Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 19, 2024, 3:47 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Argument from Conscience
|
 (August 3, 2015 at 3:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Nope Wrote: …what does the word, instinct mean …The word, instinct makes me think of an urge that can't be overruled,…Could you give an example for number three?Involuntary reactions (like blinking) would not have any moral significance. Instinct here applies to psychological motivators and inhibitors like self-preservation, sexual desire, parental protectiveness, deferring to authority, etc. Like when you give your word to be faithful to someone and don't cheat even though you meet someone else who is your physical ideal?  (August 3, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Why would one be obligated to follow one's conscience?That's a fair question. The other alternative include "When would one not be obligated to follow one's conscience?" or "...obligated not to follow one's conscience?" It seems to me that the only way around Premise 1 is to say either 1) there are no obligations of any kind, at any time, or for whatever reason OR 2) that something more authoritative than conscience must be in play. The former is nihilism and the later a justification for tyranny.  (August 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Why would one be obligated to follow one's conscience?That's a fair question. The other alternative include "When would one not be obligated to follow one's conscience?" or "...obligated not to follow one's conscience?" Neither of those results proves that there is an obligation to follow one's conscience. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
 (August 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They are easily swayed by anything that purports to show "if x then GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"...Confirmation bias, much?Your logical fallacy is ad hominum. When I hit you with an ad hominum there will be no doubt about it. (August 3, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Nope Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 3:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Involuntary reactions (like blinking) would not have any moral significance. Instinct here applies to psychological motivators and inhibitors like self-preservation, sexual desire, parental protectiveness, deferring to authority, etc. That's a good example. A normal person feels guilty about breaking their word. Now one possible flaw of premise 1 is that often people feel guilty about things they shouldn't (like going through a stop light in the middle of Wyoming at 4 a.m.) while other people appear undisturbed by the most heinous deeds. If the divine is indeed the source of conscience then one could expect it to be a more reliable guide.  (August 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They are easily swayed by anything that purports to show "if x then GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"...Confirmation bias, much?Your logical fallacy is ad hominum. Ad hominem I'm sorry. I really have to or it won't let me sleep Btw....You don't just a priori a deity into existence ._. (August 3, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your logical fallacy is ad hominum. Some things have been around longer than we have and will continue to be long after we are gone. Based on reason applied to experience we can deduce what some of those things are. (August 3, 2015 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(August 3, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Ad hominem Um. Okay. But arguments a priori aren't evidence for the existence of a deity. From an omni-everything god, I'd expect something....You know.....tangible ._. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
