Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Danieltwotwenty wrote:So you think paedophilia is subjective also, I mean when is a child not a child, 1,3,6,7,8,9,10,13,15,16 ? So in you opinion is paedophilia is only morally wrong subjectively or is it always objectively wrong?
Pedophilia is a term whose definition varies depending upon where you are. Sounds subjective to me.
Danieltwotwenty wrote:Richard Dawkins seems to think it is ok, these are his comments on his abuse as a child
I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,
“I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
I am not familiar with Richard Dawkins, and if I were I probably would not agree with much of what he has to say; so I see no reason for you to constantly bring him up into our conversations unless you agree with him which I doubt.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:
Pedophilia is a term whose definition varies depending upon where you are. Sounds subjective to me.
So then in your subjective opinion is it right or wrong to have sexual intercourse with a child and if it is just your opinion and it is not objective, what right do you have to tell someone else that it is wrong?
I am not familiar with Richard Dawkins, and if I were I probably would not agree with much of what he has to say; so I see no reason for you to constantly bring him up into our conversations unless you agree with him which I doubt.
Constantly bring Richard Dawkins into it? This is the first time I have ever mentioned him to you, I was just giving you an example of someone who thinks it's ok to touch kids in their private parts. Is Richard right or wrong to say this and what right does anyone else have to tell him that it is wrong if it is only subjective?
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Kenny wrote:
The same right you have in your (claimed) objective opinion to tell somebody that it is wrong. To label it objective doesn't change anything.
Kenny,
I don't want to keep sounding like I'm beating you up over this, but you just aren't grasping this at all. A "(claimed) objective opinion"?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
People don't seem to realize that by claiming something is subjective, they are stating and absolute.
The very claim that "nothing is objective" or "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute claim !
PaulSacramento wrote:People don't seem to realize that by claiming something is subjective, they are stating and absolute.
The very claim that "nothing is objective" or "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute claim !
Yeah! But then I haven't heard anybody claim there are no absolutes...... have you?
Ken
Last edited by Kenny on Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:
The same right you have in your (claimed) objective opinion to tell somebody that it is wrong. To label it objective doesn't change anything.
Kenny,
I don't want to keep sounding like I'm beating you up over this, but you just aren't grasping this at all. A "(claimed) objective opinion"?
I think danieltwotwenty knew exactly what I meant.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento wrote:People don't seem to realize that by claiming something is subjective, they are stating and absolute.
The very claim that "nothing is objective" or "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute claim !
Paul,
Kenny just doesn't understand that.
Kenny you're saying, "there's no absolute truth".
That statement itself means nothing if there's no absolute truth.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Trying to convince Kenny using epistemological examples is fruitless. This is a matter of truth. Kenny has narrowly defined how something can be demonstrated as well as requiring people to agree (regardless of whether he denies this).
Kenny is right about pedophilia. Some cultures would say that anyone under 18, and other cultures would say anyone who has not reached puberty. Others may have different laws. But that isn't an argument for OM. The objective truth is that there is a way we ought to behave as it relates to sexual practice and specifically children. Now, how a culture interprets that is another story and an epistemological one at that. But, it would be absurd to say that are interpreting nothing. They are attempting to establish a correct moral practice. What are they trying to interpret? Morality.
Where Kenny always gets stuck in these examples is this. Let's say there is a culture that advocates human trafficking. That is, kidnapping people (children as well) and selling them into the sex trade. If this culture supports this practice, then following Kenny's SM, we can't say they are wrong. We can say we don't prefer the practice, or it's wrong according to what I believe, but we can't say those people are actually wrong. Further, if we were suddenly inserted into this society, we would have to either accept this practice to be morally good, or chose to be evil by opposing it. Even Kenny can see how absurd this is, and he will deny it, but on what grounds. Not on the grounds of all morality being subjective.
Kenny likes the math example. There are many areas of math that aren't demonstrable unless we have the proper tools and knowledge. A protractor for example, or a level. Kenny makes a lot of assumptions regarding math. First, that it's all demonstrable. Where does the number 10 exist? A mathematician can't even demonstrate that numbers are actual. Not mathematically anyway. You'd have to actually make a philosophical argument.
Moral truth cannot be worked out like a math problem, at least not that I've seen. However that doesn't undermine whether objective moral duties and values exist.
So, please don't waste your time arguing pedophilia.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
PaulSacramento wrote:People don't seem to realize that by claiming something is subjective, they are stating and absolute.
The very claim that "nothing is objective" or "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute claim !
Yeah! But then I haven't heard anybody claim there are no absolutes...... have you?
Yes, there are moral absolutes.
The issue is that they many not be the same from people to people or culture to culture or whatnot.
BUT, every person, every culture, every civilization has and always will have SOMETHING or SOME act they he/she/they say, "No, that is wrong".
PaulSacramento wrote:People don't seem to realize that by claiming something is subjective, they are stating and absolute.
The very claim that "nothing is objective" or "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute claim !
Paul,
Kenny just doesn't understand that.
Kenny you're saying, "there's no absolute truth".
That statement itself means nothing if there's no absolute truth.
I've given plenty of examples of objective, and absolute truths. I have said morality is not objective.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
jlay wrote:Trying to convince Kenny using epistemological examples is fruitless. This is a matter of truth. Kenny has narrowly defined how something can be demonstrated as well as requiring people to agree (regardless of whether he denies this).
Kenny is right about pedophilia. Some cultures would say that anyone under 18, and other cultures would say anyone who has not reached puberty. Others may have different laws. But that isn't an argument for OM. The objective truth is that there is a way we ought to behave as it relates to sexual practice and specifically children. Now, how a culture interprets that is another story and an epistemological one at that. But, it would be absurd to say that are interpreting nothing. They are attempting to establish a correct moral practice. What are they trying to interpret? Morality.
Where Kenny always gets stuck in these examples is this. Let's say there is a culture that advocates human trafficking. That is, kidnapping people (children as well) and selling them into the sex trade. If this culture supports this practice, then following Kenny's SM, we can't say they are wrong. We can say we don't prefer the practice, or it's wrong according to what I believe, but we can't say those people are actually wrong. Further, if we were suddenly inserted into this society, we would have to either accept this practice to be morally good, or chose to be evil by opposing it. Even Kenny can see how absurd this is, and he will deny it, but on what grounds. Not on the grounds of all morality being subjective.
Kenny likes the math example. There are many areas of math that aren't demonstrable unless we have the proper tools and knowledge. A protractor for example, or a level. Kenny makes a lot of assumptions regarding math. First, that it's all demonstrable. Where does the number 10 exist? A mathematician can't even demonstrate that numbers are actual. Not mathematically anyway. You'd have to actually make a philosophical argument.
Moral truth cannot be worked out like a math problem, at least not that I've seen. However that doesn't undermine whether objective moral duties and values exist.
So, please don't waste your time arguing pedophilia.
In an effort to understand each other better, let's see where we agree. Can we agree that if morality is objective; there must be a standard/base that morality is established upon? I know earlier you said it infers a law giver (I believe that was the term you used) But I say it requires one. Do you agree? Sorta like in my scenario of Math how math has to be based upon the number 10 to be considered objective? Do you agree morality has to have a moral base?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
