Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:10 am
Question: what is a right action?
Answer: a right action is one that is good and not bad or evil.
Question: what is a good action?
Answer: a good action is one that benefits rather than harms people.
Question: why should we benefit rather than harm people?
Answer: because that's the right thing to do.
Rinse and repeat.
I don't think he understands the notions of platitude and tautology.
Also he only answers "valid" questions.
I asked;
(1)But whose to say what is "proper"?
(2) What is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
Apparently he considers these invalid since he did not answer them.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:10 am
Question: what is a right action?
Answer: a right action is one that is good and not bad or evil.
Question: what is a good action?
Answer: a good action is one that benefits rather than harms people.
Question: why should we benefit rather than harm people?
Answer: because that's the right thing to do.
Rinse and repeat.
I don't think he understands the notions of platitude and tautology.
Also he only answers "valid" questions.
I asked;
(1)But whose to say what is "proper"?
(2) What is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
Apparently he considers these invalid since he did not answer them.
Yep. And it's always the last question that defeats moral realism and objectivism: and why is that proper or right or good?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:18 am
Yep. And it's always the last question that defeats moral realism and objectivism: and why is that proper or right or good?
Answer: it just is.
This is precisely the same question that defeats you too.
Why is shooting Peter Holmes in the face wrong? According to Peter Holmes there is no reason.
But lets not pretend like all failures are of equal proportions. Towards your quest of defeating moral objectivism, you've also defeated Peter Holmes. I didn't know your dick could reach your own ass, but there you have it...
Philosophers are the dumbest creatures that ever walked the Earth.
[quote=Skepdick post_id=501001 time=1615287883 user_id=17350]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=500997 time=1615285127 user_id=15099]
Yep. And it's always the last question that defeats moral realism and objectivism: and why is [i]that[/i] proper or right or good?
Answer: it just is.
[/quote]
This is precisely the same question that defeats you too.
Why is shooting Peter Holmes in the face wrong? According to Peter Holmes there is no reason.
But lets not pretend like all failures are of equal proportions. Towards your quest of defeating moral objectivism, you've also defeated Peter Holmes. I didn't know your dick could reach your own ass, but there you have it...
Philosophers are the dumbest creatures that ever walked the Earth.
[/quote]
When your see failure in every philosophy but can't do better on your own, maybe your criteria are bullshit?
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:31 pm
When your see failure in every philosophy but can't do better on your own, maybe your criteria are bullshit?
I am doing better. I reject Philosophy as the gatekeeper of "all human elucidation ". I demote Philosophy to a merely instrumental activity towards achieving our moral goals. You can't philosophise about morality but you can moralise about philosophy.
Some would say that my Philosophy is anti-Philosophy.
I would simply ask: Is the rejection of Philosophy a Philosophy, or not a Philosophy?
[quote=Skepdick post_id=501011 time=1615291232 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=501004 time=1615289516 user_id=15238]
When your see failure in every philosophy but can't do better on your own, maybe your criteria are bullshit?
[/quote]
I am doing better. I reject Philosophy as the gatekeeper of "all human elucidation ". I demote Philosophy to a merely instrumental activity towards achieving our moral goals. You can't philosophise about morality but you can moralise about philosophy.
Some would say that my Philosophy is anti-Philosophy.
I would simply ask: Is the rejection of Philosophy a Philosophy, or not a Philosophy?
[/quote]
No, it's just not worth discussing at all, even this much.
You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=501047 time=1615294546 user_id=15099]
You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.
[/quote]
Justified belief IS knowledge. Unjustified belief IS ignorance.
If your belief is justified, it's indistinguishable from fact.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:55 pm
You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.
Justified belief IS knowledge. Unjustified belief IS ignorance.
If your belief is justified, it's indistinguishable from fact.
I think you're muddling things up. A belief is an attitude towards something: acceptance that it's the case, or that an assertion asserting it is true. That we have beliefs is true - it's a fact. But the claim that a belief can be indistinguishable from the thing that is the case is incoherent.
And if you're alluding to the JTB theory of knowledge - that's demonstrably incorrect - quite apart from the problem that Gettier pointed out.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:55 pm
You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.
RIght and wrong have to be points of view, and for each of us they will need defending. Trying to pretend that they are right or wrong regardless of the human condition is absurd and self defeating.
Morality has to relate to the lived experience. How else would it ever be relevant.
It's my view that moral realists/objectivists are stuck in a self imposed state of infantilism, clinging to the certainties of mummy and daddy.
It's a tough world out there there are you have to fight your corner.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:11 pm
Justified belief IS knowledge. Unjustified belief IS ignorance.
If your belief is justified, it's indistinguishable from fact.
This does not advance a case for morality in any sense, as in moral terms justifications are dependant, subjective, and often capricious.
A belief justified by an opinion might look factlike but it does not amount to knowledge.
For example "Killing jews is justified by the necessity of the purity of the German race."
Such moral objectivists who claimed such a thing shared with you the absolute "truth" of their position.
If you can think of any example which is not analogous to this let me know.
Justified belief IS knowledge. Unjustified belief IS ignorance.
If your belief is justified, it's indistinguishable from fact.
[/quote]
This does not advance a case for morality in any sense, as in moral terms justifications are dependant, subjective, and often capricious.
A belief justified by an opinion might look factlike but it does not amount to knowledge.
For example
[i][b]"Killing jews is justified by the necessity of the purity of the German race."[/b][/i]
Such moral objectivists who claimed such a thing shared with you the absolute "truth" of their position.
If you can think of any example which is not analogous to this let me know.
[/quote]
Yes, moral facts are contingent. IF the purity of the German race is necessary AND killing Jews is necessary for preserving the purity of the German race, THEN killing Jews is necessary, but by adding necessary you've taken it out of the realm of morality anyhow.
And then you're confusing what one group Says is morality with what everyone generally Knows is morality. You're ignoring their evidentiary position entirelyy. You can be wrong about moral facts just like you can be wrong about any other kind of facts.
The point that matters is the evidence, not the belief, and not the scale upon which the belief is held. If everyone but one person believes murder is good, it's still morally impossible for it to be good because it's counterproductive to the entire purpose of morality.
Empty ssertions can be answers with simlpe denials.
But I gave you the opportunity to do more than provide empty assertions.
I asked several questions which you failed to answer.
I made it a point to respond to all valid counters and questions.
Which one did I fail to answer.
Answer the questions!
These questions?
I asked;
(1)But whose to say what is "proper"?
(2) What is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
I had addressed that before many times and I thought it is not a serious issue.
But if you insist,
The 'proper' is with reference to morality-proper.
My point is most of the definition for morality do reflect what is morality-proper.
I have defined what is morality-proper.
Morality-proper is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil. Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
Deontology, theistic morality, utilitarianism, etc. are not morality-proper.
"Abrahamic religion FSK" is the framework and system of knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, especially the major ones, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Their FSK is grounded on the Abrahamic God and the respective FSK are grounded on their supposed God-sent holy texts. All their divine knowledge and doctrines are grounded on the above.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:55 pm
You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.
Hitler had strong moral reasons for believing killing 6 million Jews and million others was morally right!
That is your moral relativism.
If someone were to insist it is morally right to commit the worse evil acts to you, your family, relatives, friends and humanity, how would you counter that or has any basis to convince them otherwise?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:21 am
I made it a point to respond to all valid counters and questions.
Which one did I fail to answer.
Answer the questions!
These questions?
I asked;
(1)But whose to say what is "proper"?
(2) What is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
I had addressed that before many times and I thought it is not a serious issue.
But if you insist,
The 'proper' is with reference to morality-proper.
My point is most of the definition for morality do reflect what is morality-proper.
I have defined what is morality-proper.
Morality-proper is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil. Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
Deontology, theistic morality, utilitarianism, etc. are not morality-proper.
"Abrahamic religion FSK" is the framework and system of knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, especially the major ones, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Their FSK is grounded on the Abrahamic God and the respective FSK are grounded on their supposed God-sent holy texts. All their divine knowledge and doctrines are grounded on the above.
1) The fact that "YOU" define what is "proper" is no concern of anyone except your own subjective judgment.
2) Giving an exposition of your personal moral code does not advance your claims about objective moral values.
