Everything below is from a comment posted by UB:
Ed at 34,
[re: Ed on telling the truth]
It is just one of the rules we have to follow if we want to be welcome in society. If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation to be honest to the rare person that stumbled upon me.
Yes, you’ve been very concise on this feature of your belief system, and we understand you. If you live in a society then you have to tell the truth as a moral obligation to the consensus of that society (who collectively believe that people should tell the truth). But if you live out on your own, then you are your own consensus, and as you clearly say, you ”have no obligation” to tell the truth to some poor sap who might happen upon you.
You’ve made yourself perfectly clear on this.
And if that poor sap who happens to come upon you on your hill also happens to be of the fairer variety, with breasts and a vagina … well tough shit, eh Ed?
I’ve asked you repeatedly if a woman being raped needed the consensus of a group in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is actually valid. That is certainly the belief you seem to espouse here. You promote this as the advanced and enlightened view of human life, and judging by your insistence, you apparently think others should follow your lead on the matter, particularly those god-fearers around you who still mistakenly believe that raping a woman is an immoral act whether or not there is even one other ‘effing human being on the entire surface of planet who thinks so.
You’ve understandably refused to answer my question, of course, but you’ve certainly shed some light on the matter now. Whatever happens to that curvy sap who happens upon your hill, she can’t really say that what’s happening to her is “wrong”, per se, she’ll just have to keep in mind that what’s happening to her literally goes with the territory, and in this instance, she was merely on the “wrong” territory. As you say, there is no moral dilemma on your part, having acted on your decision. It’s just a geographic misfortune on her part. Hell, it could even be sheer dumb luck.
But you view this whole thing as a trick question, a “loaded question” as you called it. We all know that you aren’t the type of man so hardened of heart that you would actually ever rape a woman (regardless of when and where she happens upon you). It’s just that you are the type who is hardened enough to think that you decide if it is wrong for her to be raped. It’s a deformity of reason, but I see you come here daily to sell it in public — and you seem to really enjoy it, with that special kind of superior arrogance: Does a woman being raped need the consensus of society in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is valid. Yes she does, but a man living by himself on a hill outside society can rape her without any moral obligation whatsoever.
I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist. The problem is when he tries to push his subjectivism on everyone else. If there are no moral obligations there is no obligation on my or anyone else part to even consider what he is asserting (baseless assertions are not arguments.) In other words, whatever he is trying to argue is blatantly self-refuting.
I made the following comment some time ago on another thread. It is worth repeating here:
Without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligations there is no basis for universal human rights. Nevertheless, the secular progressive left, which has no transcendent basis for morality, ethics or human rights because it is rooted in a mindless naturalistic metaphysic, has illegitimately co-opted the idea of human rights to push its perverted political agenda of so-called social justice. But how can someone’s (or anyone’s) subjective opinion of right and wrong become the basis of universal human rights?
Many of our regular interlocutors, like Ed, have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But again, subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding?
The U.S. founding fathers appear to have understood that ideologically motivated groups like the social justice warrior left (so-called factions) would try to subvert the political process. This is one reason why they made it difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. For example, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, which were passed very quickly, (the so-called Bill of Rights) required a 2/3 vote in each house of congress as well as approval of ¾ of state legislatures. It appears the founders thought this would prevent a small vocal faction from subverting the will of the people. However, apparently they didn’t notice the loophole in article III that allowed Supreme Court judges to appropriate more power than was constitutionally granted to them. That’s the loophole that the SJW left has been able to exploit and is why they have used the courts to push their agenda. You don’t need to convince an overwhelming majority of people you are right– you don’t even need to convince a majority. All you need is to convince are a few sympathetic judges who share your “enlightened” group think. The problem is that is not representative or small-r republican government. That’s an oligarchy. An oligarchy is one of the types of government that takes away rights.
Moral subjectivism provides no basis to create a broad based consensus which is necessary to protect fundamental human rights.
Judicial activism, i.e. legislating from the bench by the radical left, is indeed a looming threat to our republican democracy of representative government, but it need not be fatal. Whilst Congress should be the one to most directly challenge the judicial branch’s overreach into it’s legislative territory, historically it has been the executive branch that has curtailed judicial overreach.
And while the executive branch can curtail the judicial branch’s overreach into legislative territory for a time, a more permanent solution needs to originate from Congress itself in that Congress itself has the power within itself to amend the constitution in such a way so as to severely restrict the judicial branch to its original intended role of ‘merely judgement’,
I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
I have a problem with all moral subjectivists in that they are in obvious error. If they were serious thinkers, they wouldn’t be moral subjectivists to begin with.
Andrew
My point at #1 is really very simple: if a moral subjectivist has no basis for moral obligations how am I obligated to trust anything he asserts about morality? On the other hand, if he wants to believe in nonsense that’s his personal prerogative. What he doesn’t have the right to do is cram his nonsense down anyone else’s throat. Doubling down on your unwarranted opinions and beliefs over and over again (being argumentative) is an attempt to cram your beliefs down someone else’s throat.
This is something I have said on this site several different times before that’s worth repeating again:
In other words, telling the truth and being honest only makes sense if there is an objective standard of truth and honesty. That’s a self-evident truth, therefore, any viable system of morality must be based on the fact that there really is moral truth and moral truth obligates us to be truthful and honest.
You don’t. But then you’re not obligated to trust anything anyone says, even a moral objectivist (after all, they might also be a liar or a hypocrite).
Of course, you are obligated to trust anything I assert, because I’m a paragon of virtue. 🙂
Though Bob was being flippant, yet thus thinks the secular leftist to himself, and often announces it to the public, though he certainly has no objective moral basis for doing so.
Just ask Hillary
You need to read more History, dudes. Involuntary sex between powerful and/or rich people (both male and female) and powerless prisoners or children was (and is) a standard piece of MANY cultures throughout history. In fact “marriage” is ABOUT giving a specific woman, and her children, the protection (including VIOLENT protection) of a man. Mao Tse-tung, once he’d come to power, slept with a fresh virgin every night. The virgins were sent to Mao by government officials hoping to keep on the good side of the Emperor. One assumes that the deflowered women (girls?) were then shipped home marked “damaged goods” with little chance of landing a husband. Note that the Dominant Culture of Red China found this a PERFECTLY good way to run society, and any uppity father or boy friend who objected was asking to find himself on the wrong end of a bayonet.
Also note that the PERMANENT pairing of a man and a woman within a man-pack was/is the EXCEPTION to what is now called “shaking up”. The Irish had MANY different kinds of marriage, including a 1 Year Marriage that could be converted into any of several more permanent forms. And even the Bible mentions a setup where an unrelated man fathers children with a woman, but ALL of her children are the responsibility of her BROTHER to provide for. For as the ancient wisdom teaches us, “It is a WISE monkey who knows his Father.” But of course a Mother knows which men are her Brothers, at least as long as Grandma is still alive.
So ya gotta READ more. And stop focusing on European Christian schools of Ethics and such. It’s a very NARROW and MODERN set of ideas, which may be completely gone within the next century.
I’m pretty sure that the victim of rape wouldn’t give a fig about whether the “brutalization” she feels is “valid” or “invalid”. She would just want her suffering to stop.
I, like everyone else here, would also want it 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.
It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you. The only obligation which has any practical value is one into which parties enter voluntarily.
Finally, why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked many times before: are you really telling me you wouldn’t know that rape or child abuse or any other atrocity, is morally wrong unless you had been told so by some third party? You are not capable of any independent judgement yourself?
Sev
This is exactly why UB’s question is not worth responding to.
ET
Says the man who has repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”.
Barry, my apologies for the language, but I think it is important to know the person they are agreeing with and supporting.
.
What a stupid thing to say. Go talk to a rape survivor, Seversky. It is rarely the pain, it’s the rape.
In your indignation, you’ve forgotten the actual subject of the comment. The man said his moral landscape is such that moral obligations are set by the consensus of society (you know, the same thing you promote by the compelling and authoritative brand “Consensus Theory”), but that a man living outside that consensus establishes his own obligations, and can do as he wishes – he has “no obligations” unquote.
Sev
UB
How is that in any way a response to what Sev said? I am interested in how “brutalizations” is limited to the perception of physical pain.
“It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you”
And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!
Vivid
.
Grist for the mill, Ed?
I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
Ed George:
Thank you, Ed, for the perfect example of “argument by way infant belligerence”. Did your mother teach you that- when all is lost and your butt is exposed, go full-on Tourette’s meltdown syndrome?
It is very telling that you forgot to mention why I would have done such a thing. That is if you can demonstrate that I did.
Shall we look to see what YOU have said about Barry, Denyse, kairosfocus and others? Do you not realize that we know that you are a regular member of the evoTARD gossip swamp? And that all you do is spew vile hatred towards myself, Barry, Denyse, upright biped, gpuccio, kairosfocus and others. Are you daft?
Then you come here in a newly washed sock and act all sanctimonious, like the punk slime that you are, and you really think you are hurting me, somehow? Really?
Wow.
And Ed’s cowardly quote-mines are just the vehicle to get that done, by golly.
Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing loser and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
Just keep that in mind when considering what Ed has to say about me. That is all that I ask.
VB
The fact that a significant percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as kids suggests that this may be the case. Almost sounds like early learning, repetition, reinforcement, indoctrination etc. is responsible for our moral values.
I believe that there is something objectively true about morality. I think we can all agree that we have something that we call a sense of morality. When the vast majority of us hold the same moral value (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t deny homosexuals the pleasure of marriage) we feel entitled to oblige others to abide by these values. And, if these values are subjective, we would expect them to change over time and to vary between societies. For example, in the US most believe that it is morally acceptable to use violence to protect property. In most other countries, that is not acceptable.
seversky:
How many rapes has that prevented? The rapist stopped cuz the potential victim said “Look, if you don’t rape me then I won’t rape you.”
Question-begging. First off, no one had to tell us. That is the thing with self-evident truths and objective morals. If you have to be told then somewhere you were told something wrong and then you went with it. And the fact that you think we need some independent judgement just shows how confused you are about the topic
Ed George:
From your example it looks like the really messed up moral values arise that way.
Nice own goal.
ET
Really? You obviously think that many of my moral values are messed up. I think that many of yours are. Sounds like subjective morality is ruling the world. And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours. Otherwise KF wouldn’t always be talking about civilization heading over the cliff, to the rocks below.
E.G.
I don’t think anyone disagrees learning, education, etc influence our moral values and in many cases responsible for them. As it relates to the existence of an objective moral standard I say “so what?”
Vivid
Ed George:
Perhaps YOU think that child abuse is OK, Ed. Most people would disagree with you
Thankfully and contrary to you, most people say that child abuse is wrong
VB
I think most of our disagreement is a disagreement over the definitions of objective and subjective, with respect to morality.
My definition is that if it relies on early learning, indoctrination, reinforcement, reasoning, predicting consequences, then it is subjective. I see objective as being something that is wrong, independent of all of these. Objective morality may be true, but I just don’t see how you can prove it without pretzel like logic. As KF keeps presenting.
Ed George:
Total BS. Math relies on that. Is math now subjective? And no one can prove anything to the willfully ignorant, Ed.
Arguing morals with Ed, a known liar, bluffer, equivocator and coward, is the epitome of futility. One of Ed’s sock posted that all he is interested in is poking us and muddying the waters- it’s over on TSZ under “Acartia”
E.G. quotes Seversky.
I had to make sure that it was indeed Seversky, a Darwinian atheist, that had asked that question because that is the same exact type of question that a Theist would ask of an moral subjectivist, (i.e. an atheistic materialist), in regards to our innate moral intuition. i.e. “Just how in blue blazes does Seversky ‘intuitively know’ that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil?” Because of his atheistic materialism, Seversky simply has no foundation to intuitively know that empathy and the golden rule are good and that a woman being raped is evil.
Don’t take my word for it, biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, both Darwinian atheists. wrote a book arguing that rape is ‘natural’ and that it is not a pathology, i.e. arguing that rape is not inherently wrong!.
Darwinian materialism simply gives Seversky no foundation in which he can argue that empathy and the golden rule are always good and that a woman being raped is always evil. As an atheistic materialists, all he can possibly have as a foundation for ethics is “nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Thus Seversky himself, whether he even realizes it or not, honestly admitted that he intuitively knows that objective morality exists when he indignantly claims that he does not have to be told, ‘by some third party’, that it is wrong to rape.
As J. Budziszewski stated in his book “What We Can’t Not Know”, ““Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
To repeat, Seversky simply has no basis within his materialistic worldview to declare anything as being either objectively good or objectively evil. As Michael Egnor pointed out, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”
Bottom line, If Good and Evil Exist, (as Seversky himself inadvertently admitted in his claim that he intuitively knows that it is wrong to rape and that he does not have to be told that it is wrong by some third party), then God necessarily Exists.
The moral argument for God is succinctly structured like this,
Of supplemental note, But what of objective morality? An atheist, (if he was ever inclined to be rigorously honest with himself and with others), might honestly ask, “OK, I agree that objective morality must necessarily exist, but so what? That still does not mean that I have to be a Christian! I can still base my objective morality on some other Theistic worldview!”
And herein the necessity of Jesus’s atoning sacrifice becomes apparent.
God’s criteria for meeting His standard of objective morality is moral perfection. And yet no finite human can possibly meet that absolute standard of moral perfection. All other religions have man trying to work his way to moral perfection. Only Christianity deals with the situation honestly and admits that the moral perfection required by God, whilst a noble goal, is unattainable by mere human effort alone and that we are all in desperate need of God’s grace.
As Frank Turek points out at the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code
Thus humans find themselves in quite a moral dilemma. People intuitively know that objectively moral exists, (as Seversky himself inadvertently admitted on this very thread), and yet we have no way, by our own finite efforts, of reaching the moral perfection that the existence of objective morality in itself directly implies. The only way we can possibly be considered morally perfect in God’s eyes, (that is to say the only way we can be forgiven in God’s eyes), is if God himself somehow imparts that moral perfection onto us.
Christianity is the only mono-theistic religion that deals correctly, and directly, with that infinite moral shortfall of man in regards to ever truly attaining moral perfection in God’s eyes.
The technical term for what God has done for us through Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is called ‘propitiation’:
An atheist might further honestly object, (again if he were ever inclined to be rigorously honest with himself and others), “But why doesn’t God just simply forgive us? Why did God go through all the trouble of dying a horrid death on a cross? He is God after all!”
Well, aside from the fact that justice itself must be adequately dealt with if God is not to be considered capricious in his moral judgments, in response to that particular question, I think the following article hits the nail squarely on the head. Specifically, “With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
Verse:
“I think most of our disagreement is a disagreement over the definitions of objective and subjective, with respect to morality.”
Our differences run deeper than that such as it is my position that that which has no objective existence has no existence at all. How one can converse and engage those that advocate for that which has no existence I will admit poses its challenges. It is however fascinating to observe how those that advocate the existence of something they affirm has no existence are incapable of understanding how absurd that position is.
Vivid
How I know that Ed George is “Acartia bogart”/ “William spearshake”- Other than the obvious verbatim, moronic posts, Ed said that he was engaged with a nice discussion with “Nic”. This took place over on Dr Hunter’s blog. Ed then lied and said that I was mad at Nic for having a discussion with “William spearshake”. “Wlliam spearshake” is the only anti-reason SoB that had such a discussion with Nic and also spewed the same lie about me. And Acartia bogart has already laid claim to be “William spearshake”.
Acartia bogart/ William spearshake / Ed George also just happen to be from the same part of Canada and have similar occupations.
EG @ 19,
>”And, thankfully (in my opinion), more people share my moral values than yours.”
Given where the majority is taking us these days, I’m not sure this should be a comforting thing.
VB
Does my preference for black cherry ice cream have no existence? It surely has no “objective” existence. But to me, it exists. What about ET’s hatred of homosexuals? It has no “objective” existence, but anyone who has read his comments knows that this hatred exists.
I realize that I am using absurd examples, but you would be hard pressed to demonstrate the objective reality of either, but I can assure you that both are true.
EDTA
Yes, I am very comforted. Women are now attaining the level of equality previously restricted to white heterosexual men. So are homosexuals, transgendered, racial minorities, people with other religions, indigenous peoples, etc. We still have a long way to go, but I have “faith”.
ET@26, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession. You should probably seek professional help.
Ed George:
What about your beating your wife? What about your child abuse? What about your penchant for lying?
No, only the desperate and insipid trolls “knows” that, Ed.
That, and your lies, are all you have, Ed.
“ Does my preference for black cherry ice cream have no existence? It surely has no “objective” existence. “
Huh?? It most certainly does exist objectively!
Vivid
Ed George:
No, I am entertained by your being a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
My case is there for all to see. And all you can do to respond is become the belligerent, infant, lying coward that you are. YOU are the one who needs professional help, Ed. You and Sybil seem to have much in common.
I never knew that an “obsession” for the facts and evidence could be unhealthy. Perhaps it is for evoTARDs like Eddie…
EG @ 29,
I don’t follow the idea of being comforted by the direction of current change, and membership in the majority, when change is so rapid now that literally anything can happen in less than a generation. When we have said goodbye to any sort of stability, what is the source of such comfort? (I clearly don’t have your “faith” in humanity.)
In particular, we are fracturing along nearly every line imaginable (speaking of the US anyway). That equals growing instability, which has to be worrisome.
VB
How so? If we are using this as a comparison to objective moral values, this would suggest that objective moral values can change. Although black cherry is my favorite Ice cream now, a few years ago it was rum raisin. Surely you are not suggesting that objective moral values are as flexible. (And don’t call me Shirley 🙂 ).
But I would like to thank you for being able to discuss this without making a personal attack. I really do appreciate it.
“How so? If we are using this as a comparison to objective moral values”
But I am not using this as a comparison to objective moral standard with all due respect you are.
“Although black cherry is my favorite Ice cream now, “
Do you exist objectively? Does the black cherry ice cream exist objectively?
“But I would like to thank you for being able to discuss this without making a personal attack. I really do appreciate it“
Back at you, much appreciated.
Vivid
VB@37, but this is what I am talking about. The definition of objective. KF and others talk about “objective” as being something that is unchangeable. For example, homosexuality is objectively wrong. Always was, always will be. This doesn’t change with the times. But you argue that my preference of ice cream flavor is also objectively true. If my preference for ice cream is objective, and changeable, then other objective things, like moral values, are also changeable.
Ed George:
I don’t know anyone who says that objective moral values cannot be changed or ignored by people intent on doing so (for whatever reason).
They are not. But that doesn’t mean that people have to adhere to them or cannot change them and inject your model to suit their needs.
Observations, facts and evidence are not personal attacks, Ed. You gave up your hand when you talked about how you and Nic used to have discussions not unlike the discussion you and vivid are now engaged in. You were posting under “William spearshake” when those discussions with Nic took place. Observations, facts and evidence, Ed.
But I understand why you would think they are personal attacks. 🙄
Ed George:
The objective moral values remain regardless of what people do to them. They remain and eventually we will all find our way back to them. Regardless of people like you.
Perhaps you should just answer the questions and go from there.
“If my preference for ice cream is objective, and changeable, then other objective things, like moral values, are also changeable.”
Everything you state are indeed objective except “moral” Preferences have objective existence. Ice cream exists objectively. That your preferences change is an objective fact as are your values. What doesn’t exist objectively is morality yet subjectivist continuously conflate something that does not exist with the things that do.
Vivid
ET, I’m sorry, but I’m married. I take my wedding vows seriously. As much as you beg, I can’t just run off to Mass with you. Please stop stalking me. My toaster doesn’t need to be repaired.
VB, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. My preference for ice cream is objective. My moral values are objective. My objective preference for ice cream can change but my objective moral values can’t. If this is the case, it seems to me that one of these can’t be objective.
Ed George:
Yes, you are. YOU are the one spreading lies about me, Ed George. Only losers and stalkers do things like that.
Observations, facts and evidence are not personal attacks, Ed. You gave up your hand when you talked about how you and Nic used to have discussions not unlike the discussion you and vivid are now engaged in. You were posting under “William spearshake” when those discussions with Nic took place. Observations, facts and evidence, Ed.
That is all true. And I understand why it hurts.
“VB, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. My preference for ice cream is objective. My moral values are objective. My objective preference for ice cream can change but my objective moral values can’t. If this is the case, it seems to me that one of these can’t be objective.”
Do you exist objectively?
Do your preferences exist objectively?
Does the ice cream exist objectively?
Do your values exist objectively?
Does morality exist objectively?
Hint if morality has no objective existence there are no moral values they are just your personal values.
Vivid
VB
Yes.
The fact that I have preferences is objective. My actual preferences are subjective.
Yes.
The existence of values is objective. What those values are is subjective.
Yes.
“Does morality exist objectively?
Yes“
Awesome
Vivid
VB@47, I’ve never denied that we all have something that we call a sense of morality. Even sociopaths and psychopaths have their own sense of morality. So, yes, I would say that “morality” exists. But that is not what we are disagreeing about. Where these moral values come from is where we disagree.
For example, my morality does not allow me to behave like ET does. But, apparently, he has no moral qualms about calling people liars, ass munching faggots, equivocators, willfully ignorant, etc. I would feel guilty doing something like that. I suspect this is because my parents taught me from an early age that this type of behavior was wrong, then repeated these teachings, reinforced them and provided feedback, until I was able to reason that such behavior would only make me look like an ignorant fool. But I guess some people have never reached the reasoning step.
“So, yes, I would say that “morality” exists. “
Objectively?
Vivid
VB, yes, our sense or morality objectively exists. But that is not the same as saying that our moral values are objectively derived.
Our sense of smell objectively exists. But that doesn’t mean that how I perceive a specific smell is objectively true; it is a subjective perception.
“VB, yes, our sense or morality objectively exists. “
I am not asking about our senses. An objective reality means that something is actual (so it exists) independent of mind (Wiki) Using that definition does morality objectively exist?
Vivid
Arguing morals with Ed, a known liar, bluffer, equivocator and coward, is the epitome of futility. One of Ed’s sock posted that all he is interested in is poking us and muddying the waters- it’s over on TSZ under “Acartia”
Ed George:
Right. You would rather be a lying coward, who doesn’t have any morals.
I call them as they are. You are a liar. You are a coward. You are a willfully ignorant equivocator. And you are a lowlife loser.
And yet you feel free to lie about me like a little loser coward.
I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
That is the truth of Ed George. Everyone has seen that Ed has NEVER supported anything it has said about me. NEVER.
How soon Eddie forgets:
I don’t have a problem with Ed being a moral subjectivist, either. Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing lose and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
Ed George:
Thank you, Ed, for the perfect example of “argument by way infant belligerence”. Did your mother teach you that- when all is lost and your butt is exposed, go full-on Tourette’s meltdown syndrome?
It is very telling that you forgot to mention why I would have done such a thing. That is if you can demonstrate that I did.
Shall we look to see what YOU have said about Barry, Denyse, kairosfocus and others? Do you not realize that we know that you are a regular member of the evoTARD gossip swamp? And that all you do is spew vile hatred towards myself, Barry, Denyse, upright biped, gpuccio, kairosfocus and others. Are you daft?
Then you come here in a newly washed sock and act all sanctimonious, like the punk slime that you are, and you really think you are hurting me, somehow? Really?
Wow.
And Ed’s cowardly quote-mines are just the vehicle to get that done, by golly.
Ed’s problem is that he is a pathological liar, cowardly equivocator, bluffing loser and a willfully ignorant, insipid troll.
Just keep that in mind when considering what Ed has to say about me. That is all that I ask.
Lather, rinse and repeat
In the following thread the connection between Acartia bogart and William Spearshake is made: Are new atheists naturally selected to survive?. Acartia bogart is the same person as William Spearshake.
In a more recent thread, Ed George claimed to have had a civilized discussion with ‘Nic’, over on Dr. Hunter’s blog. The sock who had said discussion with ‘Nic’ was none other than William Spearshake.
Upright BiPed@ 11
I wrote “suffering”, by which I meant both the physical and emotional distress but, either way, the victims want it to stop and both they and we want to stop it happening ever again. Unfortunately, moral prohibitions, whether subjective or objective haven’t been able to do that.
The only moral obligations that are worth a damn are those which people acknowledge and abide by of their own free will. Rules which are imposed and enforced from above, without the consent of those who are subject to them, are no more moral than the software running this computer. Moral guidance is only required where there is the freedom to ignore it. Unfortunately, free will means that most, if not all, of us ignore moral principles whenever it suits us and it happens whether you regard morals as objectively or subjectively based.
Vividbleau@ 13
No, it doesn’t necessarily follow. If rape is immoral in the first case then it should also be immoral in the second case, even if it is done in retaliation, unless a society has agreed to some sort of Old Testament “eye for an eye” morality.
Bornagain77@ 24
I did not talk about “intuitively knowing”, I referred to “empathy” which Merriam-Webster defines as:
Through empathy I can imagine something of the ordeal of a rape victim. I know that I would not like that to happen to me. I know that I would not like that to happen to family or friends or, indeed, anyone else. I have reason to believe that most other people feel the same way. That is more than enough to make rape “wrong”. I would still think it was wrong even if your God said that it was right. I take it you would agree with Him?
So your empathy is objective?
True and that is why groups have always tried to break away. Free will has allowed for anarchy with respect to objective morals.
So Seversky you ‘imagine’ that rape is bad? The communist Russian army ‘imagined’ that rape was good when they conquered Germany in world war II?
Who is morally right Seversky? You or the communist Russian army? Both you and they have a morality that is based in imagination and which is therefore, by definition, not objective.
ET
I am William Spearshake and so is my wife. The tinfoil is strong with this one. 🙂
Reaper is most likely a lonely sock of Ed’s…
.
Sev at 56
You seem to be having a hard time understanding the actual issue under discussion, or perhaps you are just avoiding it. In either case, you’ve come back to miss the target once again.
Let me ask you to focus on a phrase. The phrase is just three words long, but if you can focus on it for a moment or two, perhaps we might have better assurances that you’ll understand the issue being discussed and then connect with it in your comments.
The phrase was spoken by Ed, and this is what he said: “have no obligation”.
What Ed was describing here is a very clear and important distinction he makes between two Eds. The first Ed is a man living in a society, who (following Ed George’s view of the world) must adhere to the moral consensus of that society in order “to be welcome” there. The second Ed, however, is described as a man who lives by himself out in the hills, outside of that society. The second Ed is his own consensus. Under those conditions (again directly following Ed George’s view of the world) he has no obligation whatsoever to any poor sap that might happen upon his hill.
Do you now see the distinction he is making? He has been very clear about it. Here it is again: ”If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation”. It really doesn’t appear to be all that hard to understand.
Free will exists for both Eds, and has nothing to do with it. Neither does consent.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
One of the key points made by people (those who tend to believe that an objective right and wrong exist in the cosmos) is that subjectivists have no backstop to actually establish a distinction between right and wrong, if there is indeed to be one. This is not an empty intellectual bucket; it is a point that has been famously echoed among key subjectivists themselves. And thus, wrong can become right without moral dilemma. This can not only happen (among both objectivists and subjectivists alike) with all the catastrophic results recorded in our history (and much more that will never even be known), but it can happen fully within the subjectivist’s view. This is the point that Ed has made so abundantly clear. He makes the objectivist’s point for them, with enthusiasm.
It would be very easy to just back up for a moment and simply say that Ed has mistakenly (oops) said something really very stupid, and blah, blah, blah. But then he and you, the two of you, show up to defend it. Up to this point, that defense (when it is not mere mockery) simply ignores the whole point that Ed so clearly makes certain. It is nothing more than an attempt to cover it all up in words (grist for the mill). But none of those words changes a damn thing.
And just to remember, this is an ID blog. While you are covering the core entailments of your worldview with irrelevant observations (Ed even tells us with comical intensity that the entire history of the world – without question – proves his case) neither of you is even the slightest bit willing to acknowledge experimental facts and documented scientific history. I know this for a fact because I have put them directly in front of you. Neither of you can even speak the words.
This last point in the critical issue for this blog, and both of you have failed spectacularly.
“It also grounds “moral obligation” very simply: if you don’t rape me, I won’t rape you”
And therefore it follows if you do rape me it is not immoral for me to rape you, more like quicksand than solid ground Bob. Morality is a game of tit for tat!
“No, it doesn’t necessarily follow. If rape is immoral in the first case then it should also be immoral in the second case, even if it is done in retaliation, unless a society has agreed to some sort of Old Testament “eye for an eye” morality.”
If moral obligation is simply do unto others that they do to you it very much follows that it is moral to respond in kind, sure the injured party may have a code of behavior that does not reciprocate and this would be moral or reciprocate and this to would be moral, Heck any action can be moral, To repeat this is far from solid ground
“If rape is immoral in the first case then it should also be immoral in the second “
Why?
Vivid
At 56 Seversky claims that:
Seversky has finally gone completely off the deep end. None of that, moral obligations nor free will, can possibly be grounded within his atheistic materialism.
As Marfin pointed out in the other thread, “We are selected for fitness not for good or evil , right and wrong.”,,,
As Dawkins himself stated, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Why should fitness give two cents damn about what is true and/or moral about life? Natural Selection is ONLY tuned to fitness. Nothing else matters. Period.
In fact, if evolution by natural selection, i.e. ‘fitness’, were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’, would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins’ video:
As Darwin himself stated,
The logic of natural selection is nicely summed up in the following graph,
Again. natural selection couldn’t give two cents damn about what is true and/or moral about life. As Darwin himself stated, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and altruistic behavior, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously slows down successful reproduction.
In fact, Darwin himself offered this blatantly anti-morality falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”
Tell me Seversky, exactly where is love, empathy, and altruism in Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ maxim to be found?
Altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
As well, directly contrary to what Seversky claimed about he himself having the free will necessary to abide by moral obligations, Darwinian materialism explicitly denies the existence of free will.
Free will, despite Seversky’s false claim that it can be grounded within his atheistic materialism, is a thoroughly Theistic presupposition than simply can never be grounded within Seversky’s deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism:
Moreover, the reality of free will has now been verified by both neuroscience and quantum mechanics,
In the following video, Dr. Michael Egnor shows that the evidence from neuroscience supports the reality of free will,
Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz has also done work in the area of brain plasticity in which a person’s focused attention can change the physical structure of the brain itself. Which, needless to say, is also very strong evidence for the reality of free will,
As well, besides this evidence from neuroscience confirming the reality of free will, free will is now also confirmed to be real by advances in quantum mechanics itself.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
And as this recent experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenters themselves in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.
One of the most profound implications for us personally is that allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), by rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
Verse: