Carleas wrote:I would be interested to see this, though I'm skeptical of the format (2 v 1), but maybe the two's arguments are different enough that it's 1 v 1 v 1?
How many posts? Word limit? Judges/poll for winner?
Ecmandu wrote:The only issue with polling is that, besides me, everyone seems to have 10 accounts on ILP.
Which then leads to the question, which one?Carleas wrote:"Morality is objective"?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Which then leads to the question, which one?Carleas wrote:"Morality is objective"?
I suggest that Ecmandu present the objective morality on a specific issue OR give us the way we determine which of two disagreeing moralities on a particular issue.
iambiguous wrote:
Just out of curiosity can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu
surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
Just out of curiosity can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu
He has some rather strange ideas about the nature of existence so try not to take him too seriously
But at least he is interesting even though it all gets a bit predictable after a while but give it a go
surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
Just out of curiosity can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu
He has some rather strange ideas about the nature of existence so try not to take him too seriously
But at least he is interesting even though it all gets a bit predictable after a while but give it a go
iambiguous wrote:
It is getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me
surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
It is getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me
It is hard because morality is subjective or inter subjective and constantly evolving both collectively and individually
There are no absolute rules or objectively right or wrong answers and everything is ultimately open to interpretation
iambiguous wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
It is getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me
It is hard because morality is subjective or inter subjective and constantly evolving both collectively and individually
There are no absolute rules or objectively right or wrong answers and everything is ultimately open to interpretation
Actually, I'm convinced it is hard for them because once they bring their carefully constructed "world of words" -- their "intellectual contraption" -- down to earth, they bump into the components of my own moral philosophy.
They bump into this argument: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
In other words, they come to understand [more or less] that so much of what they do value as either the right or the wrong thing to do comes to be embodied existentially over the course of their actual "lived life". As a consequence, they are predisoposed to think and to feel this instead of that given the actual sequence of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge that has come to constitute their "self" -- "I" -- out in a particular is/ought world construed from a particular point of view.
And then to the extent they seek to transcend this theologically, philosophically, scientifically, ideologically, "naturally" etc., by encompassing a moral narrative that all rational and virtuous men and women are said to be obligated to embody, they note that those on the other side are doing much the same thing. Conflicting goods. Start with one set of assumptions about human interactions [the unborn have a natural right to life], reasonable behaviors are these; start with another set [women have a political right to choose] and reasonable behaviors are those.
Finally, the most astute come to recognize that even to the extent they are right [philosophically, morally etc.] what ultimately counts [in a No God world] is having the power [in any particular community] to legislate and then to enforce one set of values over the others.
But these relationships can only be explored fully [in my view] down on the ground. By noting our own experiences or by justifying our own political values relating to the conflicts that pop up everyday "in the news".
Ecmandu wrote:So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.
Correct?
iambiguous wrote:Ecmandu wrote:So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.
Correct?
How on earth does someone actually go about "hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms"? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?
With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.
[just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean]
Ecmandu wrote:iambiguous wrote:Ecmandu wrote:So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.
Correct?
How on earth does someone actually go about "hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms"? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?
With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.
[just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean]
Ahh... so now someone who solves your hole must be clinically insane.
We already co-hallucinate reality from eternal forms.
Without the eternal form of say, walkingness, walking would be impossible to name as an object.
Ecmandu wrote:
you re arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral
Ecmandu wrote:
Without eternal forms motion could not be named as an object and different motions could not be named as different objects
surreptitious75 wrote:...and will you please stop posting all this nonsense as it makes absolutely no sense at all
surreptitious75 wrote:Ecmandu wrote:
you re arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral
I am arguing that there is no such thing as hallucinating reality from eternal forms [ whatever they are ]
But what has this got to do with subjective morality which is supposed to be what this thread is about ?
It has everything to do with the objective solution to morality, we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations.
Ecmandu wrote:
we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations
A reality with more than I person in it never works
I thought it was interesting because the summation works rather well for you also, except for the two things cited at the endiambiguous wrote:From my perspective, he seems to live entirely inside his head. He has recreated the reality around him to fit snuggly into this "world of words" that allows him to ensconce "I" into a frame of mind that allows him in turn to connect the dots between his own rendition of "the real me" and the "right thing to do".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users