Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 10:28 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 10:20 amWaste of time.

Agreed.

Your conclusion is already formed, and nobody else will ever change that.

You are not here to learn. You are here to instruct.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 10:49 am So instruct me then, Peter Holmes...

Is 1+1=2 what you call a "fact"—or a mere opinion?

And how do you know the difference?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 8:02 am I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 8:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 8:18 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 8:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:17 am
The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

Demolished? in your imagination? Where??
Just give me reference to one [or two] significant post you have done so and I will show you the rebuttals [in various threads >250 and posts] to your counter-arguments.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:41 am I'm all too painfully aware of your bs arguments about this, so there's no point rehearsing them. It's wasting your time as much as mine. Perhaps we should just agree that we'll never agree.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:26 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

"Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle. VA is just plain bonkers. IC is approaching the matter in the same way a lawyer approaches a legal case. Truth and fairness are not his concern; his only job is to present his own case while trying to demolish that of his opponent by any means (fair or foul) available to him. He isn't here in the role of philosopher, but purely as God's advocate.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:26 pm "Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:41 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:26 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:52 am So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

"Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle. VA is just plain bonkers. IC is approaching the matter in the same way a lawyer approaches a legal case. Truth and fairness are not his concern; his only job is to present his own case while trying to demolish that of his opponent by any means (fair or foul) available to him. He isn't here in the role of philosopher, but purely as God's advocate.

Yep. Don't know how you feel - but I'd quite like to come across a rational, thought-out argument for moral objectivity. I haven't seen one yet - and I think it doesn't exist. But I could be wrong.