Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Great! You think that's unfair. So you must be assuming YOU can. You must believe Humanism has some kind of defense, and he's merely choosing not to offer it, but that he could.
I don't mind if you answer, or if he does. I'll take anybody's answer.
Go ahead.
But if you can't, and he can't...then how do you have any reason to think ANYBODY can defend Humanist ethics logically?
P.S. -- Of course I'm ignoring the et tu quoque fallacy. None of that will help out Humanism, if Humanism can't do it. So it's irrelevant for the present question. I'll be happy to get to it later, if I can ever get a recognition out of you that Humanism is incoherent on its own terms.
Please educate me on how it is done with slavery using Christian ethics as an example.
Great! You think that's unfair. So you must be assuming YOU can. You must believe Humanism has some kind of defense, and he's merely choosing not to offer it, but that he could.
I don't mind if you answer, or if he does. I'll take anybody's answer.
Go ahead.
But if you can't, and he can't...then how do you have any reason to think ANYBODY can defend Humanist ethics logically?
P.S. -- Of course I'm ignoring the et tu quoque fallacy. None of that will help out Humanism, if Humanism can't do it. So it's irrelevant for the present question. I'll be happy to get to it later, if I can ever get a recognition out of you that Humanism is incoherent on its own terms.
Please educate me on how it is done with slavery using Christian ethics as an example.
Yep, okay, if you want me to. But first, that won't help Humanism, if Humanism cannot do it.
What's your answer? Can Humanism provide a "why" to explain the wrongness of slavery?
Yep, okay, if you want me to. But first, that won't help Humanism, if Humanism cannot do it.
It will help me.
Not with your understanding of the groundlessness of Humanist ethics. It will be irrelevant to that.
Of course it might help his understanding of the groundlessness of humanist ethics. You would be showing him that Christian ethics is grounded and can be demonstrated to be objective. He will be more likely to see that humanist ethics cannot do what Christian ethics can. It puts on the table what a legitimate answer to why includes and is made up of.
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:20 pm
It will help me.
Not with your understanding of the groundlessness of Humanist ethics. It will be irrelevant to that.
Of course it might help his understanding of the groundlessness of humanist ethics. You would be showing him that Christian ethics is grounded and can be demonstrated to be objective.
That won't help Humanism.
If I can play hockey, it doesn't imply you can. If I can't play hockey, it doesn't mean anything about you, either. You might or might not be able to play hockey, either way. So there's no knowledge of the subject gained about you with reference to me.
If I can ground an ethic, or even if I couldn't, it doesn't tell you Humanists can.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:40 pm
He was wrong. That would be a fallacy on his part, if he assumed it.
So, it couldn't help him to see you demonstrate that Christian ethics can be demonstrated to be objectively true.
No, it couldn't help his understanding of Humanist ethics.
He said it will help him. He was non-specific. You said to him what you said here. And he responded that it will help him. Did you not read what you quoted of him?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 4:54 pm
So, it couldn't help him to see you demonstrate that Christian ethics can be demonstrated to be objectively true.
No, it couldn't help his understanding of Humanist ethics.
