They are wrong. Does that scare you?
Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
No, never said anything in support of moral relativism.
And the same is true for other animals. Consciousness and intellect appear to be a sliding scale. But the fact remains at the end of the day no one can have an idea of what the animal's brain is capable of if they cannot communicate with it.
You seem incapable of discussing a point dispassionately. That's a sign of education, to be able to step away from your personal feelings about a point and being able to discuss it.
For someone such as yourself who claims to be very well read I'm surprised this is such a tough hurdle for you.
When discussing the UNIVERSALITY of something that can apply to a larger set it is inappropriate to apply it to a subset without being able to determine exactly why that subset is special. (Again, should be obvious to someone of your supposed learning).
But you will, if you were able to be honest, note that I agreed that the use of "universal" can and is used to describe things associated with one subset (eg universal healthcare) precisely because the reason for decreeing morality "universal" is to take it out of the realm of human decisions.
The reason to speak about universal suffrage and apply it only to humans is because it is a class of beings that vote.
I will say it again so you can be confused by it one more time:
The reason you claim morality is "universal" is to take it out of the realm of human caprice and set it on some more firm ground. To then say morality only applies to humans while being a universal truth puts it right back into human caprice.
Universal Suffrage is NOT universal in the true sense of the word. It is universal to a group of beings that vote and can hence be defined SOLELY by those beings.
IF, as you claim, morality is "universal" but only applies to humans then you have created a system by which humans define morality. You have hoisted yourself on your own pitard.
No. Again, you will have to actually READ WHAT I WRITE. You consistently miss the point. I can only assume it is because of your hatred making you incapable of addressing or understanding my point.
I NEVER said that.
I understand your ego is extremely fragile and you neeeeeed to "win" for some reason. You are always telling everyone how incredibly well read you are and pointing out your amazing intellect but in reality you are not quite a sharp as you think you are.
You haven't read my posts or understood them. I can only assume the words are too big or the concepts to nuanced and coupled with your rage at me you are unable to understand the points nor are you able to address them honestly.
I have asked you numerous times now where the objective moral truths come from. Who is the author?
Why are you unwilling to answer the question?
You just rejected the claims of objective moral truth by Plato, Socrates, Confucious.
I don't believe in word games or academic ivory tower hair splitting.
Either you believe in an objective moral truth, or you believe morality is subjective and contingent upon opinion and popular consensus.
I've said I don't know. I don't have the certainty of omniscience you do.
Why are you reluctant to enthusiastically embrace moral relativism? Something about moral relativism that strikes you as unappealing compared to objective moral truth?
Where do the concepts of pi, the Pythagorean theorem, and infinity come from? They are objectively true without any physical existence. Other animals don't percieve them.
I lack omniscience as well. However I have proposed an hypothesis. My position, while one you clearly disagree with, at least has a workable hypothesis for it. And my hypothesis doesn't require any intelligence beyond space and time that cannot be shown to have any evidence for its existence.
Do you think some intelligence beyond space and time created them? Or do you think circles just naturally form that ratio by definition.
Where does 1+1 = 2 come from? The same place.
Pi most DEFINITELY has a physical existence. You are physically incapable of creating a circle in which the ratio of circumference to diameter is anything but that number.
Just like you can't take 1 apple and add another apple and have 3 apples.
Do you think this requires some ineffible intelligence beyond space and time?
You already belatedly confessed that you were wrong, and all the other posters on the thread and the world's best dictionaries were correct that the word universal has different shades of meaning, one of which is something that applies to humans.
There's no requirement to explain root causes. You just made that up out of whole cloth.
Humans have a universal appreciation for aesthetic beauty, but there's no scientific consensus as to the root chemical, biological, or evolutionary reasons for it.
You just are not very intelligent. Your limitation is not the limit of the world.
Last edited:
Are you unable to read my posts? I'm seriously asking because it appears you have no clue what I actually say.
Why do you always prefer to be as dishonest as humanly possible?
Are you this dishonest in real life?
Litmus
Verified User
public morality is called law.
you can think of it as how a religious community treats other member of the community, not necesarily how their "out group" treatment. Out Group treatment varies and has different levels of morality.
but all are similar from the inside.
warmongers focus on the diviseve aspects.
Litmus
Verified User
no.
Humans have an interest in univerals human morality.
christianity's golden rule seems good.
what your objections to "do unto others...." ?
or is it that you actually prefer evil?
All I see is a lot of fancy dancing for you to avoid saying you believe in a subjective morality contingent on opinion and popular consensus.
In your existential scheme, Hitler just had a different opinion of which you disapproved based on your opinion.
That's not good enough for me. I would like to believe there is an objective universal moral truth like Plato, Confucious, Kant believed.
But I could be wrong, and you could be right about subjective morality. I think your belief is less appealing and more cynical though.
Your simplistic idea that everything is subjective or objective leads to nothing.
Litmus
Verified User
Your morality comes from a mystery. My morality comes from objective reality.
At the end of the day I don't think either of us actually has a different morality (setting aside your propensity to dishonest misrepresentation of other people's points). It's just where we think it comes from. You are happy to have it be a mystery/supernatural command that just rains upon you from outside of space and time. I, personally, prefer something grounded in reality.
I find "command style" morality (which is yours essentially since you don't know where it comes from or even WHY it exists) to be less appealing. But I know that's not for everyone. Religious people prefer your version of morality being commanded to them from beyond space and time but they usually put the placeholder of "God" in there. I'm mystified as to what you think the source of morality is given your supposed "agnostic" position with regards to God.