(July 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(July 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm)Faith No More Wrote: But my very point is that when a human acts on instinct, they are not accessing this 'higher conscious' as you call it. Are you saying the difference between humans and animals here is that we can decide afterwards if our actions based on instinct were moral?
No I'm stating that if we didn't have a moral conscious (which often we react to instantly) and it was only instinct, we would be able to reject that we should act on those instincts and see that is no real "should" do or command, hence no objective morality. But we have a higher conscious, that has a belief we should do things or should not do things..
"A moral conscious" is word salad. It doesn't mean anything. You may see whatever you think it is as something we have that other animals don't, and you'll have to defend that, but those two words together don't mean anything coherent.
But again. Does a dog have this "moral conscious" thing, and if not, how would you expect every dog to behave in FNM's scenario above?
Quote:(July 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes, I am sure. I see nothing objective in the statement "objective greatness exists". What is meant by greatness? What is meant by existing? If I conceives of a concept call "WAAA", does WAAA therefore objectively exist? In what sense? If I conceive of a concept called "There is no objective greatness", does that mean "There is no objective greatness" therefore now also exists along side of "Objective greatness exists"?
Which of the three describe your position to "objective greatness".
1. The claim to knowing there is no such thing.
2. The belief there is no such thing, but no claim to knowledge of this belief
3. Not believing there is a such thing, neither believing there is no such thing.
4. Believing there is a such thing, but no claim to knowledge it exists.
Which of those three describes your position to "a bed made of sleep"?
