Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Thalamus #8…Christian voluntarists are anti-realists, because they are saying the standard isn’t real, but ‘made up’ by God. Did you take the poll?
My own little world? Man. That totally hurts my feelings, but my own sister thinks I’m weird, so why should you guys feel any different? Ah, well. We humans are a bunch of knuckle heads.
Your poll is a good example of your world (paraphrasing):
a) you don’t believe in god, you are evil and like it that way
b) You are agnostic, good and evil don’t matter to you
c) You believe in god, you are good and fight evil
Show me an inquitude and I’ll show you a reason to ignore it.
What should we do about an isolated culture where little girls get doused with sulfuric acid when expressing a desire to go to school?
a) Nothing, Ignore the issue as it is a product of cultural or moral relativism, we shouldn’t be cultural imperialists imposing our notions of gender equality and human well being upon others.
b) Do whatever is in our power to reduce the number of such instances. (moral realism)
Pretend this philosphical question is unproductive and unworthy of our time. (nonverbalism)
Show me an inquitude and I’ll show you a reason to ignore it.
What should we do about an isolated culture where little girls get doused with sulfuric acid when expressing a desire to go to school?
a) Nothing, Ignore the issue as it is a product of cultural or moral relativism, we shouldn’t be cultural imperialists imposing our notions of gender equality and human well being upon others.
b) Do whatever is in our power to reduce the number of such instances. (moral realism)
Pretend this philosphical question is unproductive and unworthy of our time. (nonverbalism)
I appreciate your stance, Thalamus. We just approach things differently. You see a philosophical problem and I see a psychological and legal one.
Show me an inquitude and I’ll show you a reason to ignore it.
What should we do about an isolated culture where little girls get doused with sulfuric acid when expressing a desire to go to school?
a) Nothing, Ignore the issue as it is a product of cultural or moral relativism, we shouldn’t be cultural imperialists imposing our notions of gender equality and human well being upon others.
b) Do whatever is in our power to reduce the number of such instances. (moral realism)
Pretend this philosphical question is unproductive and unworthy of our time. (nonverbalism)
This is the same lame argument for freewill: If our actions are determined then how can we hold criminals accountable. The simple answer is; then how can I be held accountable for holding them accountable.
You have created a false dichotomy by implying that moral relativism is a singular global instance Vs many local instances and that no one instance can say anything about another. You can chose “b” and still have moral relativism, the difference is justification, “We” Vs “it”.
Show me an inquitude and I’ll show you a reason to ignore it.
What should we do about an isolated culture where little girls get doused with sulfuric acid when expressing a desire to go to school?
a) Nothing, Ignore the issue as it is a product of cultural or moral relativism, we shouldn’t be cultural imperialists imposing our notions of gender equality and human well being upon others.
b) Do whatever is in our power to reduce the number of such instances. (moral realism)
c) Pretend this philosphical question is unproductive and unworthy of our time. (nonverbalism)
I appreciate your stance, Thalamus. We just approach things differently. You see a philosophical problem and I see a psychological and legal one.
Well, yes, but we need a philosphy in order to proceed legally. And psychology is a science and I’m sure youve heard that philosophy is the mother of all sciences. So, out of sheer curiosity, what is your stance on my philosphical inquitude?
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what an inquitude is. Google isn’t helping me. But please feel free to start another thread in which you and me ask each other questions about how we feel about important topics.
Your poll is a good example of your world (paraphrasing):
a) you don’t believe in god, you are evil and like it that way
b) You are agnostic, good and evil don’t matter to you
c) You believe in god, you are good and fight evil
WTF is that! LOL!
—GAD
Yeah right. You didn’t even barely read it. For the record—we all have the potential to do good or evil, regardless of what we believe. The categories have absolutely nothing to do w/ whether or not one believes in God—there are both theists and ‘other’ in the ‘voluntarists/anti-realists’ category, for example.
Someone who believes in objective moral truth is leaning towards the essentialist category, even if they are ‘not’ one (even if they are an atheist).
Again…if your ‘truth’ about what it means to be human…how we should be…what we should do with our lives…if it changes w/ the tides of time…if it would go extinct w/ humans…dude…it ain’t truth. It’s a construct. Your ‘believing’ in it doesn’t make it real—that’d be the fallacy of reification…of believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden… (yes, I’m reading Dawkins…it’s rather faith-building).
This is the same lame argument for freewill: If our actions are determined then how can we hold criminals accountable. The simple answer is; then how can I be held accountable for holding them accountable.
You have created a false dichotomy by implying that moral relativism is a singular global instance Vs many local instances and that no one instance can say anything about another. You can chose “b” and still have moral relativism, the difference is justification, “We” Vs “it”.
With respect to free will, your answering a question with another question..but let’s not prolongue this thread with a new discussion on free will..
You have created a false dichotomy by implying that moral relativism is a singular global instance Vs many local instances and that no one instance can say anything about another. You can chose “b” and still have moral relativism, the difference is justification, “We” Vs “it”.
Moral relativism of course doesn’t imply that one cannot say anything about another one. However, it does imply that one has no moral jurisdiction outside his/her own cultural circle. You certanly cannot choose b) and still have moral relativism, if you think you can you probably don’t understand moral relativism.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what an inquitude is. Google isn’t helping me. But please feel free to start another thread in which you and me ask each other questions about how we feel about important topics.
I meant to say inquietude, excuse my typo. Sorry I didn’t know it was so hard to answer my little multiple choice interrogative.
Again…if your ‘truth’ about what it means to be human…how we should be…what we should do with our lives…if it changes w/ the tides of time…if it would go extinct w/ humans…dude…it ain’t truth. It’s a construct. Your ‘believing’ in it doesn’t make it real—that’d be the fallacy of reification…of believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden… (yes, I’m reading Dawkins…it’s rather faith-building).
When we are gone what we believed in is gone, that is the only truth of reality.
Again…if your ‘truth’ about what it means to be human…how we should be…what we should do with our lives…if it changes w/ the tides of time…if it would go extinct w/ humans…dude…it ain’t truth. It’s a construct. Your ‘believing’ in it doesn’t make it real—that’d be the fallacy of reification…of believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden… (yes, I’m reading Dawkins…it’s rather faith-building).
When we are gone what we believed in is gone, that is the only truth of reality.
if you’re a solipsist I suppose…
Otherwise, reality exists independently of our consciousness and it will continue to exists whether there is someone to observe it or not.
With respect to free will, your answering a question with another question..but let’s not prolongue this thread with a new discussion on free will..
Actually that was a statement not a question.
Moral relativism of course doesn’t imply that one cannot say anything about another one. However, it does imply that one has no moral jurisdiction outside his/her own cultural circle. You certanly cannot choose b) and still have moral relativism, if you think you can you probably don’t understand moral relativism.
I beg to differ. In any case you are talking about justification, “We” say you are wrong and hold you accountable for throwing acid on girls Vs “it” says you are wrong and holds you accountable for throwing acid on girls. You believe that “we” can’t hold anyone accountable, only an “it”. All you are doing is trading a black robe and a cross for a white lab coat with a Star Trek pin on the lapel and declaring it now justified to hold men who throw acid on girls accountable.
I beg to differ. In any case you are talking about justification, “We” say you are wrong and hold you accountable for throwing acid on girls Vs “it” says you are wrong and holds you accountable for throwing acid on girls. You believe that “we” can’t hold anyone accountable, only an “it”. All you are doing is trading a black robe and a cross for a white lab coat with a Star Trek pin on the lapel and declaring it now justified to hold men who throw acid on girls accountable.
“We” cannot hold anyone accountable if we don’t have a moral point of reference (or “it”) that is outside of “we” against which to contrast “their” behavior. If you believe such a point of reference exist then you’re a realist. Otherwise you’re a realtivist or pragmatist and your hands are tied.
