Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

WJM on Arguing with Subjectivists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Zeroseven said:  “Hi Vivid, I’m not much of a logician. Just give your practical example and we can explore it.”

If you are not going to explore a practical example logically, what use is exploring it at all? To share your personal feelings?

Here’s the problem in for those that wish to interact with Aleta, Zeroseven and Clown Fish: it is utterly unimportant to them that their worldview, statements and behavior be logically consistent. This is why it simply doesn’t bother them to admit that they are hypocrites – insisting on one thing (that morality is subjective) while behaving the opposite way (like morality is objective), and why they keep raising objections that have already been thoroughly refuted (like morality is subjective because people don’t agree about it).

They do not enter conversations with a critical rationalism that they may be wrong about morality being subjective; they “know” it is subjective. Since they are not “logicians” and don’t care if their logic is in error, what good is rationally demonstrating the logical errors in their views? Their idea that morality is subjective is not based on any logical examination of their worldview premises leading to inferences then to rational explanations for actual behavior; it is based solely on sentiment – an emotional rejection of what objective morality would mean (theism), and personal sentiments about other people and their behaviors.

You cannot prove someone wrong about their subjective sentiments no matter how irrational or hypocritical those sentiments are. You cannot logically argue someone out of a faulty view if they didn’t come to that view via logic and if they do not consider logic a valid arbiter of truth.

While these exchanges are good as object lessons for many viewers, erroneous emotional investments cannot be corrected rationally. One would have to actually be committed to having a rationally coherent perspective before any logical argument might penetrate their commitment to their emotional views.

Without believing there is a truth by which some views can be considered erroneous, there is no valid corrective by which one can think they should correct their view. It’s just their personal, sentimental view of how things are, and they do not have to justify that view because there is – in their mind – no objective truth to such matters, and logic is not an arbiter of any real, objective truths.

I would add that while what WJM says is true, the logical incoherence of their views does not stop them from advocating for the use of the State’s monopoly on violence to force you and me to abide by those views.  Does anyone else see the irony of a moral subjectivist forcing a Christian baker to use his artistic skill to celebrate a homosexual wedding?

Comments
Typically in these kinds of debates the moral subjectivist will try to make an argument that begins with, “How would you feel if…” However, it doesn’t seem to be used as much in the debates about bakers, florists and photographers refusing to provide their services to an SS couple because they reject SSM on religious grounds. Why is that? I think it’s because people like me would have no problem being denied service if we were in a similar situation under similar circumstances. For example, suppose I found a photographer who took great iconic photographs but he refused to take pictures for my Saturday wedding because he was an orthodox Jew who strictly observed the Sabbath. How would I feel? Disappointed. What would I do? I would find another photographer. However, suppose later I discovered later that he didn’t do gentile weddings at all. Would that make a difference? No, why would it? Furthermore, I would argue that people who would sue in such a case neither understand or respect what it means to have freedom of conscience. An open and free democratic society cannot continue to exist unless there is freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience, thought and belief (religion) is the fundamental right upon which a free society is built.john_a_designer
June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST
CF, nope, you have changed binding moral obligations into tastes and preferences and feel-bads or social disapproval. Not the same at all. Conscience testifies to duty, which is utterly different from how one feels. (Just ask a soldier about the nature of courage.) The question is, does it speak truly, or is it delusion. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PST
@clownFish - sorry there clown, I got you mixed up with Indiana Effigy... who used the exact same alias mix-up that you did along with the same posting style.... my bad for thinking you were he/she/it. Still praying for you and hopeful that you can pull out of the fog of material subjective-ism-s. You seem clever enough but... the propping up of silly facades to try and support a moral position starts to get pretty obvious. Sometimes there is just a chemical imbalance or even mental deficiency that prevents us from accepting the truth.... that can be overcome by first seeking it....willfully...the rest will follow for you brother.Trumper
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PST
07:
How could a baker refuse to bake a cake on moral and spiritual grounds? What do morals and spirits have to do with baking a cake?
Nothing at all. And if a homosexual came into the shop and asked for a cake, the baker should have no reason to not bake one for him. To refuse to bake a cake purely on the grounds that the customer was homosexual would be discrimination. But that's not what happened. The issue was that a cake was ordered to be used in what the baker considered a sacred rite, and that that rite was to be performed in a manner that was in opposition to the religious views of the baker. It didn't matter whether the customer was a homosexual or heterosexual ordering a cake to be used in this manner.
In any case the law requires that people providing goods and services don’t discriminate. If the baker was Muslim would you endorse them refusing service to Jews?
OK. Now, in order to make the analogy fit, suppose that the Jew is asking the Muslim to put a picture of Muhammad on the cake. Should the baker be required to do that simply because a Jew is asking and it would therefore be discriminatory to refuse?Phinehas
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST
CF continues to use semantics to avoid the substance. He says:
I think that you would agree that this is not an objective moral value, yet I feel very uncomfortable if I don’t get to a door fast enough when a woman or an older person is entering a building.Is this a personal preference on the same level as ice cream flavours or music. Of course not. No more so than my revulsion when I hear racially charged language, which is also the result of my parents “beating” that value into me.
My challenge was for CF to show how his morals (under moral subjectivism) do not depend entirely upon his personal preferences. He thinks he has met that challenge by arguing that his moral behavior is driven by personal preferences that are on a different level from other personal preferences, like choosing a flavor of ice cream. CF: personal preference that are on a "different level" than other personal preferences are still personal preferences. Please pay attention to this exchange between Zeroseven and myself:
zeroseven said:
I have explained this many times. Early learning, indoctrination, negative and positive feedback, experience, repetition, etc. are known to produce subconscious “feelings” that are very deeply entrenched and difficult to violate without mental anguish (or discomfort). If you doubt me, get up tomorrow and conciously button your shirt it a different way than you routinely do. If something as trivial as buttoning your shirt can result in something more deeply seated than a mere “preference”, why would you think that values that have been beaten into you from the time you were born would be less so?
WJM responds:
That doesn't change what moral subjectivism is in categorical terms. Even if, because of culture, authority and nature, you have a deep-seated revulsion of nuts, and eating nuts could physically kill you because of allergies, and you cannot even watch others eating nuts, you recognize that it is an entirely subjective, individual, personal reaction/preference and, if sane, you would never think of imposing a nut ban or a law about how to button your shirt on anyone else, nor would you feel either justified or obligated to intervene to stop them from eating nuts or buttoning their shirt differently. In fact, you would consider it immoral (or crazy) for anyone to intervene in this way in the personal habits of others, much less attempt to give such personal views/habits/proclivities/preferences force of law.
CF: in all seriousness, you're just making a fool of yourself when you insist on trying to describe our experience of morality as if it were like anything we hold to be subjective. Our experience of personal, subjective things is categorically different than our experience of morality. Just because there are many moral situations that shade towards being more like subjective experiences doesn't put morality in the same category of those subjective experiences because we know some moral laws are absolute; we are committed to their truth even against the majority or the government; we are willing to impose them on others via force of law and we are obligated even against personal preference to intervene in the behavior of others if the moral situation calls for it. We will risk our own safety, our lives and the comfort of our loved ones for certain moral principles. To sit here and insist morality is subjective even while agreeing that we all act as if it is objective, and (I presume) admit your willingness to go against the government, break laws, defy majority and risk personal safety and the comfort of your family what you insist are subjective personal views is insanity. Did you get that? If you are telling me you are willing to risk life and limb, family, defy government, law and majority to satisfy what you insist are personal, subjective preferences - no matter how strongly held - then I posit that you are insane and likely a sociopath, because it is only sociopaths that think it is okay to force their personal preferences, no matter how strongly felt, on others.William J Murray
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PST
"hold the door open for women and the elderly" Fish, you are a polite abortionist. Well mannered supporter of murder(the freakiest kind of people). Was that"beat" into you?Eugen
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PST
WJM: "I challenge CF and zeroseven to explain, from logically consistent moral subjectivism, how any of their moral views do not depend entirely upon personal preference, and how that principle cannot be used to make anything moral – even cruelty." Morals, regardless of their origin, span the gamut from deeply entrenched to weakly held. I assume that you would agree with this. It was "beat" into me from an early age by my parents that I must hold the door open for women and the elderly. I think that you would agree that this is not an objective moral value, yet I feel very uncomfortable if I don't get to a door fast enough when a woman or an older person is entering a building. Is this a personal preference on the same level as ice cream flavours or music. Of course not. No more so than my revulsion when I hear racially charged language, which is also the result of my parents "beating" that value into me. So, if you persist in making the false claim that subjective morality is no more than personal preference, then you have no idea what subjective morality is.clown fish
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST
Kairosfocus: "CF, there you go again. Mung is right to challenge you to restate without implying or suggesting or premising on the binding nature of OUGHT." Boy, you guys simply won't take yes for an answer. I guess that you must pathologically disagree with everything that an atheist says. Here, let me repeat again: I ACCEPT THE BINDING NATURE OF OUGHT. As I have said, over and over again. I am bound by my moral values, as is everyone except psychopaths. And maybe even they are except that their moral values differ so drastically from most others. That can happen with subjective morality. "Likewise, having been repeatedly advised [and in the face of actually (and predictably) finding yourself being outrageous by playing the agenda piggyback game], you keep on insisting that principled objection to dubious behaviour is to be equated to racism." So, racism isn't dubious behaviour? 1 --> Inter-racial marriages are legal. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for an inter-racial couple because he does not believe that inter-racial marriages are natural is displaying bigoted behaviour and is breaking the law. 2 --> Non-religious (civil) marriages are legal. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for an atheist couple because he believes that a marriage is a religious sacrament is displaying bigoted behaviour and is breaking the law. 3 --> Same sex marriage is legal. A baker who refuses to bake a cake for a same sex couple couple because he believes that homosexuality is a sin and same sex marriages are not natural is displaying bigoted behaviour and is breaking the law. So drawing an analogy between SSM and inter-racial marriage is valid. Unless you are claiming that the expression of what a person sees as their religious freedom cannot be bigoted behaviour. Religion isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. "That insistent rhetoric of polarisation and marginalisation on your part speaks volumes and is a warning bell to those who look on and see the agenda of delegitimisation of people of principle for what it is." We are debating objective vs subjective morality and you label anyone who thinks that morality is subjective is polarizing and marginalizing. That speaks volumes about the validity of your claim. "Especially, when we observe the pattern in thread of refusal to recognise the pivotal importance of freedom of conscience, expression and worship. Which are so important that this is actually the issues- context of the 1st Amdt to the US Constitution. KF" I have not refused to recognize the importance of freedom of conscience, expression and worship. But none of these are absolute.clown fish
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PST
There are several reasons I don’t get into extended debates or discussions with our moral subjectivist interlocutors. First of all, like epistemological subjectivism, moral subjectivism is an absurd self-refuting position. When you make the argument “there is no truth” you are making a truth claim about truth. But how is that possible if there is no truth? Second, most of the moral subjectivist I have interacted with in the past are either incorrigibly ignorant, disingenuous or hypocritical. (I am trying to say that as nicely as I can.) For example, you cannot argue that there is such a thing as morally binding human rights on the basis of moral subjectivism. Yet even here on this thread we have moral subjectivists arguing for gay rights, transgender rights and SSM as if these were morally binding and universal. How is that possible on the basis of moral subjectivism? IOW when it comes to human rights, how can what is true for you be true me? Thirdly (but not finally) how are you going to convince someone like me that your position is true, if there is no truth in the area of morals? Because you say so? Who are you to tell me what to believe and think?john_a_designer
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PST
Moral subjectivists (atheists) live in a fairytale land where there is no REAL right or wrong, only an illusion of such that can change at any moment depending on who is asked. Yet these same primates rage with moral indignation at anything they believe to be "wrong," evidently not smart enough to see the glaring contradiction of their ways. Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.Truth Will Set You Free
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST
Eugen@148: You are correct. See john-a-designer@63.Truth Will Set You Free
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PST
Someone mentioned bakers refusing to bake a cake for homosexual "wedding". Can it be argued that bakers are not discriminating based on sexual orientation i.e. they don't hate homosexuals but just disagree about small aspect of homosexual activity, in this case "wedding". I don't think it's discrimination to disagree about someone's activity and refuse to support it. Example: baker may not hate nudists but can disagree to put private body parts symbols on a cake nudists ordered for their party. I would appreciate if someone can help me clarify this.Eugen
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST
Moral subjectivists think the comparison between their moral feelings and other personal preferences is an unfair comparison. They attempt to show such feelings to be "different" by building a case about how strong such feelings are, and by waving their hands towards other very strong feelings generated by some combination of nature/nurture. However, as I point out in #144 above, even personal preferences that are driven by the physical facts or any combination of physical fact and upbringing does not change how sane people act with regards to commodities actually believed to be entirely personal and subjective to their individual experience such as, for example, buttoning your shirt a particular way (which zeroseven brought up a an example) or even a factual, life-threatening allergy accompanied by a deep psychological aversion to nuts (which would be even more serious than just "buttoning your shirt the wrong way"). Even with such a debilitating physical and emotional reaction to nuts, you don't attempt to intervene when others are eating nuts; you turn your head or leave if you have to because you know there is nothing objectively wrong with other people eating nuts. and you know it is wrong to force your personal, subjective issues on others who do not suffer from the same physiological and psychological issues you feel around nuts. You certainly don't try to pass a law criminalizing nut-eating, much less alternative techniques for shirt-buttoning! Sorry, but the attempt to paint morality as a strongly-held feeling just doesn't get past the sniff test. Nobody acts as if morality is "a strongly held feeling" even in combination with some genetic, physical allergy or compulsion. If these comparisons are made in sincerity, then those who have made them are lying to themselves because all it takes is just a little internal reflection to realize that morality and how we act in regards to it is categorically different than how we experience subjective commodities. Categorically, morality is like our experience of objective things. We argue as if it is objective and we act as if it is objective, so to say our experience of morality is like that of subjective commodities is an absurd, self-deceiving, superficial narrative that serves no purpose other than to tell oneself a story about morality that fits in with other things one wants to believe (or disbelieve).William J Murray
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST
Moving an unanswered question from the Moral privilege thread to this thread; Clown Fish said:
I have no moral problem with abortion up until the point at which the brain has sufficiently developed that it counsciously perceives pain.
Then said:
We agree. It [right to life] is the most fundamental of subjective rights.
If you hold that the right to life is the most fundamental of rights, why is it okay to kill the unborn as long as they do not yet feel pain?William J Murray
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PST
Moving a challenge from the Moral Privilege thread to this thread: Once again: I challenge CF and zeroseven to explain, from logically consistent moral subjectivism, how any of their moral views do not depend entirely upon personal preference, and how that principle cannot be used to make anything moral - even cruelty. Then, explain how in a world where anything and everything can be "moral" as long as the individual claims it to be for themselves, why one should even bother using the term "morality"? What value can one possibly add to a choice by calling it a "moral" choice?William J Murray
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PST
Moving a comment from the Moral Privilege thread to here: zeroseven said:
You talk about subjective morals as “preferences” as if it is no different than your preference of ice cream flavour. Yet, I have never heard a subjectivist say that subjective moral values were as trivial as that.
Of course they don't say it because (1) they know it's not true, and (2) they know how it would look if they said something like that. The problem is that to assert that morality is subjective is to categorize morality as the same kind of thing as a personal preference. That category of subjective preferences includes some very trivial things. Subjective morality is like a trivial preference because it is categorically the same kind of thing.
I have explained this many times. Early learning, indoctrination, negative and positive feedback, experience, repetition, etc. are known to produce subconscious “feelings” that are very deeply entrenched and difficult to violate without mental anguish (or discomfort). If you doubt me, get up tomorrow and conciously button your shirt it a different way than you routinely do. If something as trivial as buttoning your shirt can result in something more deeply seated than a mere “preference”, why would you think that values that have been beaten into you from the time you were born would be less so?
That doesn't change what moral subjectivism is in categorical terms. Even if, because of culture, authority and nature, you have a deep-seated revulsion of nuts, and eating nuts could physically kill you because of allergies, and you cannot even watch others eating nuts, you recognize that it is an entirely subjective, individual, personal reaction/preference and, if sane, you would never think of imposing a nut ban or a law about how to button your shirt on anyone else, nor would you feel either justified or obligated to intervene to stop them from eating nuts or buttoning their shirt differently. In fact, you would consider it immoral (or crazy) for anyone to intervene in this way in the personal habits of others, much less attempt to give such personal views/habits/proclivities/preferences force of law. Once again, CF [zeroseven], I can easily see that you have never given any of this much thought because you keep throwing up defenses or explanations that only serve to expose how irrational your view is. We experience morality as categorically unlike any subjective/personal/individual proclivity, preference or even natural tendency. We experience fundamental moral principles as metaphysical absolutes, a universally binding perception of what humans - all humans - should and should not do and the rights they have. We cannot escape acting as if some core moral principles are more important than our personal desires, our very lives or the comfort of our loved ones. There are moral truths we hold to be more certain and more factual than provisional scientific facts. We are all absolutely certain, whether we admit it or not, that cruelty is immoral in every conceivable world and love is good in every conceivable world and that morality would make no sense at all if cruelty could be a good thing. Some of us, however, are not willing to admit these truths to ourselves. Do people disagree about what is good and what is evil? Certainly, just as people have disagreed about all things, even physical facts. The "people disagree" card is nothing but a sentimental pass with zero rational weight you give yourselves so you don't actually have to critically examine the nonsense you are advancing. You can throw whatever hypocritical, self-defeating, erroneous analogies you come up with at the wall to see if they stick; all you are doing is revealing the shallowness of your thought on the matter and the unrelenting, irrational hypocrisy of your moral framework.William J Murray
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PST
JAD @72: Wow. Regrettably, hat sounds like it could be a direct quote from my first or second book. What Bundy writes is indeed the logical conclusion of moral subjectivism. Fortunately for me I took the opportunity to change my direction, but not before considerable damage had been done. Seversky, CF and zeroseven are subjectivist dilettantes. As long as they remain superficial and commit to subjectivism in name only (while acting entirely as if moral objectivism is true and depending on it in the behavior of others), they can maintain their hypocritical objectivist privileges while espousing subjectivist nonsense. It would be a whole different story if they had to live outside of the ivory tower moral objectivism built and maintains for them, or if they actually had to act (or argue) like moral subjectivists.William J Murray
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PST
Mr Barry Arrington, at the beginning quotes Zeroseven: -------------------- "Just give your practical example and we can explore it." --------------------- We should be concerned with keeping the law; especially divine law. In Judaeo-Christian terms, are the Ten Commandments, which KF rightly draws on, subjective or objective? Bearing in mind, faith is a conviction in the unseen. Darwinism creates another God at best. Darwin dismissed our Parent God; saying He is "erroneous" on origins. Steals from God glory and honour; awe, that He created in six days, as He wrote and said. Darwinist Christians covet Darwin's word over the God of Sinai, reinforce by Jesus. Dismiss the Sabbath as commemorating the end of Holy Creation. Adulterates Sinai with brainless common descent via an unprovable process. Objectively kills the faith of children, as given at Sinai by largely philosophical and intellectual arguments, not bound by true regulatory science, evolutionism not being law. Darwinism creates the delusion/fact, that God lied at Sinai. That sins of the Fathers' passed down; who knows, by some form of epigenetics or Darwinian natural selection to become fitter at sinning! Therefore, my belief is, that no matter how ID moves, or how Christianity in general moves; which is largely down in these times, unless Sinai is taken on face value, as objective law, we (Judaeo-Christians) have set sail into a dark pit of our making, intellectually placing millstones round the necks of children by largely subjectifying divine law. I simply raise the questions, and implications, devoid of any judgement, in a thread where the Decalouge and subjective/objective morals are and have been brought into the mix. Can there be anything more beautiful, more awe inspiring, more earth shattering, than seeing God face to face: God giving to humans, in love, for love, through love, His divine Word? Moses did in a limited aspect.mw
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PST
F/N: Regarding beauty and principles. Of course, the world of music is pivotal historically, as the Pythagorean identification of numerical ratios of frequency as a root of harmonious tones and by extension chords etc, was momentous. Indeed, we can see the reasoning from the harmony of music to the harmony of the heavens and thence the earth, thus the rise of the vision of that severe beauty, mathematical elegance. With all sorts of implications for the rise of Science also. It is not for nothing that the trivium: Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic, went on to the quadrivium: Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. And how can I speak of beauty without highlighting that most beautiful expression, by Euler: 0 = 1 + e^(i * pi) Never underestimate the powerful and pleasing impact of elegant, powerfully unifying simplicity in the midst of vast diversity. In literature, there has long been a classical tradition on unifying structures and patterns, pivoting on the premise of a deep structure to narrative. For instance, Northrop Frye (summing up and building on long traditions) has spoken of a one story/ monomyth of literature, keyed to the classic seasons. One may group as comedy -- spring, romance -- summer, tragedy -- fall, winter -- anti-romances (irony and satire). And yes, the story types move along the cycle of varieties, showing repeating themes and progress, with character, circumstances, conflict and resolution as drivers of plot development. WILLIAM HOGARTH: The Analysis of Beauty is a classic work on underlying principles of axiology, with particular reference to the visual, and the highlighting of unifying lines in composition, especially the classic elegant S-shape. He speaks of fitness, variety, regularity, [elegant] simplicity [--> recall, less is more?], intricacy, quantity [greatness of magnitude]. So, despite the tendencies of a cynical and too often dismissive era to deride principles and guidelines (and to almost worship the politically correct bizarre, merely novel and ugly . . .), it is patently not so that beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. This becomes particularly so in the widespread agreement on facial beauty, especially female facial beauty: http://www.beautyanalysis.com/ Nor should we forget the golden ratio, phi: 1.618 etc, cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio There is a reason why justice, truth and beauty have long been tightly coupled. Where, yes, there is morally connected beauty in thought, word and character too. Where, that beauty may well be a gateway to call us back to sanity as a civilisation. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PST
CF, there you go again. Mung is right to challenge you to restate without implying or suggesting or premising on the binding nature of OUGHT. Likewise, having been repeatedly advised [and in the face of actually (and predictably) finding yourself being outrageous by playing the agenda piggyback game], you keep on insisting that principled objection to dubious behaviour is to be equated to racism. That insistent rhetoric of polarisation and marginalisation on your part speaks volumes and is a warning bell to those who look on and see the agenda of delegitimisation of people of principle for what it is. Especially, when we observe the pattern in thread of refusal to recognise the pivotal importance of freedom of conscience, expression and worship. Which are so important that this is actually the issues- context of the 1st Amdt to the US Constitution. KFkairosfocus
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PST
Vivid: Excellent. And proof positive that the principle is that one's claimed rights must be based on manifestly being in the right. KF PS: Beauty, contrary to common views today, has historically been understood in light of objective principles, starting with the Pythagorean discovery of mathematical principles of harmony in music, what 2600 years ago. And here is a classic counter-blast to subjectivism on beauty: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/1217/1/Davis_Fontes52.pdfkairosfocus
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PST
Sev " I argue, that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/C/dead8.jpg Vividvividbleau
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PST
Sev " I argue, however that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/X/8/children3.jpg Vividvividbleau
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PST
"So what. It’s not like there is any objective moral ought that was violated." Mungy want a cracker?clown fish
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PST
Sev I argue,however that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://f.tqn.com/y/history1900s/1/L/i/8/einsatz2.jpg Vividvividbleau
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PST
Vivid: "” I argue, however that evil, like beauty ,is in the eye of the beholder”" I saw your post right after mine and at first thought that it was in response to me. The juxtaposition was just too creepy.clown fish
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PST
Sev I argue, however that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder " http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/9/C/dead4.jpg Vividvividbleau
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PST
clown fish: So, you are proven wrong on me intentionally mangling names So what. It's not like there is any objective moral ought that was violated.Mung
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PST
clown fish: All you have to do is prove it. Please subtract the implied objective moral ought. Or admit you're a lying hypocrite.Mung
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PST
Sev " I argue, however that evil, like beauty ,is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/Q/A/prisoner7.jpg Vividvividbleau
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PST
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply