"That is a tautological statement"
No. It was a simple question intended (and succeeding) in discrediting your blather.
"How do you know what is objectively evil when all you have is a subjective value standard?"
I use objectively (as I have explained to you many times) to refer to a principle that would rationally appear as true to an unbiased (and intelligent) (and knowledgeable) person. Nobody is totally unbiased, of course, so there is no ABSOLUTE objectivity. Likewise, nobody is ABSOLUTELY omniscient, so again there is no ABSOLUTE objectivity.
Yet in philosophy and in everyday life we all make the distinction between objective and subjective and (although as I have shown) there is no perfect objectivity--that does not mean we cannot use it to denote the idea of reality as it is independent of the observer. Because just because there are no objective people does not mean there is no objective reality...it only means there is no ABSOLUTELY objective morality because moral issues ALL rely on value judgments and value judgments are ALL subject to the contamination of ignorance and bias.
Therefore, I know what is objectively "evil" to the extent that my opinion is based on the sort of objectivity that can be had by intelligent and rational beings.
"I'm simply pointing out the difference between listing abstract attributes and making absolute moral judgments on people"
Then you are pointing out an illusion. There are no such things as ABSOLUTE moral judgments. And just so you understand: my just stated opinion is NOT an ABSOLUTE moral judgment. It is an objective conclusion drawn from logic.
"you have no transcendent standard on which to base such judgments."
I certainly do not--and neither does anybody else!
You said you disagree with the following statement but I do not find your argument compelling so I will leave it in.
"He is intolerant to everyone but his own, and even there he is mercurial, capricious, inconstant, and violent. He evaluates all matters in accordance with his feelings, and gives no heed to objective values or ideas."
"I'm challenging your ability to move from expressing subjective opinions to pronouncing absolute moral judgments"
You can challenge it till the cows come home. I've shown that I DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE JUDGMENTS--as does any rational person of sufficient intelligence and knowledge.
"Don't you know what you meant?"
Why the stupid remark?? Why would I offer to provide you examples of what I meant if I didn't know what I meant?? Remember I said (and you just quoted it!)--
"Would you like me to provide some examples of what I meant??"
"I'm obviously not using the word in a physical sense I am using it quite clearly in the sense where a moral obligation is "put upon""
No. You are just starting one of your dances. I USED the word in relation to the meaning of "FORCE". And it was the word "FORCE" you used. AND FORCE MEANS FORCE!
<<<"Denouncing and calling someone evil (as both you and Rand have done) because they do not conform to your arbitrarily derived moral construct is to use force.">>>
"I guess it's just shut up and do what the atheistic authorities say."
I guess you've gone into a different part of your mind, eh? I'll meet you back here when you come out of it...
"Asked and answered."
Got ya! You meant the "IMPOSE" of intellect! Got a brand new shovel, do you?! :-)
"God is God whether you acknowledge Him or not."
LOL!! If there was a Christian God then the bible shows clearly there is no ABSOLUTE MORALITY! YUK YUK! So both your ideas go down the drain--AGAIN!
|
