Vaginal Aquafresh's entire theory is a non-starter

[FlashDangerpants]

Without the identification of objective moral facts, one's moral system will be very subjective and anything goes, including the possibility of genocides and the extinction of the human species.

This is the common root for most, if not all, of the objectivist stuff that goes on here. This assumption that if there isn't a cosmic truth undergirding morality then anything goes. It's the false and lazy assumption that the only alternative to rigid factual hiearchy is randomness.

I understand it, even if I despise the stupidity of it, when a theist like IC does it. But somebody who thinks they are non-theistic doing this, as part of a top down teliological argument to boot, is horrifying.

[Iwannaplato]

Without the identification of objective moral facts, one's moral system will be very subjective and anything goes, including the possibility of genocides and the extinction of the human species.

This is the common root for most, if not all, of the objectivist stuff that goes on here. This assumption that if there isn't a cosmic truth undergirding morality then anything goes. It's the false and lazy assumption that the only alternative to rigid factual hiearchy is randomness.

I understand it, even if I despise the stupidity of it, when a theist like IC does it. But somebody who thinks they are non-theistic doing this, as part of a top down teliological argument to boot, is horrifying.

And it's as if the moral objectivists have kept a tidy moral world.

What he doesn't seem to realize is it is only in his head that everyone (should) comes to agree with HIS PARTICULAR moral objectivism. Precisely the assumption many moral objectivists have made in the past with all sorts of horrible (by VA's standards) consequences.

[Peter Holmes]

Without the identification of objective moral facts, one's moral system will be very subjective and anything goes, including the possibility of genocides and the extinction of the human species.

This is the common root for most, if not all, of the objectivist stuff that goes on here. This assumption that if there isn't a cosmic truth undergirding morality then anything goes. It's the false and lazy assumption that the only alternative to rigid factual hiearchy is randomness.

I understand it, even if I despise the stupidity of it, when a theist like IC does it. But somebody who thinks they are non-theistic doing this, as part of a top down teliological argument to boot, is horrifying.

And it's as if the moral objectivists have kept a tidy moral world.

What he doesn't seem to realize is it is only in his head that everyone (should) comes to agree with HIS PARTICULAR moral objectivism. Precisely the assumption many moral objectivists have made in the past with all sorts of horrible (by VA's standards) consequences.

All agreed. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts.

[Skepdick]

This is the common root for most, if not all, of the objectivist stuff that goes on here. This assumption that if there isn't a cosmic truth undergirding morality then anything goes. It's the false and lazy assumption that the only alternative to rigid factual hiearchy is randomness.

Tell us you don't understand degrees of freedom and randomness without telling us you don't understand degrees of freedom and randomness.

The word "random" means you have a probability distribution over the possible choices. "Anything goes" amounts to infinite degrees of freedom - there is no probability distribution over infinity of possible choices e.g it's not even random.

Infinite degrees of freedom is the default position re: choice. If you keep insisting that "morality is not objective" then you best postulate some "non-objective" mechanism limiting one's degrees of freedom.

[FlashDangerpants]

Another fun one. VA started a whole thread to discuss the fine tuning arg in the religion sub. I DGAF about religion arguments, but weirdly I had seen the same YT video already (probably Google analytics seeing what goes on here and assuming I care about that argument).

Anyway, so here's the thing, VA's moral FSK that derives from neurological facts that in turn derive from facts about DNA (and RNA!) .... all resulting a collection of truths about what ought and ought not, and what oughts you ought to believe in ... that assumes a fine tuning occurence somewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXLqMJREO5w
The argument to design, in the form of the fine-tuning argument, is probably the second most popular argument for God's existence. It states that the universe has been dealt a "winning hand" by having its parameters be just right to be able to support life -- specifically, our kind of life. Like the Kalam, it appeals to intuition and emotion in an attempt to make atheism look unreasonable.

But there are problems. What's so special about a universe with humans it it that it calls for an explanation other than random chance? How does the apologist know that chance would even be involved, that such a universe isn't metaphysically necessary? How does he know the universe has one "fine-tuner" instead of many? In exploring these problems and others, we'll discover why the argument is utterly unconvincing.

So the question for VA is what parameters of evolution are just right to give us the correct answer to whether or not you are evil if you have sex with your own dead grandma and then get her dog to lick your genitals clean afterwards (somewhat controversially in my opinion, VA does not agree that this is morally wrong).

What fine tuning element makes DNA's opinion about what is right or wrong better than mine?

[Iwannaplato]

Another fun one. VA started a whole thread to discuss the fine tuning arg in the religion sub.

But he'll evade the physicists Fine-tuned argument because then he will have to face the fact that opinion in modern physics is complicated, which means he can't label people like Peter Holmes reactionary if they disagree with some physicists.

[bobmax]

The word "random" means you have a probability distribution over the possible choices. "Anything goes" amounts to infinite degrees of freedom - there is no probability distribution over infinity of possible choices e.g it's not even random.

This is the usual meaning given to what happens by chance.

However, this meaning derives from the difficulty of accepting the existence of authentic randomness.
That is, we say that an event happened by chance, but only in the sense that it was not uniquely foreseeable.

And it is this inability to uniquely determine an event that makes us use probability.
But that doesn't mean that probability handles truly random events.

Probability is simply a means of dealing with events that cannot be practically determined.
But certainly not events that are truly a manifestation of randomness!

Because a truly random event has no cause, and is therefore unacceptable to the rational mind.

However, freedom, in existence, is and is only randomness. Isn't that so?

[FlashDangerpants]

It is very common for moral rightness and wrongness to be associated with "Morality" which can be all sort of subjective-morality and leading to a mess.
I had stated 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.

And with that, VA confesses why he has to make up some absurd "morality property". Beacuse actual morality which is about discsussing right and wrong just isn't objective and he knows it.

Years of his life have been wasted on this sad lie.

[Sculptor]

It is very common for moral rightness and wrongness to be associated with "Morality" which can be all sort of subjective-morality and leading to a mess.
I had stated 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.

And with that, VA confesses why he has to make up some absurd "morality property". Beacuse actual morality which is about discsussing right and wrong just isn't objective and he knows it.

Years of his life have been wasted on this sad lie.

Yes indeed. A wonderful example of him shooting himself in the foot.
What a confession!
So yes VA is basically saying that his own personal morality is, to him, "objective", which is pretty damn funny.
On a more positive note, this might actually be evidence that all the posters who have been banging on at him have finally got through.

[Iwannaplato]

It is very common for moral rightness and wrongness to be associated with "Morality" which can be all sort of subjective-morality and leading to a mess.
I had stated 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.

And with that, VA confesses why he has to make up some absurd "morality property". Beacuse actual morality which is about discsussing right and wrong just isn't objective and he knows it.

Years of his life have been wasted on this sad lie.

I think sometimes he is describing Virtue Ethics, the number three normative system that is rarely mentioned. But then other times, I think not.

[Phil8659]

Wow! now look at that Title! makes you wish you were 13 years old again, don't it?

[FlashDangerpants]

I think he's annoyed that I mocked him for recycling one joke about microwave hairdryers 10 times.

[Iwannaplato]

Wow! now look at that Title! makes you wish you were 13 years old again, don't it?

Yet here's Phil himself about Veritas Aequitas

Just listen to the sound of the engine overhead and maybe you too can be on your own Island yelling "Boss! Its de plane! its de plane!

from here....
viewtopic.php?p=582617#p582617

[Phil8659]

Wow! now look at that Title! makes you wish you were 13 years old again, don't it?

Yet here's Phil himself about Veritas Aequitas

Just listen to the sound of the engine overhead and maybe you too can be on your own Island yelling "Boss! Its de plane! its de plane!

from here....
viewtopic.php?p=582617#p582617

That's me, a quote from Fantasy Island.

That was either a good catch, or you just got lucky.
So, I am supposed to be in your shit house, what happen, cannot make up your mind?