Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

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

The world view is part of what it means to be a person.  That's like asking if a computer is subject to a CPU, or a CPU is subject to a computer.  You are setting up a false dilemma.

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.

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.

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.

You keep saying simply that "everything is moral" if morality is subjective.  That's fine, but you are deliberately conflating different moral contexts.  Maybe a rapist thinks his ends are just, and his means are justified.  However, there are millions of citizens whose moral ideas are different than his.  They therefore act to limit or punish his behavior, which they consider immoral.  An old woman might think her mangey three-legged mutt is the most beautiful thing in the world, but he's never going to win the dog show.

1. HAAAAA HAAAA!!! I would first point you to your own comment above!! What those people think will not effect the Subjectives determination or actions in the slightest. (Though I confess it may effect the ultimate repercussions. I believe it was Alex K who wrote in the Catholic Lady's thread, "Sex does not have a purpose, only a consequence." Needless to say I do not agree with that idea and neither does the law which states, "one acts with purpose if they act desiring the outcome or act knowing, or having reason to know the result is the likely outcome of the act".)

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.

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... )

Second the argument further assumes the unique individuality of those persons is not so unique or individual such that while no objective reality exists to which all subjective moral perceptions have a relation to (and thus ultimately to one another; a=b and b=c so a=c) their lack of uniqueness or individuality results in their subjective determinations being devoid of uniqueness and subjectivity as to arrive at consensus.

However, as I wrote before, this presumption is not supported by the very argument of subjectivity and may not be evidenced in a manner as the implied consensus of things does not constitute consensus of things (otherwise we may say the implied agreement of god to the origin of creation is evidence of God as the origin of creation). Even if other persons exist there is no possible way to say their perceptions or moral determinations have any relation to your own or one another , such that we may say there is a sensus communis without an objective reality serving as that which is represented to each subject subjectively, while still serving as the means by which those subjective representations may then be correlated to one another.

Evidence only matters if you are trying to convince someone to adopt your view of reality.  I don't care if you think I'm real, and I don't see much utility in making others prove they're real.  The God idea, if I subscribe to it, will require me to alter my world view, and will affect my social relationships, my behavior, and my moral ideas.  I don't intend to invest that kind of energy unless the God idea is shown to represent reality-- which it has not been, at least to my satisfaction.

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?

Then you argue the God idea would require you to alter your world view (which is fictitious) which will ultimately affect your social relationships (may have to quite the atheist forum ), behavior, and morals. You will not invest such energy unless the God idea is shown to represent reality like your fictitious world view does? Ha ha. I love it.

I'm not compelled to apply the same standards of evidence to all ideas.  I'm free to treat those I see as foolish prejudicially, and to hold bias in favor of those I see as sensible.  The idea of self seems sensible to me because I wake up, remember my name, and begin to act according to my world view.  The God idea seems foolish because it is based exclusively on testimonials by people I never met and have no reason to believe, in a text which contains logical contradictions and clear tall-tales.

This isn't special pleading-- it's not a plea at all.  It's how people efficiently consider and discard ideas which pose a challenge to their existing world view.  It's up to you to prove that your fairy tale isn't a fairy tale, because if you fail, I will continue on with my day perfectly unaffected.  If it ever becomes absolutely necessary for me to prove the self of me exists, I will do it by pushing you and telling you your mother dresses you funny; the reality of my existence will immediately become obvious.  Let God do the same, and there's nothing more to debate.  But He won't, because he doesn't exist.

HA HA!! You are on a roll!! :p

1. Special pleading does not require actual pleading You know full well that arguing for a different threshold for what you want to believe than that which you do not is what constitutes special pleading. But I like the effort

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...)

3. Pushing me and telling me something about my mother fashion sense is not evidence your person exists . Further more you must be a fan of George Berkley who essentially argued the existence of thing is only proven by it effecting your person directly. So until the guy in china named Lin pushes you and insults your mother's fashion sense he does not exist. (Just so you know Berkley goes on to say since god directly perceives everything, even things which we have not directly perceived our selves, aka Lin in China, still exist).