(June 16, 2011 at 6:51 am)Boccaccio Wrote: What do you mean they were "only willing to argue subjective good"? Should they have argued something else? If so, what, and why?
First of all, thank you for this opportunity to further discuss the floor comment during debate.
Arguing good exists outside of their framework against theists is always going to be a tricky proposition. The strategy seemed to be to define good as something resultant from a subjective code of morals, rather than innate or imposed. This would then achieve the positive side of "Can there be good without God?".
(June 16, 2011 at 6:51 am)Boccaccio Wrote: How were they "giving the debate to the theists"? Answering this might explain why, in your opinion, the theists might then win on points.
If the theists were able to argue good is both an objective (in their case, from God via his/her/it's almighty code/helpers or revelation) thing and a subjective thing (presumably if it lines up with principles of their religion) they can argue twice as many forms of good. And that's simply as a positive argument; they can then pose multiple negative arguments. From a numerical viewpoint alone, I'd say the comment from the floor was on to something.
(June 16, 2011 at 6:51 am)Boccaccio Wrote: What are objective ethics anyway? What is your definition of objective ethics? What is it of subjective ethics?
It is nice to know you are happy, but what is your position? What are you saying? If you refer to the debate, please cite a time stamp in the web-available video.
I have no idea what objective ethics are; I assume it would require an infinite or similar objective knowledge to even begin such a discernment.
I am unable to give a time stamp; apparently the comment was not apparent in the recording. Please be aware my comments relate exclusively to the correctness of the comment (as I said I agreed with it), not the results of the debate, a larger ethical debate, or anything else. And the question mark at the end signifies a question.
