I have been in the most overtly unjust way banned from ban evasion after not having been banned at all in the first place.The ban has since been appealed and all has been made right.I wish to continue our discussion on ethics.How can there be objective ought-claims without grounding them in a personal, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God? FAQ>Why personal?So that cosmos has Telos and the laws of ethics don't change randomly >Why Eternal? Why omnipresent? Omniscient? Omnipotent?So that the laws of ethics are the same all throughout time, space, without any other being capable of changing them anywhere, anytime etc>But I thought morals are subjective?You can argue for that if you like but we'd rather you didn't, it's silly and ultimately it entails some weird things>Haven't we had this thread 6 times already?Seven.
>>25423246ok, i concede, you're 100% right, we cannot have objective ought-claims
>>25423254Do you have an issue with my phrasing or are you a moral relativist? If the latter, why post? You only anger the people who do have things to say on the matter but still would rather have the threat pruned or archived.
>>25423260>:^}
>>25423265what does that mean
>>25423246The “ought claims” are part of chemistry reactions in your brain that are naturally occurred just like exothermic oxidation. All moral claims are subjective cause there’re all physically feasible, as a form of eternal mechanical nature
Every proof of the existence of God is actually a proof of the existence of Satan and a reminder of the fall of man, for what proof of the existence of God could possibly be desired if He walked among us?
>>25423308Hm. Suppose a murder-rape-suicide occurs with no witnesses. Is that action unable to be deemed moral or immoral, based on the fact that there was no one around to witness it and have "chemistry reactions" occur in the brain to then make the claim?Arguing with the likes of you is tiring.>All moral claims are subjective It can be moral then to perform the most heinous of acts?
>>25423316>Every proof of the existence of God is actually a proof of the existence of SatanIt is ALSO a proof of the existence of satan, I'd have said. I guess I don't follow. Do you believe Christians don't believe in satan? Do you believe that if God had walked the earth, no one would disbelieve? They crucified Him when He had.
>>25423320>Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.Genesis 3:8
>>25423304
>>25423323I don't follow
>>25423354i'm just a harmless moral relativist, sir
6 7??
>>25423246Is OP a rogue chatbot? This is getting out of hand
>>25423366Unironically I felt bad for not having replied to people who have engaged honestly with my previous thread. I made a copy of my last reply I couldn't post:>>25413968Well done dummy, you're starting to catch up>>25414025But all arguments ARE presuppositional. Do you understand that when you make any claim, you presuppose language, that words have meaning, that truth exists, that claims themselves can be true, that there is an external world etc?>>25414132>You're just repeating Jay Dyer's braindead talking points with no thought put into whatever you're sayingKek, would you have me call that a genetic fallacy?>There's nothing that's objectively worthwhile. The moral feelings of people who torture puppies are not worthwhile TO ME (...) You really think you're making a point but you're not.No, actually, this was my point. What you say is the logical conclusion of atheism where any random horrific thing is not really horrific because nothing is objectively worthwhile anyway. Yes, this is how criminals justify their actions.>>25414179>So, you're not actually reading this text right now? Unless you ask God first?What Christianity provides is a worldview wherein it is reasonable to believe in a world with regularity.>Hence, externally verifiable. It's not just based on a subject's opinion. You're just confused.Are there any claims not externally verifiable which are objective true? How do we verify externally 1+1=2?>you'd have to break the law of non-contradictionExplain how.>if 1+1 isn't 2 then how do you know there's only 2 gendersI actually don't know anything of the sort. Gender is a term in linguistics and there have always been three, masculine, feminine and neuter . If woman and man are genders, then boy and girl have to be genders too. I suppose if you use gender as a polite term to refer to sex, that sentence is correct. Neither here nor there.Bingo, so we don't verify externally.>I can't see how regularity could only have been created by GodI argued that there needs to be personhood for telos in the universe. All the other traits, as well.>A dead inanimate reality would indeed intuitively be a consistent one. Such is the nature of rocks and corpses.Come on now, anon...>I am a rational agentYou presuppose that you are but, again, there is no way to verify that. Maybe you're dreaming, a brain in a vat, but like I said, I don't necessarily mean to get into that. Ultimately I'm asking for your epistemic principle that is prior to knowing you are rational.
>>25423356moral relativism is a cancer
>>25423404>What you say is the logical conclusion of atheism where any random horrific thing is not really horrific because nothing is objectively worthwhile anyway. There are hardly any (philosophically sophisticated) atheists who believe in objective morality. Your only argument is that this leads to supposedly "horrific" things which may be true but doesn't really prove anything. And most atheists still believe in subjective morality so it's not like they all want to go around being serial killers.
>>25423246Use TAG to refute is-ought claims
>>25424817>Your only argument is that this leads to supposedly "horrific" things which may be true but doesn't really prove anythingI'm not sure what you're getting at. What it is meant to prove is that there are as far as I'm concerned at least objectively horrific things out there and moral relativists contribute to our societal acceptance of such things through if nothing else intellectualizing destructive beliefs and approaches arbitrarily. As far as Humean skepticism goes, in terms of metaphysics or ethics, there is no way to refute it, other than to point to inconsistencies within the behavior of its proponents. You ask me "why is it wrong for (horrific things to happen)?"- I have no answer unless there is sharing in the belief that horrific things exist at all>And most atheists still believe in subjective morality so it's not like they all want to go around being serial killers.Right. "Most" does some heavy lifting. You still have however nominalists and relativists who reject even the fundamental notion that "one ought to believe what is true" (rather some claim: "one ought to believe what is ameliorative") and it is them whom we have to blame for some of the more egregious absurdities in the West.Not that I want to discuss politics nor justify my argumentation with appeals to trannies and refugees. Rather, I'd ask, how do proponents of subjective morality justify any of their claims, how do they know that what they proclaim moral won't become immoral 10 years from now, and if they admit that they themselves might shift their opinion, why ought anyone listen to them? Is it objectively an ought to not believe in objective morality?>>25424887is-ought claims are only problematic within non-theistic worldviews. within a Christian paradigm, laws of ethics are within the divine mind. you'll find that Hume's critiques apply only to naturalism
>>25423318Correct. Wild non-human animals rape and kill each other all the time and most likely have been as long as it has been physically possible, doesn't mean it was immoral.
>>25425253I'd have thought morality is something that only ever pertains to willed acts
>>25423246>How can there be objective ought-claims without grounding them in a personal, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Dildo?You can write the same answers to this question and it would be just as valid
>>25425319That is one subjective view of morality, yes
>>25425338Definitionally, facts of nature do not have to do with morality, even if you reject the (objectively correct) notion that there is no wrongdoing without will.>>25425334the ontology of a dildo is different than that of God that the former cannot be personal, eternal etc.I can play your game though and we'll still agree that morals have to be grounded in something personal, eternal etc. And then we'll convince you that it is God.
>>25423254>there's no objective ought-claimsought you say that? objectively?also, what about rape, murder, racism, etc?
>>25425359>the ontology of a dildo is different than that of God that the former cannot be personal, eternal etc.Irrelevant to the question at hand
>>25424817>There are hardly any (philosophically sophisticated) atheists who believe in objective morality. Your only argument is that this leads to supposedly "horrific" things which may be true but doesn't really prove anything. And most atheists still believe in subjective morality so it's not like they all want to go around being serial killers.How do you explain me not murdering and raping women if Jesus didn't say "Thou shalt not murder."?Jesus is Lord.
>>25425359>Definitionally, facts of nature do not have to do with morality, even if you reject the (objectively correct) notion that there is no wrongdoing without will.When somebody commits a rape willfully, how is that not a fact of nature?
>>25425388Well first of all I guess you fucking retard there was no question in the first place, rather, a sentence which I've pointed out to be fallacious >>25425433What is the worst is when sophists play dumb and they still can't make any coherent arguments. Clearly I differentiate between creatures with will and without. To be clear, you're equivocating on "nature", where you take it to refer to "facts of the natural world" where clearly I intended it to mean "facts of flora and fauna"How's about you answer this: "morality only pertains to beings with will"
>>25425475a claim*, I should have said, not a sentence
>>25425475>where clearly I intended it to mean "facts of flora and fauna"kek what? Literally no one uses "facts of nature" to mean that. Humans are a part of nature; we are also animals. You're ignoring that animals practice morality as well, albeit just as subjectively.
>>25425475>"morality only pertains to beings with will"What am I supposed to answer? That's a component of your personal definition of morality, a definition I acknowledged as valid within the framework of subjective morality.
>>25425475You've done no such thing. Morality can be as much grounded on a dildo as on a God.
>>25425502Is that a fact? When a man says "I need to connect with nature" does he not refer to wilderness represented by flora and fauna? When one says "I eat animals" is he confessing to cannibalism? Again, equivocation of the most basic and ridiculous degree, as expected from the likes of you. Quit playing dumb>You're ignoring that animals practice morality as wellAnimals do not posses will, therefore they cannot "practice" morality>>25425509>That's a component of your personal definition No such thing, I do not use a private language, I do not have nor give personal definitions. Maybe if you use "morality" to refer to something which hasn't to do with will, you are misusing the word.>>25425516>Morality can be as much grounded on a dildo as on a GodDildos cannot and are not personal, eternal, omniscient etc. This is the last time I repeat this to you.
>>25425537cannot be
>>25425537I never said anything about connecting with trees and wild animals, we were talking about the role of observation in determining the morality/immorality of behaviors. The first dictionary definition of nature is shown to aid you.>When one says "I eat animals" is he confessing to cannibalism?No one said this.>Animals do not posses will, therefore they cannot "practice" moralityMany animals possess social behaviors genetically encoded to improve the survival of their social species. These behaviors, like maternal instinct to protect the young, are teachable/enforceable via threatened or practiced violence on those who transgress. The collection of the traits of preference, learned behavior, and decision making can be called will.
>>25425558>picrel>The first (as in one of many) dictionary definition of nature Funny. As if I've accused you specifically of equivocation.>Many animals possess social behaviors genetically encoded to improve the survival of their social speciesYou can feel free to classify animal behaviors as "social" but do any of those point to any sort of will? This is what was in question. "Genetically encoded" at the very least points to a sort of determinism which is incompatible with will. How can there be morality within information from genes or, like you put it, pre-programmed behaviors? >These behaviors, like maternal instinct to protect the young, are teachable/enforceable via threatened or practiced violence on those who transgressDo these animals have ladders of values or, more explicitly, do they will to teach their progeny to act a certain way?Let us not be faggots about it any longer. Do you believe animals (as in non-human animals) have will?
>>25423246there arent any. and god wouldnt make them exist. we make choices. god is for the weak to be compelled and the evil to be cowed.
>>25425417lamest post ever. like just dont fucking rape people. its not that fucking hard.
>>25425576>You can feel free to classify animal behaviors as "social" but do any of those point to any sort of will?Yes, as I stated, those behaviors are teachable/enforceable via threatened or practiced violence on those who transgress.>"Genetically encoded" at the very least points to a sort of determinism which is incompatible with will. How can there be morality within information from genes or, like you put it, pre-programmed behaviors?It implies no such thing, and humans are fully genetically encoded in our behaviors as well. Our encoding just happens to be a bit more complicated with much larger brains and a capacity for language and abstraction that other animals lack. Morality is genetically encoded via the pressures of natural selection. An insect or fish that shits out a million eggs doesn't need to care for its young as much as a mammal with a several-month gestation period and a multi-year period for sexual maturity. Higher intelligence capable of particularism (a simple morality but obviously a morality nonetheless) will be capable of nurturing stronger/more advanced offspring, and to violate that morality is to doom ones own bloodline.>Do these animals have ladders of values or, more explicitly, do they will to teach their progeny to act a certain way?Yes, pecking orders within birds are an obvious example, e.g. runts incapable of feeding themselves being killed by their peers, or alpha male dogs in packs selectively applying violence to other dogs to enforce order like in webm rel.>Let us not be faggots about it any longer. Do you believe animals (as in non-human animals) have will?Yes.
