Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
Reason and Morality should be independent of each other.


They can't be. When one argues that something is morally correct, they engage reason to make a suggestion of truth.


Morality is abstract, you can't be morally correct within reason because there are no moral absolutes.

rofl

Morality is always absolute. The point of any position of morality is that it is true that "X ought to occur." No questions or objections.


Morality varies culture to culture and time to time, hardly objective.

Wrong. That is a description of what is held to be moral by different people. It is not actually a claim of what is moral at all.

In the case of an actual conception of morality, it is a conception of truth which applies to someone whether they want it to or think it does.


Morality doesn't exist.
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son


Morality is abstract, you can't be morally correct within reason because there are no moral absolutes.

rofl

Morality is always absolute. The point of any position of morality is that it is true that "X ought to occur." No questions or objections.


Morality varies culture to culture and time to time, hardly objective.

Wrong. That is a description of what is held to be moral by different people. It is not actually a claim of what is moral at all.

In the case of an actual conception of morality, it is a conception of truth which applies to someone whether they want it to or think it does.


Morality doesn't exist.


That's better. A coherent claim. Now how are you sure of this? I see no evidence proving that moral truth does not exist.
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son


Morality is abstract, you can't be morally correct within reason because there are no moral absolutes.

rofl

Morality is always absolute. The point of any position of morality is that it is true that "X ought to occur." No questions or objections.


Morality varies culture to culture and time to time, hardly objective.

Wrong. That is a description of what is held to be moral by different people. It is not actually a claim of what is moral at all.

In the case of an actual conception of morality, it is a conception of truth which applies to someone whether they want it to or think it does.


Morality doesn't exist.


That's better. A coherent claim. Now how are you sure of this? I see no evidence proving that moral truth does not exist.



Moral Judgements are conditional, you're forced to make a subjective claim when using Right/Wrong.

Slavery might be bad today, 2500 years ago, it's just a way of life.
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son


Morality varies culture to culture and time to time, hardly objective.

Wrong. That is a description of what is held to be moral by different people. It is not actually a claim of what is moral at all.

In the case of an actual conception of morality, it is a conception of truth which applies to someone whether they want it to or think it does.


Morality doesn't exist.


That's better. A coherent claim. Now how are you sure of this? I see no evidence proving that moral truth does not exist.



Moral Judgements are conditional, you're forced to make a subjective claim when using Right/Wrong.

Slavery might be bad today, 2500 years ago, it's just a way of life.


Incoherence. You are, again, describing what people thought was moral at a particular time.

You have said nothing on the matter of whether moral truth is present or not present. You have given nothing to show that the condition of an absence of moral truth must be so.
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son


Morality varies culture to culture and time to time, hardly objective.

Wrong. That is a description of what is held to be moral by different people. It is not actually a claim of what is moral at all.

In the case of an actual conception of morality, it is a conception of truth which applies to someone whether they want it to or think it does.


Morality doesn't exist.


That's better. A coherent claim. Now how are you sure of this? I see no evidence proving that moral truth does not exist.



Moral Judgements are conditional, you're forced to make a subjective claim when using Right/Wrong.

Slavery might be bad today, 2500 years ago, it's just a way of life.


Incoherence. You are, again, describing what people thought was moral at a particular time.

You have said nothing on the matter of whether moral truth is present or not present. You have given nothing to show that the condition of an absence of moral truth must be so.


Claims of Moral Truth came first.

Burden of Proof, not on me.
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son


Morality doesn't exist.


That's better. A coherent claim. Now how are you sure of this? I see no evidence proving that moral truth does not exist.



Moral Judgements are conditional, you're forced to make a subjective claim when using Right/Wrong.

Slavery might be bad today, 2500 years ago, it's just a way of life.


Incoherence. You are, again, describing what people thought was moral at a particular time.

You have said nothing on the matter of whether moral truth is present or not present. You have given nothing to show that the condition of an absence of moral truth must be so.


Claims of Moral Truth came first.

Burden of Proof, not on me.


Not in this instance. No where have I claimed that moral truth exists or does not exist. All I have done is identified your reasoning errors with regard to the nature of morality. You were the first one to claim a truth of morality, that moral truth does not exist, in this discussion.

Furthermore, even in an instance where someone was claiming the existence of moral truth and the burden proof was on them, it would not resolve that there is still a burden of proof upon your argument. Still further, even if the burden of proof was sorely on someone claiming the existence of moral truth, your argument would still be sitting unsupported and unproven.

All the burden of proof does, in the way you are using it, is to dismiss claim because it has not been proven. It gives no information about what is actually the case at all. It does not give your argument support at all. What you would be doing if such a situation were to occur is winning an argument be what was considered the acceptable way to argue, as opposed to your position actually being suggested or confirmed as true. You might be able to claim victory within such an argument, but that victory would have nothing to do with what is actually suggested to be true.
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son


Morality doesn't exist.


That's better. A coherent claim. Now how are you sure of this? I see no evidence proving that moral truth does not exist.



Moral Judgements are conditional, you're forced to make a subjective claim when using Right/Wrong.

Slavery might be bad today, 2500 years ago, it's just a way of life.


Incoherence. You are, again, describing what people thought was moral at a particular time.

You have said nothing on the matter of whether moral truth is present or not present. You have given nothing to show that the condition of an absence of moral truth must be so.


Claims of Moral Truth came first.

Burden of Proof, not on me.


Not in this instance. No where have I claimed that moral truth exists or does not exist. All I have done is identified your reasoning errors with regard to the nature of morality. You were the first one to claim a truth of morality, that moral truth does not exist, in this discussion.

Furthermore, even in an instance where someone was claiming the existence of moral truth and the burden proof was on them, it would not resolve that there is still a burden of proof upon your argument. Still further, even if the burden of proof was sorely on someone claiming the existence of moral truth, your argument would still be sitting unsupported and unproven.

All the burden of proof does, in the way you are using it, is to dismiss claim because it has not been proven. It gives no information about what is actually the case at all. It does not give your argument support at all. What you would be doing if such a situation were to occur is winning an argument be what was considered the acceptable way to argue, as opposed to your position actually being suggested or confirmed as true. You might be able to claim victory within such an argument, but that victory would have nothing to do with what is actually suggested to be true.


Wrong again, I consider truth to be self-evident. If I claimed victory in said argument, it would be based upon the obvious principle. My claim of there not being moral truth is supported by contrast and a bit of self evident empiricism.

You didn't make a truth claim, my truth claim was a response, not a direct claim. Therefore the burden of truth does not rest upon me, nor should it.
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son
The Willow Of Darkness
Christ the Holy Son



Moral Judgements are conditional, you're forced to make a subjective claim when using Right/Wrong.

Slavery might be bad today, 2500 years ago, it's just a way of life.


Incoherence. You are, again, describing what people thought was moral at a particular time.

You have said nothing on the matter of whether moral truth is present or not present. You have given nothing to show that the condition of an absence of moral truth must be so.


Claims of Moral Truth came first.

Burden of Proof, not on me.


Not in this instance. No where have I claimed that moral truth exists or does not exist. All I have done is identified your reasoning errors with regard to the nature of morality. You were the first one to claim a truth of morality, that moral truth does not exist, in this discussion.

Furthermore, even in an instance where someone was claiming the existence of moral truth and the burden proof was on them, it would not resolve that there is still a burden of proof upon your argument. Still further, even if the burden of proof was sorely on someone claiming the existence of moral truth, your argument would still be sitting unsupported and unproven.

All the burden of proof does, in the way you are using it, is to dismiss claim because it has not been proven. It gives no information about what is actually the case at all. It does not give your argument support at all. What you would be doing if such a situation were to occur is winning an argument be what was considered the acceptable way to argue, as opposed to your position actually being suggested or confirmed as true. You might be able to claim victory within such an argument, but that victory would have nothing to do with what is actually suggested to be true.


Wrong again, I consider truth to be self-evident. If I claimed victory in said argument, it would be based upon the obvious principle. My claim of there not being moral truth is supported by contrast and a bit of self evident empiricism.

You didn't make a truth claim, my truth claim was a response, not a direct claim. Therefore the burden of truth does not rest upon me, nor should it.


Getting closer, you are still making errors though. Claims about the nature of moral truth are not empirical. There is no empirical manifestation to either a present moral truth of an absence of moral truth. In the case of either, there would be no empirical evidence that it was so. This is why absence of evidence for a moral truth is not an effective counter argument against the presence. If moral truth did exist, there would be no empirical evidence for it, so an absence of empirical evidence does not suggest its no existence at all.

Of course there is nothing logically wrong with arguing the axiom that moral truth does not exist. The point is that it is not evidentially supported, as you have been implying, over an axiom that moral truth does exist.



rofl
No. A claim is a claim. What you have claimed is no less direct in this instance than if you had made a thread about the non-exisetnce of morality. You can, of course, take a position that you ought not have to provide proof for your claims to have put forward a legitimate argument. But then we run into the same issue as I identified in the last post: all your would be doing is "winning" the argument. There would be no sound analysis of the truth at all. I would also get to gloat because you have contradicted your position that moral truth does not exist(is you are claiming it is the truth you should not have to provide proof for your claim).

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games