Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[bennyboy]

Your opinions about my world view or moral sense are irrelevant to my process of making decisions.

And your opinion of your world view or moral sense are irrelevant to the reality.  Realism prevails :p

1.  You have not yet evidenced person much less that world view is essential to that person.  I would be careful in arguing because you are a person and you have a world view such is essential to all persons.  Since one may just as easily argue they are person and they know of god, thus such is essential to all persons.

Perplexing. "World view" is a label for the collective ideas one has about the world. The evidence for world views is that people talk about them all the time, and seem to act on them. If you want to go solipsism, and argue that we can't prove that other minds exist at all, then I'm with you. But for me, there's utility in viewing others as minds with ideas, and no utility in viewing the universe as under the control of a goofy God who can create the universe but not save sick babies.

2.  Now it would seem you are trying to say world view functions as an operating system.  To which I would point you to the same as stated to Nestor.  A calculator receives complex inputs and provides complex outputs.  The calculator is no more aware of the world beyond the inputs and outputs than a meat automaton may be.

Why do you keep saying that it seems I'm saying things I'm not saying? I'm saying that one's ideas are intrinsically linked to one's experience of life, and to one's decision-making process. What does this have to do with computer operating systems?

3.  However, If the world view is as inherent to person as you state than we may say person = world view or that world view = person.  Now under our argument of moral determination we once again must state that world view being equated to person does may not serve as the determinate anymore than person may serve as determinate in a subjective morality.  The world view will change in accordance with the whims of the person and thus person may readily adopt a world view which leads to all acts committed by them being moral.

My big toe is inherent to my existence, but I wouldn't say person = big toe or that big toe = person. That's a pretty strange argument.

2.  You are conflating justice (ethics) with morality.  The rapist does not need to think the ends of his acts are just (ethical utility),  he does not need to think the means are just (ethical medium), nor does he need to give consideration to the thoughts of others (ethical consensus).  Simply because he likes the end, he is not opposed to the medium, and others cannot stop him from initiating the act (and likely completing it.  We may punish after, but cannot preempt the act) he may determine the act is good under subjective morality.

Yes, he may. Because morality is subjective.

3.  Furthermore your argument to consensus remains invalid (Kant endeavored to argue the same sensus communis) for two main reasons.  First the argument assumes the existence of other persons.  You fail to evidence your own person yet wish to presume the existence of other persons (virtual particles anyone?  Maybe they are all terminators designed to infiltrate your trust by agreeing with you... )  

I'm not much bothered by this, since we cannot provide conclusive evidence for ANY part of the subjective perspective in humanity: ideas, thoughts, mind, will, etc. But this doesn't matter-- while accepting that any of these things may be illusory, I'm willing, on the basis of utility, to make the philosophical assumption that those things are as they seem to me: that other people aren't robots, for example.

I see people, talk to them about their ideas, learn how these ideas affect their views of what acts are right / wrong. I can see how mores are affected by culture, by age, by gender, and by many of the other aspects of people's humanity.

My lack of conclusive evidence (by which you mean proof) doesn't matter, because interacting with people as though they are really sentient is central to my experience of life. The idea of any objective morality, or of a God who might have created such, is irrelevant, and plays no part in my experience of life.

Interesting and paradoxical.  You argue your world view will ultimately be policed by other persons world views.  Yet you see no utility in proving others are real?  So you are fine with being limited by fictitious person(s)?  What if there were just one other limiting fictitious person?  Still not concerned with proving they are real?  What if this one other fictitious person lived in the sky?

I can see people. They act as though they have minds, and I'm willing to take the philosophical position that they are as they seem. I could be wrong, but it is useful for me to assume in this case that SEEMS = IS. There is nothing that SEEMS to me to represent an existent God, and I do not therefore even have to confront the philosophical question of whether to take the seeming as being.

2.  These two entire paragraphs may simply be supplanted by the phrase for those who adhere to belief in God; (the idea of god seems sensible to me...), (it is up to you to prove your fairy tale world view isn't a fairy tale, because if you fail, I will continue on with my day perfectly unaffected...)

You seem to find my existence pretty compelling, since you've written many words in response to my ideas.

Look, if I'm trying to prove to someone that other subjective minds exist, then I will be in big trouble; if I think the Bennotron3000 robot really thinks, and want you to believe so, it's going to be impossible to convince you. But I have plenty of experience with human shaped objects which behave as though they have human minds, and take a philosophical position. I do not have any experience with a God-shaped object which behaves as though it is God, and so I do not take a philosophical position.