Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 31, 2015, 11:53:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1053
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NY-Quinnipiac: Clinton leads Republicans by 20+ points on: March 24, 2015, 01:57:15 pm
but muh emailgate

I barely know who you are, since I haven't posted here in forever, but holy hell please stop that

What a coincidence, since I don't know who you are either (nor do I care.)

I'll file your complaint and give you a prompt reply within 4-6 weeks.

Perfect!  I'd be much happier if I only had to read you making the same dumb joke every 4-6 weeks.
2  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt on: March 23, 2015, 06:26:48 pm
Pinot noir, caviar
Pinor noir, myanmar
Pinot noir, candy bar
Pinot noir, mid-sized car

A worthy follow-up to the smash hit La Piscine from 30 Rock.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NY-Quinnipiac: Clinton leads Republicans by 20+ points on: March 23, 2015, 04:12:22 pm
but muh emailgate

I barely know who you are, since I haven't posted here in forever, but holy hell please stop that
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Cabrini-Green Housing Projects? on: March 23, 2015, 04:06:38 pm
yeah, BRTD, come on.
5  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Five favorite albums on: March 21, 2015, 02:13:21 pm
In no particular order

Interpol - Turn On the Bright Lights

Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica

The National - Boxer

Pavement - Slanted and Enchanted

Pixies - Doolittle
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What % of white women will Hillary get? on: February 27, 2015, 09:33:04 am
Why speculate? We have cross tabs. As of today...

Not to point out the obvious, but because the cross tabs are as of today, and the election is as of over 20 months from now.
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Retromike's "Fear and Hockey in Las Vegas." on: February 27, 2015, 09:27:37 am
Maybe this is the sleep deprivation in me talking, but "you're completely unattractive to me, maybe we could register voters together" is either the best let-down line or the worst pick-up line I've ever heard.
8  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Trailer Released for Tina Fey's New Show "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" on: February 27, 2015, 06:11:12 am
Tentatively positive.

1. ellie kemper is adorable

2. jane krakowski is amazing, and anything associated with 30 rock is a plus in my book

3. the "dancing is about butts now!" line was pretty great

but so hard to tell with trailers
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Gay Marriage Legalization Poll on: February 24, 2015, 05:23:17 pm
His argument was that marriage only exists to incentivize the best possible situation for child-rearing.  There are so many fatal problems with that argument, though.  After several people did a detailed, patient explanation of them, it's frustrating to see him arguing the same position like that conversation never happened.

It's a totally unreasonable position, so I'm disappointed to see it argued as somehow "moderate."
10  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Gay Marriage Legalization Poll on: February 24, 2015, 04:50:44 pm
Support.

Civil Unions yes, Marriage no. Though, I will say that if the SCOTUS rules in favor of it, I will be in the "its settled law, I don't like it, but let's just move on" camp, rather than the "Fight to reverse it for all of eternity!" camp, simply because I don't care about the issue enough to fight it beyond the  'lgbt-favorable SCOTUS ruling' point.

I'm still disappointed that you stopped replying to the thread where people were challenging your argument on this.  What did you not find our arguments a convincing rebuttal of your argument?
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP caucus in Washington on: February 19, 2015, 10:32:52 pm
1. Washington was not especially close in 2004.  It was definitely not a swing state...it was almost 10 points to the left of national average, and has twice trended Democratic since.  Also, Washington is a highly polarized state, so closing small gaps is harder than in most other places.

2. Paul's people were well-organized in WA, even if the Republican Party insiders did their best to screw them over.  I have no idea if this will repeat, but it doesn't really relate to Washington's libertarian lean.  Washington may have a lot of social liberals who are fiscal conservatives in the suburbs, but those aren't exactly Paul's constituency.  Paul's strong performance in WA was about an organized operation, not the state's ideology.

3. The 2004 Gubernatorial election was a huge mess, and King County messed up, but it didn't find more votes per capita than some other (very Republican) counties.  Also, the votes that they found were publicly disclosed (the voter IDs, that is).  This was absolutely a screw-up, but using this to argue the election was "stolen" is weak.
12  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How strongly do you agree or disagree? on: February 16, 2015, 09:04:36 pm
I don't know how I could possibly vote anything besides 0 and 10 for a statement that asserts a total universal.  So, uh, zero?
13  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: February 16, 2015, 09:00:31 pm
Hmm, you've given me a lot to think about, which is why I've taken so long to reply. I think the fundamental difference here is the way we see morality as operating. My view of how morality works and how humans interact with it mean I just can't see a way that the difference between moral intuitions and direct religious experiences is relevant.

Or, to put it another way, yes, I think they are so comparable that I have to limit (though not dismiss, as we should all have a healthy sceptisim about things like this) your argument.

Regarding the second part, my point, though not very well made, was something along the lines that I don't think you can easily divide things into material reality obesrvations and non material observations, it's a continuum.

Anyway I'm kind of out of my depth here, so I'll bow out. I enjoyed the debate Smiley

This is complex, and I totally respect it if you want to bow out, but I don't have any particularized knowledge here.  I'm thinking through it as we go.  No worries about replying if you don't want to -- but I'd like to finish the thought.

I think your basic argument is that you see moral intuitions as our best means of deriving moral truths, which you think are fixed truths that are accessible via perception.  You also recognize that 'material' things, like the existence of an intruder in your house are fixed truths accessible via perception.  To you, the line between 'material' observations and non-'material' observations seems arbitrary.  You assume both morality and concrete materials are objects that exist, that we can perceive and intuit.  A religious experience may even blur the line further.  To you, religious truth (like the existence of God) is more like a moral 'object' than an intruder in your house -- because it may not have a concrete, chemical existence, but it still an 'object' you can perceive or intuit, and so you argue you know it's an 'object.'

A few problems with this:

You seem to be assuming that morality is an 'object' that can be apprehended because you have intuitions about it.  There are a few issues with this.  First, intuitions are demonstrably not always a reflection of any reality.  We frequently have strong feelings about things we can concretely confirm (deja vu, for instance) that are not reflections of any reality.  They're just feelings.  They're just intuitions.  We're wired to have them, and we often have them erroneously.  Recognizing this does not require us to throw away all intuitions and feelings we have.  Even if you believe that morality is an 'object' we can apprehend, if there are marked variations in moral intuitions, why should we assume our own are correct?  Maybe there are moral 'objects' and we're just not very accurate at perceiving them.  Maybe we perceive them correctly, but infer their significance poorly.  What else explains the variations in moral intuitions between human beings?  Either people are being dishonest about them, they're crazy, these are feelings that don't relate to any concrete reality, or there is a concrete reality but we're not good at ascertaining it.  No matter your logic, I'm not sure how it leads to believing beyond a reasonable doubt that your personal intuitions reflect moral truth.

The other problem is in assuming that moral truths are 'objects' that exist as realities.  Why assume this?  Now, you might analogize a moral intuition to an observation of something tangible like the intruder (as Ernest sort of did) that a universal intuition can be accepted as fact, much like if everyone at dinner reports they're seeing an intruder, it's reasonable to assume a person is an object that is there.  The difference is that we don't just accept this because it's a shared feeling or intuition.  It's something we can perceive and describe.  We can see the object we're perceiving.  Generally, people trust even vague intuitions held by multiple people (like "it feels like there's an intruder in the house"), because we assume they're picking up -- consciously or subconsciously -- on some tangible manifestation of that thing.

With morality, we assume it's there because it triggers a feeling.  We don't necessarily believe that feeling is the conscious or subconscious representation of something we perceive, because we don't think that moral truth necessarily has a tangible manifestation.  You know what I mean?  With the intruder, if there's a consensus of perception, that's probably because multiple people are picking up on a tangible manifestation of the intruder -- a sound, a vibration, something.  Morality does not have sounds nor vibrations.  What would our intuitions and perceptions be picking up when it comes to morality?  I'm not saying it's impossible that we're picking up on some sixth sense, or signal from God.  I'm saying we have no reason to believe that's certain, and it's not just some bred-in feeling that's useful to our survival and well-being.  I just don't think it's reasonable to treat vague, varied "sixth-sense" intuitions the same as our universal perceptions of things that seem to manifest tangibly.

In any case, it seem to me obvious that intuitions about religious experiences are more worthy of skepticism than perceptions about physical manifestations.  Religious experiences vary more.  What they're "picking up on," if anything, is less clear.  As far as we know, they don't have tangible manifestations; they only manifest in our feelings.  Even if you don't find these as problematic as I do, don't you find them at least somewhat problematic?

Back to the intruder analogy: you're the only one at dinner that 'senses' that an intruder is present.  It was a strong intuitions, but others report having no such feeling.  Or, perhaps, other people report a strong intuition that it was the wind.  Maybe other people didn't hear a sound you think you heard.  Do you:

1. Maintain absolute, strict certainty that an intruder must be there, and perhaps derive from that a complicated description of the intruder and his qualities; or,

2. Remain at least moderately agnostic about the presence of an intruder.

I think most people would say #2.  And yet, when it comes to religious intuitions/experiences, most people behave more like #1.  Like I've argued, it can't be because religious intuitions/experiences are clearly more reliable than perceptions of things we perceive as physical.  So what is it?

Anyway, food for thought, not trying to bully further posts out of anyone.  I've never heard anyone able to address this adequately.  For now, it means I hold that basing religious belief solely on personal intuition/experience is unreasonable.  I'm open to changing my mind, though.  It's a complex issue and there's a reasonable chance I'm missing something.

Thanks for the great exchange!
14  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: February 15, 2015, 12:37:35 am
I italicized the relevant sentence: "A belief not reconciled with any observable reality, or system of thought derived from reality, is a delusion."  My uncertainty was due to uncertainty as to how you meant 'reconciled'.  I was taking it in a strong sense that would require that a non-delusional belief would need to include some universal truth as part of the reason for holding it, but I wasn't certain if you intended that strong a sense,

The simplest (and most relevant to this board) would be a belief in the existence (or non-existence) of God.

I'm not going to use your terminology ("universal truth") because, as I pointed out above, you've given a confusing definition and haven't clarified the question I had about it, which is pretty crucial.  Please keep in mind is that I also said beliefs can reasonably come from "a system of thought derived from reality," too.

I can't really address your example because you gave me an example of a belief (belief in God) without indicating how it was derived.  If you're arguing that beliefs can be derived from intuitions that aren't based in any system of thought based in observable reality, I've been talking about that with Bore.  If it's something else, you'll need to specify.
15  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What are your plans for Valentine's Day? on: February 13, 2015, 04:46:07 pm
What a myopic thread.

yeah when people are all like, "what are you doing this friday?" I'm all like "you should mean what am I doing about world peace, you MYOPIC BASTARDS!!!"

People who enjoy stuff are just the worst
16  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: February 13, 2015, 04:32:12 pm
To me, your statement implies two things, both of which I object to.

The first, which I'm not certain you meant, but is the way I took it, is that holding a belief not derived in some fashion from what I've been calling universal truth is delusional.  I don't see where that is sufficient.  Only where it contradicts universal truth would it be delusional.

1. Where are you reading me saying that?

2. Could you give me an example of a reasonable belief that does not derive from what you call "universal truth"?  I'm not sure I disagree -- just want to clarify.

The second and subtler implication is that you seem to be assuming that we can always determine with certainty what is universal truth.  While it is true that in the area of physics we've been able to achieve a fairly certain understanding of how the laws of physics work today, physics is easy.

Considering the first point was so subtle I don't think I even said it, this one must be very subtle! 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  You said that an individual's universal truth is "perceptions of experiences that you can replicate yourself, and perceive/experience directly."  I asked you if you instead meant that universal truth is replicable by everyone, which you haven't answered.  In any case, under either definition, in what situation do you allege you can't determine "universal truth" (either the 'personal' or the 'everybody') with certainty?  If universal truth is individualized, wouldn't it just be whatever the individual perceives directly?  That doesn't preclude certainty.  If universal truth is universally replicable, then I'm also unclear on where the uncertainty comes from.

But I'm also not sure why this is relevant to anything I've argued.

Also since you brought it up, albeit for later discussion, let me address two points relating to my concept of a universal moral truth.  The first is that I limited the universe of discussion to morality within a functional society, so any such truths won't necessarily be held by those incapable of fully functioning within such a society.

OK, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in this thread.

The second is I that I said, "thou shalt not murder" and not "thou shalt not kill".  I can't think of any functioning society that does not have the former while few societies hold the latter.

Well, considering murder is defined as illicit killing, that makes sense Wink And, again, unless you are trying to give an example of a universal truth, I'm not sure what you're getting it.  Specify the significance, dude, seriously.  You're making this pointlessly hard on the both of us.
17  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: February 13, 2015, 03:11:06 pm
Is perceiving God the same thing as perceiving a bee sting hurts? I'm inclined to think it's not. God, by almost all definitions is not a material thing. A perception of God, therefore, is surely far closer to a perception about morality than a perception about what colour hat someone is wearing.

I actually disagree, because God -- at least the Christian God -- is something people claim (in a general sense) has manifest existence.  He may not have physical existence, but do people really claim that morality has manifest (observable) existence in the way they claim God does?  They claim that moral intuitions do, but I'm not sure that people claim that morality itself can be observed outside of those intuitions.  I know this is a thorny issue, since you could argue that intuitions about morality and intuitions about perception are made of similar stuff...but I think most people accept that perceptions of direct experiences are different than intuitions about abstractions like morality, and vary a lot less.  I am, after all, speaking to direct religious experiences and not necessarily intuitions about religion truth.

Intuitions about material reality, on the other hand, we accept can be wrong -- which is the basis of my argument.  It may be that perceiving God isn't the same thing as perceiving a bee sting, but is perceiving a moral intuition the same (in terms of the ability to incorporate other people's intuitions/perceptions in the calculations) as perceiving a spiritual experience that leads you to a conclusion about something manifest, either?  If so, are they so comparable that you're willing to dismiss my argument on that basis?

I hope that's clear -- it's pretty dense, sorry.

More importantly, even if I am wrong about that, it still seems that excluding moral intuitions from this argument is an example of special pleading. The distinction between something that can be materially observed (whatever that means) and that which can't is necessarily arbitrary. As was recently raised in the objective reality thread this is much more a spectrum than a hard and fast line.

I didn't exclude moral intuitions from the argument.  You're confused about what I mean by "materially observed"?  It's true that, fundamentally, there's no hard and set way of claiming that there's objective material reality to observe, any more than claiming that there's objective moral reality to observe.  Is that what you're arguing?  If so, I'm aware, and I'm not excluding that from my consideration or anything.  If I'm understanding your explanation, I can explain.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 13, 2015, 02:38:54 pm
This wasn't some highly technical "gotcha," dude, so if you're being dismissive I don't see why.

It's just that I really don't care about (apparently?) strictly defined terms relating to logic, so was using the term in a very informal sense. So the appearance of a dense block of prim black-coated disapproval was not entirely anticipated.

If an argument sucks, I generally think we should explain why it sucks, not why another, slightly similar argument sucks.

This is definitely the first time in my life I've ever been called "prim," though, so that's something!

Specifically a claim was made that religious persecution by the well-known atheist state the Soviet Union does not count because the attempt by this atheist state to impose atheism at the point of a gun was not motivated by atheism but by other considerations. Which is, for the record, total trash. This bogus and historically illiterate argument was made in the context of a claim about violence almost never being motivated by atheism (a claim that, like it or not, is untrue).

I don't dislike that claim if it's true (besides the fact that it's sad and stuff).  I just get frustrated with the tendency of arguments on this site to vaguely half-engage the opposing side, and substitute intellectual allusions for intellectual arguments.  It's like sometimes the arguments here involve posts that just say things like "lol how post-bolshevik" and I'm thinking, I'm a reasonably smart guy and I have no idea what the heck that means.  And, in this case, I actually do know the allusion you were making, and it didn't really make an explicit logical point, so it didn't serve much purpose besides tonal condescension.  I think the Atlas has enough tonal condescension as it is from idiots that our smart, knowledgeable posters don't need to be doing it too.

All of which is a bit odd because if there was a 'political' motivation to these murders it looks (I've not followed closely so could be missing several very important things) to be primarily anti-Muslim (I would use the word 'racist' but Americans get weirded out by uses of that word that postdate the 19th century).

If HockeyDude doesn't accept the connection between atheism and communistic violence -- hard to know, since you didn't really engage him on the point -- then I don't know how that claim becomes "a little odd" based on this incident.
19  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: February 13, 2015, 03:28:18 am
Other people's reported direct experiences are, unless you can replicate it for yourself as a direct experience, only an indirect experience for you.

OK.

Only those replicable experiences constitute universal truth.

OK, so "universal truth" is perceptions of experiences that you can replicate yourself, and perceive/experience directly.  I'm not sure in what sense that's "universal," unless you mean it must be replicable everyone to be a "universal truth."  Is that what you mean?

Personal truth includes universal truth, direct experience that cannot be replicated by another, indirect experience you believe, and the inferences you make from the preceding.

OK, so basically "personal truth" is a mix of things you personally perceive/experience, "universal truths" (pending the clarification above), and other people's perceptions/experiences that you find credible, plus the logical inferences you make from all of those things.  I wouldn't call that "personal truth" because that phrase makes no sense to me, but I follow.

For an individual "truth" equals "personal truth" because it all is valid for that person. It is the sum of that personal truth that makes their personal religion correct for them.  

Are you claiming that anything I experience/perceive, even if I am veritably incorrect, is "correct for me"?  Maybe.  It is what I believe to be truth.  That does not necessarily mean it is the same as truth, unless I believe I am incapable of being wrong.  That's why I have a problem with your use of "truth" in this context.  Even when I assert that something is truth, that doesn't mean that I believe my belief is definitionally truth.  Understand?

Also, unless there is something in your argument that I'm missing -- like in the vague definitions of "universal truth" -- it absolutely does not address the criticism I'm levying.  Your "personal truth" model incorporates other people's experiences and perceptions.  I'm not sure why you even brought it up, considering it doesn't inherently treat others' experiences/perceptions differently than my argument...

So, yeah, what point were you trying to make in response to my critique?

(also have some qualms with your logic re: treatment of murder prohibition being part of a "universal religion," but I'll put that aside until we address the main point.)
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 13, 2015, 02:58:01 am
I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

safasfsafdsfda.

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.  A No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy of goalpost-shifting, where someone makes a universal claim and then backs away from it.  He didn't do that, though, unless he made the claim that no atheists are violent.  I don't see him making that claim.  If he made the claim that no one has ever committed a violent act in the name of atheism, and then changed the definition of "in the name of atheism," that would be an NTS.  Otherwise, you're committing a syllogism error here.

'kay

This wasn't some highly technical "gotcha," dude, so if you're being dismissive I don't see why.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 05:41:34 pm
Maher I believe has said there is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam and that all Muslims believe X, Y, & Z blah blah.

What quote are you thinking of?

The only one I can find of where he mentions "moderate Muslim" or "moderate Muslims" is this: "Condemning attack is not enough: unless you strongly endorse the right of anyone to make fun of any religion/prophet, you are not a moderate Muslim."

You could argue that this is an unnecessarily strict definition, but it seems totally incompatible with him rejecting the possibility of a moderate Muslim.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 05:37:34 pm
I know you've made the argument before, Al, that the atheistic elements of the Communist Party had a lot to do with why they persecuted Christians.  I disagree, as it is quite obvious to me that persecution took place as part of an overall power struggle.  The Communists were fighting an element they thought could undermine their ideal government and society... They were not persecuting them in the name of atheism.

So now we have No True Atheist as well. Remarkable.

safasfsafdsfda.

That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy.  A No True Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy of goalpost-shifting, where someone makes a universal claim and then backs away from it.  He didn't do that, though, unless he made the claim that no atheists are violent.  I don't see him making that claim.  If he made the claim that no one has ever committed a violent act in the name of atheism, and then changed the definition of "in the name of atheism," that would be an NTS.  Otherwise, you're committing a syllogism error here.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 02:21:51 pm
Now this post sounds a bit silly in retrospect.

Wait, so an atheist kills some people and now it's silly to call religious terrorism for what it is?  That makes zero sense.  Islam is not the only religion to be used to justify violence and terrorism.

If atheism can inspire violent acts just as much as religion, it's indeed silly to single out "religious terrorism" as a relevant analytical category.

That's not necessarily true.  There are several reasons that religion might present unique analytical problems.  First, the beliefs are involved are more likely to be fixed and not susceptible to moral appeals.  Second, if you think that religion doesn't serve an overall-positive social utility, you might see its disutility as more trouble than other beliefs, like political ones.  Third, religious beliefs and conflicts probably spread in a somewhat different way than political or ethnic ones -- which I think is worth considering.

Would you object to the separate analytical category of "political terrorism"?
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill on: February 12, 2015, 01:44:00 pm
1. People (like Lief) who decry assuming that Muslim-on-non-Muslim killings are ideologically-motivated, but jumped on this, are being hypocrites.

Huh?

Was your first post in the thread facetious?  I know it was mocking, but was it facetious?  If so, then sorry for using you as an example.  Although you can't blame me for assuming it was a serious statement, considering your next post...
25  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: February 12, 2015, 08:59:13 am
Other people's reported direct experiences are are what? unless you can replicate it for yourself as a direct experience only an indirect experience for you.  Only those replicable experiences constitute universal truth. Personal truth includes universal truth, direct experience that cannot be replicated by another [person?], indirect experience you belief what?, and the inferences you make from the proceeding what proceeding?.  For an individual "truth" equals "personal truth" because it all is valid for that person "it all"? all of what?. It is the sum of that personal truth that makes their personal religion correct for them.  I don't particularly believe in the concept of a universal religion that would be correct for all, save perhaps if one limits the universe of discussion to those people who are able to interact socially.  For example, the rule "Thou shall not murder." would be a part of such a universal religion, as murder is the killing of people that society frowns upon killing.

Before I reply, please clarify the stuff I bolded above.  If you're not going to be precise about your argument, or explain the significance of your statements, it forces me to infer all of those details.  It's impossible to infer those details based on a post that's as confusing as this one.

I think my objection is going to be similar to Andrew's -- I don't think you really mean "correct for them."  I think you mean "intuitive to them."  You can have intuitions that are incorrect.

I also think you are likely committing the error I referenced earlier with bore.  You note that moral axioms vary between people, apparently to prove that there's no such thing as a universal moral truth.  But the variation in claims to moral truth does not necessarily indicate that there are multiple moral truths, or -- and this makes moral truth a bad analogue to material truth -- even any moral truth.  It just indicates that people make different claims about moral truth.  In any case, unless you think there is no material truth besides "whatever people claim," again, your argument fails to provide a meaningful answer to the topic at hand.

I realize that last paragraph is dense, so let me know if you need me to clarify it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1053


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines