Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« on: November 20, 2015, 12:23:28 pm »
Please comment on the debate thread here!
"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

1

Questions11

  • *****
  • 21037 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2015, 02:12:30 pm »
Glad it's underway.  Kudos to them for doing it, and for pater for helping.

2

Questions11

  • *****
  • 21037 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2015, 02:18:31 pm »
FBAs OP is clear and well written.  The convo at the end is garbage, but up to then it was doing fine. 

It's clear that moral nihilism is hideous in its ramifications, and he's right that he'll never be voted into public office.  Indeed, I think his post demonstrated why I'd never want a nihilist to have any kind of power. 

Let's see what aleph can do.

3

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2015, 02:53:09 pm »
I couldn't help but think of nihilists as pure users.  I would think they would be happiest if they were as alone in their beliefs as possible.

In other words, how would society even be possible?

Even from a purely secular standpoint, our "societal pact" if you will, comes down to the men saying to each other, "I'll help you protect your family if you help me protect my family."  We agree that this is a morally good thing to do.  It's not these ontology of morality, but the evidence.

If we agreed there is no such thing as morality, why would anyone do that?  It would be every man for himself and woe to the wimmings and chilluns.

I think he betrays himself by his statements of affect on himself personally.  If he says there is this visceral negative effect he experiences by watching what he claims is not wrong, what does that say about the dwelling place of conscience?

Would we conclude that he has trained his intellect to override his conscience?

Could we then conclude that everyone who rejects the still small voice of God has trained his intellect to override his conscience?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 02:55:31 pm by Paterfamilia »
"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

4

Questions11

  • *****
  • 21037 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2015, 03:43:53 am »
Is Aleph's post coming soon?

Maybe you should link this in 'Choose' forum to get more traffic, pater.

5

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2015, 08:30:28 am »
Is Aleph's post coming soon?

Maybe you should link this in 'Choose' forum to get more traffic, pater.


I would be happy to.  I don't know how ha ha!
"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

6

Questions11

  • *****
  • 21037 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2015, 05:02:04 am »
Will assist in that ...

7

Paterfamilia

  • ***
  • 4479 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2015, 08:32:57 am »
"First I knocked them out of a tree with a rock.  Then I saved them."

8

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2015, 11:20:53 pm »
Here's my reaction to the opening posts.

I think they both provided good rationale to support their respective positions being possibly true, but neither has been successful at showing the other's position to be false or less likely.  I am more sympathetic toward FBAs view - I do agree it to be the more parsimonious position. 


My advice to FBA is to consider cases where intuition misleads us, since intuition seems the basis for Aleph's position.  IMO, language (and associated concepts) follows secondarily from the intuition - so if he agrees, he might demonstrate this.

My advice to Aleph is to more strongly defend his reliance on intuition, and (if possible) explain why moral language can be considered distinct from the intuition.  I'm also personally curious if Aleph's position depends on Platonism.  It seems like it does, but if it can be shown to be independent of it, that would help its parsimony. 



9

RichardChad

  • ***
  • 2427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2015, 11:17:40 am »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.

all of these attempts to "ground", are merely ascribing "objectivity" to our intuition. As that can change, it cannot possibly be identifying an objective truth.

"Ethical statements take the form of declarative sentences"
"Moral predicates can be transformed into abstract nouns"
"We ascribe to ethical statements the same sorts of properties as other propositions"
"All the propositional attitude verbs can be prefixed to ethical statements"
"Moral statements can be transformed into yes/no questions"
etc..

An example can be found, in every single case Aleph has, where different individuals and cultures have come up with different "objective truth", therefore, by definition, that process can arrive a objective truths only by accident.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 11:25:33 am by RichardChad »
I'll believe you don't believe in objective moral values when you stop using terms like "right" and "wrong".

I'll believe you believe in determinism when you start saying things like "I'm so sorry you're determined to think that way"

10

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14510 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2015, 01:01:36 pm »
Again, it seems that the case of cognitivistic moral subjectivism is not addressed at all, so even if Aleph succeeds, he is still far from moral realism.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

11

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2015, 02:34:15 pm »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

12

RichardChad

  • ***
  • 2427 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2015, 07:01:04 pm »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

My DNA relies on me, and it's used to demonstrate my existence.
I'll believe you don't believe in objective moral values when you stop using terms like "right" and "wrong".

I'll believe you believe in determinism when you start saying things like "I'm so sorry you're determined to think that way"

13

Asherah-deceased

  • ***
  • 2486 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2015, 10:30:56 am »
Aleph has provided no grounding what so ever for his moral realism (other than intuitions).

His case can be defeated simply by:
1. defining what an objective moral law is: a moral law that is binding on humans regardless of their view on it.
2. then observing that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law.
If the argument for OMV's  depends on a law giver then their existence can't be used to prove God' existence.

Regardless, I agree this is a problem for Aleph's position.

My DNA relies on me, and it's used to demonstrate my existence.
I don't see how this avoids the circularity I alluded to.  But we're drifting off topic.

Back to the topic: Are they done?  Will there be rebuttals?


14

MarcA

  • **
  • 454 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Comment Thread - Aleph and FBA debate moral realism.
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2015, 10:26:07 am »
During the debate I started to read up on all that stuff and realized that I am a ethical non-naturalist. I believe in moral realism but don't think that ethical naturalism is very convincing (look up G.E.Moore for more information) - it seems quite odd to me.

The non-cognitivist approach seems to be quite reasonable as well. So yeah, at the moment I would vote for FBA as some kind of subjectivism or non-cognitivism seems to be an alternative. Bu that may change..