(March 19, 2014 at 7:57 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 7:56 am)xpastor Wrote: Sadly, burning people alive goes all the way back to Old Testament times. The Israelites generally preferred stoning to death, but there are a few "crimes" for which burning was prescribed—if I remember rightly, fucking an animal was one of them, and both human and animal were to be burned to death.

What this goes to prove is that cultural conditioning (deciding what God wants) can overwhelm the evolutionary foundations of morality, such as empathy and a sense of fairness (punishment proportioned to the offence). I mean I feel that having sex with an animal is slightly creepy, but burning alive?????

If morals are subjective what arguments you gonna propose against lets say bullying? Bullying comes from evolution.
Lets say there is a continent on which bullying is considered fine thing. How are you gonna argue against it?

With a big gun.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:00 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 7:57 am)tor Wrote: If morals are subjective what arguments you gonna propose against lets say bullying? Bullying comes from evolution.
Lets say there is a continent on which bullying is considered fine thing. How are you gonna argue against it?

With a big gun.

So its bunch of fighting over opinions. Matt Dillahunty could at least say that bullying is objectively wrong and then start a debate against it.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:05 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 8:00 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: With a big gun.

So its bunch of fighting over opinions. Matt Dillahunty could at least say that bullying is objectively wrong and then start a debate against it.

Yes he could say that. Just like Christians could say drowning babies is objectively moral if God commands it.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:14 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 8:05 am)tor Wrote: So its bunch of fighting over opinions. Matt Dillahunty could at least say that bullying is objectively wrong and then start a debate against it.

Yes he could say that. Just like Christians would say drowning babies is objectively moral if God commands it.

Yeah but Dillahunty has arguments ready. He would say that morals are independent from god.
Famous euthyphro dilemma.
So bullying is either objectively right or objectively wrong. Dillahunty and I can discover that it's wrong and then show those fucking bitches.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:16 am)tor Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 8:14 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Yes he could say that. Just like Christians would say drowning babies is objectively moral if God commands it.

Yeah but Dillahunty has arguments ready. He would say that morals are independent from god.
Famous euthyphro dilemma.
So bullying is either objectively right or objectively wrong. Dillahunty and I can discover that it's wrong and then show those fucking bitches.

I'm curious as to how he argues that. Is it similar to Sam Harris' approach?

Pretty much. Dillahunty goes like this.
Objective morals exist. Let's find them.
It's like math. Math is objective and it exists but people can be wrong about it.
For instance fermat theorem was hard to solve.

Same with objective morals. They exist. And they have to be discovered and it's a hard process.
For instance burning people alive is objectively wrong in almost all situations(maybe there is some situation where people have to be burned but I did not hear of any). But I am 100% sure that objective morals are related to the consequences of actions.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:22 am)tor Wrote: Pretty much. Dillahunty goes like this.
Objective morals exist. Let's find them.
It's like math. Math is objective and it exists but people can be wrong about it.
For instance fermat theorem was hard to solve.

Same with objective morals. They exist. And they have to be discovered and it's a hard process.
For instance burning people alive is objectively wrong in almost all situations(maybe there is some situation where people have to be burned but I did not hear of any). But I am 100% sure that objective morals are related to the consequences of actions.

I don't find that convincing. Morality is not like math at all. That's not to say I don't value what I think Dillahunty and Harris want to say, which is that IF a person appreciates human life than there are ways to treat others that are objectively better or worse than other ways. But the notion that there are objective moral duties, such as the claim that a person ought to value life, I think is on flimsy ground.

So if somebody wants to burn people alive what is your objection?

(March 19, 2014 at 8:29 am)tor Wrote: So if somebody wants to burn people alive what is your objection?

My objection is that I value sentient beings.

(March 19, 2014 at 8:31 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 8:29 am)tor Wrote: So if somebody wants to burn people alive what is your objection?

My objection is that I value sentient beings.

They don't like people they want to burn. Are they wrong simply because you don't like it?