If I state unequivocally that (B)Art (for example) is wrong on a particular topic does that statement imply (at a minimum) two things.
1. That there is a definitive right and wrong as regards that particular subject.
2. That I am in possession of the definitive right as regards that particular subject, which therefore allows me to state definitively that (B)Art's (for example) position is wrong.
Note: When the Secret Service trains it's people to spot counterfeits, they don't spend time studying the fake money, they study the real thing to the point where they can spot a fake reliably. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have the definitive right, in order to define the wrong.
I use (B)Art for my example because the chances that he'll get mad or offended is slim.
19 comments:
Ah. And that raises a vital question... WHO gets to decide "definitive right" in terms of morality, policy or philosophy/religion?
Dan
YOU SONOFABITCH! (*snicker*)
I'm so very sorry, my bad. I'll correct it immediately.
It's irrelevant to this post.
If someone declares unequivocally that Art (for example) is "wrong", then it would seem that the one making that declaration is obligated to demonstrate that is it factually true.
As I note in the post, making the unequivocal claim that someone is "wrong" carries (at minimum) the two things I mention.
If someone makes a definitive "Art is wrong" claim about something that may not have a definitive right/wrong, then the one who made the claim is either lying, unable to accurately word their claim, or stupid enough to make a definitive claim that they cannot prove.
I do so love it when you star out strong with your off topic game.
All fixed now.
(*snicker*)
I'm glad you've simmered down.
Craig...
"If I state unequivocally that (B)Art (for example) is wrong on a particular topic does that statement imply (at a minimum) two things.
1. That there is a definitive right and wrong as regards that particular subject.
2. That I am in possession of the definitive right as regards that particular subject, which therefore allows me to state definitively that (B)Art's (for example) position is wrong. "
That's certainly a theory.
But for a moral anarchist such as yourself, I don't see how it helps you.
For a rational morality, such as myself - someone who acknowledges we can't objectively prove morality, but we can make a strong reasoned case for morality based upon self-evident ideas like human rights and the notion of not harming innocent people, I would phrase your second hypothesis this way...
2. That we can make a strong moral case based upon human rights a reasonably definitive "right" as regards that particular subject.
And so, if I say Marshal is wrong when he claims that PSA is found in Jesus' teachings, then it's just observably not there in the words attributed to Jesus. That's a fact claim.
And if I say Marshal is wrong and it's NOT okay to have government jackboots forcibly kidnap a legal resident and imprison them and deport them to a gulag, then I'm saying it is, of course, reasonably wrong to punish someone when they've been found guilty of no criminal activity because human rights acknowledge as much.
It relies upon basic Golden Rule type reasoning... if I don't want my loved ones who are innocent of any crimes to be treated like a monster, then reasonably speaking, I shouldn't inflict that sort of harm on another.
It's quite within the realm of rational morality, obvious to nearly all except perhaps some religious extremists who have an uncoded set of morality based on the whims of their understanding of their godling rather than basic moral reasoning.
Dan
Why not just call him Fart?
It should be obvious that what you ask reflects reality. How can I be wrong if one can't present the truth and at least to some extent show it to be so? Dan's question to you demonstrates a real problem so common of his kind. He diverts attention from the fact that he doesn't have the truth in the first place, so that he can then muddle the issue with that which doesn't determine either right or wrong. This is the ambiguity so essential to those for whom the truth is anathema. The main objective of such is simply to stifle the expression of truth which cramps their personal style.
Also, sometimes "right" is something which requires time to realize. If I make a proposal to achieve a goal, and what I propose has never been tried before, my arguments to obtain ratification of that proposed plan aren't proof of whether or not the plan is the right one, but only suggests that it might be. Letting the plan play out will determine if it's the right plan and one to continue using. If the results are positive, obviously it was at least the right plan at the time. An even better plan might emerge which brings about even better results, and then it becomes the right plan.
As to morality, policy or philosophy/religion, I would insist it's all been determined and determined long ago. Some simply refuse to accept it because they want what all those things have already proven are not at all beneficial.
In all my reading of Dan's comments over the years, I'd say HE is the moral anarchist.
Well, I guess making shit up is all you have.
Yes, I'm aware that your subjective morality is very flexible. Yet, your subjective morality does not give you the grounds to state categorically that someone is "wrong".
Again, I don't care how you would bastardize something in order to twist things to support your hunch.
The problem with your bastardization is that you've moved the goal posts from "wrong" to something else that is subjective. "wrong" is an objective description without adding modifiers. When someone uses the term "wrong" they are making an objective claim. Which, of course, requires that the maker of the claim actually, objectively, know the right in order to identify the "wrong".
A "moral case" based on a subjective moral code cannot be an objectively "strong case". At best you could say that it appears strong to you.
In that case, if you've made a "fact claim", then the burden is on you to prove that claim. Which would involve, at a minimum, taking every text where Jesus even seems to indicate PSA and demonstrating conclusively that He meant something else, and what He actually meant.
I'm not going to waste any more time with the self serving blather of Dan trying to prove he's objectively right, without having the courage to actually prove his claims.
Because I'm not an asshole who gets off on name calling.
I also have a sense of humor.
Dan's problem is that right/wrong (unmodified) are objective and binary. If one is right, one cannot be wrong and vice versa. If one is partially right/wrong there are other terms that can be used to describe that. But to use right/wrong when expressing one's opinion is simply bullshit. If you announce that someone is "wrong" the only possible way to know that is to know what right is.
Dan can bastardize, obfuscate, and dodge all he wants. All he's doing is trying to move the goal posts and redefine right/wrong to avoid having to admit his failure or to prove the underlying claim.
I would not disagree with that in the least. I'd argue that a subjective moral framework is the foundation of moral anarchy. That he argues that one who argues for an objective, universal moral code is somehow advocating moral anarchy makes no sense.
Given Dan is lying, and my Lord was pretty emphatic that we shouldn't do that, it's quite simple to see that Dan is wrong in doing so. He makes false claims about a president his party can't replace with any of the clowns they would run against him and does so with the facts easily available to refute his false claims. Thus, Dan lies irrationally, while daring to regard himself as "rational". He is not. Nor is he moral, nor Christian, nor intelligent and possessed of a "moral" code which isn't totally subjective and self-serving.
That he moves the goal posts when his evil is exposed for the evil it is should say all we need to know about him and his "morality".
I think that was supposed to be a joke. Not a good one given how obvious it is, but a joke nonetheless and it bothers me not.
Given his virtual lack of a sense of humor, it seems unlikely. But who knows. If it is a joke it's a bad one on the level of a 12 year old.
Post a Comment