based on societal consensus. Upright Biped utterly demolished that argument. See here. Seversky and Ed tried to respond to UB’s arguments.
Let’s start with Sev:
I, like everyone else here, would also want [the rape] to stop. Why? I should not have to say this but it is because we can imagine her suffering and know that it is not something we would like to experience nor would we want to see it inflicted on anyone else. It’s called empathy and its derived principle of the Golden Rule which, in my view, is more than sufficient grounds for morality.
This is a muddled mashup of two of the materialists’ favorite dodges. First Sev appeals to empathy as the basis for morality. He completely ignores several problems with this argument, including:
1. Mere feelings are a very flimsy ground for a moral system.
2. Some people do not have empathy (we call them sociopaths). If empathy is the basis for morality, a sociopath has no basis for morality.
3. Even for those with empathy, Sev offers no reason why they should not suppress their feelings if they believe the pleasure of their act exceeds the cost of the act in pangs of empathy.
Next Sev appeals to the Golden Rule as a ground for morality. Well, Sev, it certainly is. Yet, materialism offers no ground on which to adhere to the Golden Rule as opposed to any other rule such as “might makes right” or “if it feels good do it.” Sev demonstrates yet again that no sane person actually acts as if materialism is true.
Sev, if you have to act as if your most deeply held metaphysical commitment is false as you live your everyday life, perhaps you should reexamine your metaphysical commitments.
Now let’s go to Ed, who writes:
. . . UB’s question is not worth responding to
Ed states that a person who lives by himself has no moral obligation to anyone who venture near him. UB points out that if that is true, Ed has just given said loner a license to rape any woman who ventures too near without breaking any moral injunction. Instead of abandoning his screamingly stupid assertion, Ed pretends UB’s extension of Ed’s premises to their logical conclusion is “not worth responding to.”
Ed is not only stupid. He is a coward.