Argument from noncognitivism

[Silver]

How is moral knowledge impossible?

Do we all not know what is moral as opposed to what is immoral or amoral?

Morality is quite universal.

[robvalue]

Because it's not well-defined. It's a value judgement and as such is user dependent.

[Silver]

By user dependent, do you mean a murderer killing and thinking he is doing the moral good as opposed to someone else thinking he is immoral?

[robvalue]

Yeah. Without a subjective viewpoint, there is no moral judgement. A nonsentient universe does not have an opinion, and even if it did, it would be arbitrary from our point of view.

Insisting that one viewpoint be correct in each instance doesn't make it so, and cannot, since as I said it is not well defined and objectively measurable.

If you first define it to be objectively measurable, then you can measure it. But then many people will disagree with how you measure it.

[Silver]

So you think killing people is good?

[robvalue]

I'm saying "good" doesn't mean anything until you precisely define what "good" means.

Nothing is inherently good or bad.

[Silver]

If nothing is inherently good or bad, then it must be okay to own black slaves. At least according to the logic you are attempting to put forth.

[robvalue]

No, because "okay" doesn't mean anything either until you define it.

[Silver]

Isn't that what a fucking dictionary is for?

If you are going to demean a debate by making the same useless claim such as "define it", then you have lost the debate through your sheer ignorance of not knowing what a dictionary is.

The only reason you would think there was a definition other than what has been defined, recognized, and accepted, is if you think there should be a different definition in its place.

[robvalue]

OK, insults. No more discussion for you.