- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for libs - if you believe morals are subjective, why is racism wrong?
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:28 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:28 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:Of course racism is wrong. Of course it is.
why is racism wrong?
It's not.
But so is inventing it where it doesn't remotely exist.
0
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:31 pm to tigersbh
quote:
Liberals are the ultimate hypocrites.
I refer to them as the epitome of hypocrisy at least once a day, every day.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:36 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
The only “morals” liberals have are vapidly used to justify any given means to an end that benefits them at the time.
/thread
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:40 pm to 2020_reVISION
quote:the epitome of hypocrisy is being kind. It insinuates most don't recognize they are lying.
the epitome of hypocrisy
They are the epitome of duplicity, as are a litany of GOP politicians, unfortunately. Turtle falls high on that list.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:41 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:This isn’t surprising, but a good presuppositionslist would have faired even better than WLC.
Sam seems to be one of the rare atheists that says that morality is objective (he tried to defend his version of objective morality against William Lane Craig, but failed, IMHO), and the basic moral axiom is "whatever makes the most humans flourish" is the base axiom on which to base a system of morality.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:44 pm to Azkiger
quote:Ok. Here’s one...
I don't think he successfully argues that humanity can "get an ought from an is", but I think his logical grounding for that is to point out that individuals flourish more when the society around them flourishes (look at capitalism's effect on poverty as an example).
Why is flourishing considered “good”?
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:48 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
Why is flourishing considered “good”?
I'm not sure that Sam thinks flourishing is good (he may), more that he understands that it's desirable, and that people will seek out desirable goals verses undesirable goals.
EDIT: Upon more thought, I think that he does. Pretty sure he argues against Peterson in their discussion that if good is to have any meaning, what else could it apply to if not everyone in the world flourishing (something to that effect).
This post was edited on 4/11/21 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:52 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
So, for the liberals here, ignoring the fact that you've butchered the meaning of the term racism, why the frick should I care if I'm "racist" according to liberal standards?
Now you’ve done it.....lol! Dim Marxists minds are melting.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:57 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I'm not a progressive, although I am a classical liberal, but my best understanding of that line of reasoning says that while morals are ultimately subjective, they can be judged objectively with how well they serve set goals.
I get that.
Who determines which set of "goals" should be prusued?
That's Sam Harris' mistake. Pick, arbitrarily, one goal, and from that moral axiom you can establish a whole set of objective, logical rules.
But it still fails. Hitler did the same. Hitler had the same rules as many other countries with respect to treason, murder, spying, etc. His base moral assumption? Whatever furthered the Nazi cause....
So, I'm not buying that, either. It's closer than most liberals come to making a coherent argument, but as you can see, even that rationale supports Nazis, Socialists, Christians, and anyone else that comes up with a basic moral axiomatic assumption.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:10 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Who determines which set of "goals" should be prusued?
Agreed. While you can argue that you can get most people to agree on a set of goals, they'll have varying definitions of what those goals actually are and ultimately those goals are still subjectively chosen.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:10 pm to Azkiger
I’ll probably end up listening to the discussion. I wish it would have been someone a bit more solid than Peterson he was “debating” with.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:11 pm to BiteMe2020
America might be top 3 least racist countries on the planet
China is probably the top most racist country on the planet
China is probably the top most racist country on the planet
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:13 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
I wish it would have been someone a bit more solid than Peterson he was “debating” with.
Ouch. I absolutely love Peterson. While I don't agree with everything he says, I think his POV on ethics is quite unique and interesting (or, I just haven't come across the people who push the same stances he pushes). If you have 4 or 5 hours to burn and are bored I'd recommend watching it. I also enjoyed his discussion with Matt Dillahunty. I think that was where Brett Weinstein as the moderator as well, and he was quite insightful too.
This post was edited on 4/11/21 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:13 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
Sam seems to be one of the rare atheists that says that morality is objective (he tried to defend his version of objective morality against William Lane Craig, but failed, IMHO), and the basic moral axiom is "whatever makes the most humans flourish" is the base axiom on which to base a system of morality.
This isn’t surprising, but a good presuppositionslist would have faired even better than WLC.
The objective morality of the Creator is the morality that undeniably benefits mankind, the more society strays from God’s precepts and moral commandments the greater the suffering of mankind.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:19 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
The objective morality of the Creator
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:28 pm to Azkiger
quote:
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
A version of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
A failed argument that asks the student to pick between two of three possible choices, lol.
God is "good" because He commands it, or God is "good" because He is subject to a higher set of standards to which He is beholden.
A third choice is that God was neither created nor can change, and ergo what is "good" is a function of the nature of God himself.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:33 pm to BiteMe2020
Lots of decent discussion.
But still, not ONE liberal who can logically explain why racism is wrong, based on a subjective morality.
But still, not ONE liberal who can logically explain why racism is wrong, based on a subjective morality.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:34 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
A third choice is that God was neither created nor can change, and ergo what is "good" is a function of the nature of God himself.
While that is an option, it merely pushes the question one rung back.
Is God responsible for his own nature (and thus objective morality) or not?
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:48 pm to Azkiger
quote:
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Meh, all this philosophical morality crapola is unnecessary, it’s undeniable if mankind lived by God’s objective morality our society would be far more prosperous and healthy than it is currently.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 6:50 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
it’s undeniable if mankind lived by God’s objective morality our society would be far more prosperous and healthy than it is currently.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News