personhood

[FlashDangerpants]

when the realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what he believes is fact

when the anti-realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what exactly?

That which is in fact a belief.

but what exactly is the belief?

I, again, can explain why slavery is wrong: can you?

Well your belief is that there is a fact. All that you have is that you believe there is fact though. But still you hold that belief and you think that the belief is important and you will argue for it and who knows maybe you will fight and die for it should it come down to that. Beliefs are frequently liek that. When did it become impossible to hold a belief that slavery is wrong because you believe that some behaviour is wrong?

[henry quirk]

That which is in fact a belief.

but what exactly is the belief?

I, again, can explain why slavery is wrong: can you?

Well your belief is that there is a fact. All that you have is that you believe there is fact though. But still you hold that belief and you think that the belief is important and you will argue for it and who knows maybe you will fight and die for it should it come down to that. Beliefs are frequently liek that. When did it become impossible to hold a belief that slavery is wrong because you believe that some behaviour is wrong?

but why is a particular behavior wrong?

I can explain why pickpocketin' is wrong: can you?

[FlashDangerpants]

but what exactly is the belief?

I, again, can explain why slavery is wrong: can you?

Well your belief is that there is a fact. All that you have is that you believe there is fact though. But still you hold that belief and you think that the belief is important and you will argue for it and who knows maybe you will fight and die for it should it come down to that. Beliefs are frequently liek that. When did it become impossible to hold a belief that slavery is wrong because you believe that some behaviour is wrong?

but why is a particular behavior wrong?

I can explain why pickpocketin' is wrong: can you?

Yes, according my beliefs, I believe that it is wrong to steal. You believe the same.

But I also believe it is morally wrong to smother your butthole with chocolate sauce and get a dog to lick it clean, while you don't agree. I reckon Mannie probably believes the same thing I do regarding securing anilingus from a beast by deception. So if you are working with fact not belief, then you should be able to prove your case, rather than merely expressing an opinion on the matter. Yet when this simple test that differentiates fact from belief arises ... nothing, always nothing, well nothing except opinions anyway.

[henry quirk]

Yes, according my beliefs, I believe that it is wrong to steal.

why do you believe this?

[commonsense]

Warning to all dog lovers: chocolate is toxic to dogs.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes, according my beliefs, I believe that it is wrong to steal.

why do you believe this?

It's not fair or honest. Good luck searching the cosmos for the universe's opinion on honesty.

[henry quirk]

Yes, according my beliefs, I believe that it is wrong to steal.

why do you believe this?

It's not fair or honest. Good luck searching the cosmos for the universe's opinion on honesty.

so, bein' fair, bein' honest, these are good things, right things, yeah?

why?

bein' unfair, bein' dishonest, these are bad things, wrong things, yeah?

why?

I can answer every question I've put to you so far, clearly, cleanly, simply

why can't you?

[seeds]

I would like some clarification, please.

Flash & Henry:
Can there be personhood without morality?

IC, Belinda, Seeds:
Can there be personhood without God?

Well, I suggest that if we view God and the universe from the perspective of a Berkeleyan form of idealism and Panentheism - as is metaphorically represented in my little illustration,...



...then clearly, without God, not only would there be no such thing as personhood, but the entire universe would be nonexistent.

Does that at least clarify my stance on the issue?
_______

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes, according my beliefs, I believe that it is wrong to steal.

why do you believe this?

It's not fair or honest. Good luck searching the cosmos for the universe's opinion on honesty.

so, bein' fair, bein' honest, these are good things, right things, yeah?

why?

bein' unfair, bein' dishonest, these are bad things, wrong things, yeah?

why?

I can answer every question I've put to you so far, clearly, cleanly, simply

why can't you?

I can answer them honestly, you just refuse the honest answer because you want a different one. The truth is that I believe dishonesty is bad, same as everyone else does.

You believe that you can answer these questions simply and honestly, but you can only answer with beliefs. I assume one of those will be something about man owning himself, and then perhaps a little bit of question begging action where things are wrong to do if you unfairly or unjustly seperate him from his property.

[henry quirk]

The truth is that I believe dishonesty is bad

why?


you just refuse the honest answer because you want a different one.

no sir, that is not the case: I'll accept any answer you care to give

you simply haven't given one

-----

edit:took out sumthin' that likely would be misunderstood, and that wasn't necessary anyway

[Immanuel Can]

This point continues your theme of just assuming moral realism

Don't quite get it, do you Sport?

It's you who is the moral anti-realist. And it's you who deal with the implications.

I can show you what it implies. I can't understand it for you.

[FlashDangerpants]

This point continues your theme of just assuming moral realism

Don't quite get it, do you Sport?

It's you who is the moral anti-realist. And it's you who deal with the implications.

I can show you what it implies. I can't understand it for you.

So long as you keep painting me as an amoralist because you suppose that if morality isn't 'real' in whatever sense you think it is, then the only possible alternative is reprehensible fraud, then you are relyiing on moral realist assumptions to make that argument, and thus your argument is circular.

Not that you care whether your argument is shit or not, you never have and you never will. You will get your default victory soon enough by simply outlasting me because my patience for this low quality bullshit is clearly very limited, so you just need to hang in there until the other stuff I am doing finishes, and then I will stop bothering with this conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

So long as you keep painting me as an amoralist...

I didn't. You did. You're an anti-moralist. You said so yourself.

...the only possible alternative is reprehensible fraud...

I never said that. That's a bit you just made up for the moment. But let me clear it up for you.

There's nothing fraudulent about not believing in any morality at all, if you declare that, and live it out, and don't teach anyone else anything different. But there is something deeply disingenuous about declaring that morality exists, and expecting others to feel obligated to be moral, while simultaneously declaring one's complete disbelief in any real basis for morality.

That would be fraudulent, because you would be taking advantage of the others' naivete regarding morality in order to make life comfortable and "moral" for yourself, even while you knew in your heart that the whole thing was bunk. You'd be profiting from deceit, then: and that would be fraud.

Are you doing that?

[Skepdick]

That would be fraudulent, because you would be taking advantage of the others' naivete regarding morality in order to make life comfortable and "moral" for yourself, even while you knew in your heart that the whole thing was bunk. You'd be profiting from deceit, then: and that would be fraud.

Are you doing that?

"No. I am not doing that.", said the amoralist.
"By using a vocabulary which encodes moral connotations you are re-interpreting my amoral behaviour through your moralist lens. Why should I care?"

Words like "fraudulent", "taking advantage" and "deceit" are only meaningful to a moralist, not an amoralist.

If the amoralist happens to profit from respecting the moralist's beliefs, the moralist doth not protest too much for their beliefs being respected.

Classic dutch-book argument. If strict adherence to a moralist frameworks leads to immoral outcomes then your moral framework is immoral.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But they all have natural realism. The engineer who builds no bridges isn't an engineer. The doctor who never entertains a patient is not a doctor for long. The artist who never paints isn't an artist at all...and so on.

Engineers and doctors belong to professional bodies /societies that arbitrate on what qualifications and applications are appropriate to the professions.
Artists are often independent of cultural norms, indeed independence from cultural norms is a quality without which artists would be commercial artists.
Some more authoritarian religions are like professional bodies that rule on what the religious must do and believe. Other religions such as Society of Friends, and Unitarians, are like those artists who are free to think and do with reason and continually revised traditions as their direction finders.

Personhood is such that some totalitarian regimes deprive those who it views as free thinkers of personhood, and imprison them or put them to death. If there is a God of Love then He will support free thinkers in their personhood, but He will be unable to free them from prison or save their lives.