Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?

[T. A. Gardner]

Fido is never going to have civil rights.

But the concept of cruelty seems to me to be linked to a higher sense of justice beyond the laws of man.
There's something imprinted on our hearts that makes abject cruelty repellent to most psychologically healthy human beings. A lot of Germans might have agreed in theory with Hitler's proposition that the Jews needed to be culled, exiled, abused. But if most German civilians actually saw up close and personal the horrific cruelty in the death camps, they'd probably get sick to their stomach.

Correct. There is something in humans that internally tells them when they are fucking up or doing something morally wrong. It is the rare individual where that, let's call it a moral compass, is broken.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't know why people object to ethics being a choice of nations to enact laws.

You object when those ethics come from religion and people want to enact them into laws...

 

[Hume]

You object when those ethics come from religion and people want to enact them into laws...

Yes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes.

How fascist of you...

 

[Hume]

How fascist of you...

you are just going to be a stupid troll

 

[T. A. Gardner]

you are just going to be a stupid troll

No, I'm going to be a smart, sarcastic, troll. You are just going to be stupid.

 

[Hume]

No, I'm going to be a smart, sarcastic, troll. You are just going to be stupid.

zzzzzzz

 

[Damocles]

Sorry to break it to you guys but humans are animals.

(Hope that doesn't upset you if it runs afoul of your religious beliefs)

Humans are indeed animals, and are classified as one of the Great Apes....

 

[Obtenebrator]

Thanks for admitting you were wrong to claim the word universal had one, and only one shade of meaning.

I already noted that but it has no bearing on this conversation.

I understand as an atheist you are required to believe morality is relative and strictly subject to opinion, popular vote, and popular whim.

Clearly even you believe it is relative. Relative to humans.

You might right about that. But that still doesn't make moral relativism appealing as an existential concept.

You didn't read a thing I wrote and now you are going to tell me what I got wrong? How weird.

From a scientific, Darwinian evolution perspective it makes perfect sense for Hitler to eliminate the disabled, handicapped , and mentally retarded from the population.

No it doesn't. Why do you ignore what I said ?

It's only your opinion that it was wrong, you don't have any higher standard outside of human opinion to point to to say Hitler was wrong.

Where is your "higher standard"? Because from EVERYTHING you have said that standard is humans. You have only ever pointed to "universal" as applying to humans ergo your higher standard is NOTHING more than the opinion of humans.

 

[Obtenebrator]

Correct, only the human mind is able to perceive transcendent concepts like Pi,

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? I'm asking seriously. I am not saying that dolphins can but I'm also not saying that they can't since there is literally no way to know.

You claim you are an "agnostic" in regards to God because you cannot KNOW for certain. But yet you keep making these big claims that there is no way for you to know.

Why are you inconsistent on your positions?

 

[Cypress]

I already noted that but it has no bearing on this conversation.



Clearly even you believe it is relative. Relative to humans.



You didn't read a thing I wrote and now you are going to tell me what I got wrong? How weird.





No it doesn't. Why do you ignore what I said ?



Where is your "higher standard"? Because from EVERYTHING you have said that standard is humans. You have only ever pointed to "universal" as applying to humans ergo your higher standard is NOTHING more than the opinion of humans.

Same place the art, the quadratic equation, infinity, morality and other abstract, transcendent ideas are: uniquely within human reason and conscience.

As a moral relativist, you, Stalin, and Hitler just have opinions.

The most you can say about Stalin and Hitler is that you disagree with them.

You cannot say they are objectively wrong, because you believe morals are relative, subjective, a creation of the popular vote. You cannot appeal to any higher objective moral standard to state Hitler is objectively wrong for all time and all places.

 

[Hume]

Same place the art, the quadratic equation, infinity, morality and other abstract, transcendent ideas are: uniquely within human reason and conscience.

As a moral relativist, you, Stalin, and Hitler just have opinions.

The most you can say about Stalin and Hitler is that you disagree with them.

You cannot say they are objectively wrong, because you believe morals are relative, subjective, a creation of the popular vote. You cannot appeal to any higher objective moral standard to state Hitler is objectively wrong for all time and all places.

For someone who does not believe in god, you almost always talk about god.

 

[Cypress]

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? I'm asking seriously. I am not saying that dolphins can but I'm also not saying that they can't since there is literally no way to know.

You claim you are an "agnostic" in regards to God because you cannot KNOW for certain. But yet you keep making these big claims that there is no way for you to know.

Why are you inconsistent on your positions?

^^ I refuse to entertain a retarded debate with you about whether dolphins, bobcats , and lemurs conceivably might know the quadratic equation, Pi, the value of e.

 

[Cypress]

For someone who does not believe in god, you almost always talk about god.

I don't know where our moral compass comes from.

It ain't from science.

Science and the principles of Darwinian evolution would indicate Hitler was correct and justified in culling the gene pool by liquidating the disabled and mentally retarded.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't know where our moral compass comes from.

It ain't from science.

Science and the principles of Darwinian evolution would indicate Hitler was correct and justified in culling the gene pool by liquidating the disabled and mentally retarded.

In the past it was religion that played a major role in setting a society's moral compass.

 

[Hume]

I don't know where our moral compass comes from.

It ain't from science.

Science and the principles of Darwinian evolution would indicate Hitler was correct and justified in culling the gene pool by liquidating the disabled and mentally retarded.

Moral compass? Who thinks someone stabbing people on the street is a good thing? I have no idea why you're mentioning science.
Do you need god in order to write laws making stealing someone's property illegal? Seems pretty easy to figure out.

 

[Cypress]

Moral compass? Who thinks someone stabbing people on the street is a good thing? I have no idea why you're mentioning science.
Do you need god in order to write laws making stealing someone's property illegal? Seems pretty easy to figure out.

I understand this is a difficult conversation.

I myself think it's a difficult and intractable question.

Did you and Hitler just have different opinions, which are entirely subjective and subject to the popular whim?

Or was Hitler objectively wrong for all time and all places?

 

[Hume]

I understand this is a difficult conversation.

I myself think it's a difficult and intractable question.

Did you and Hitler just have different opinions, which are entirely subjective and subject to the popular whim?

Or was Hitler objectively wrong for all time and all places?

I am concerned with Trump. Hitler is dead.

 

[Obtenebrator]

Same place the art, the quadratic equation, infinity, morality and other abstract, transcendent ideas are: uniquely within human reason and conscience.

As a moral relativist, you, Stalin, and Hitler just have opinions.

The most you can say about Stalin and Hitler is that you disagree with them.

You cannot say they are objectively wrong, because you believe morals are relative, subjective, a creation of the popular vote. You cannot appeal to any higher objective moral standard to state Hitler is objectively wrong for all time and all places.

I have already explained this to you countless times. I'm not sure I can simplify it for you and I know you will simply ignore it as you have on the many instances I've already discussed this.

 

[Hume]

I understand this is a difficult conversation.

I myself think it's a difficult and intractable question.

Did you and Hitler just have different opinions, which are entirely subjective and subject to the popular whim?

Or was Hitler objectively wrong for all time and all places?

Major newspapers are saying Trump is better than Biden. This is where we see making excuses for fascism. Just like Hitler.