Not everyone is foolish enough to claim that good and bad moral absolutes don’t exist and also claim that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out like you do Josh.
We now have the science that explains the lifeless binary processing biological machine’s construction and workings and it’s unable to explain morality by reason alone.
It merely covers all logic possibilities with its binary software.
“Some people think you can get morality through reason alone.”
You can get some hypothetical imperatives out of reason alone that are objective but not any categorical imperatives. You’d need a reason for why ‘it had to be’ that Joe do x rather than y… why he should do x for some sake other than something merely hypothetically imperative; why does Joe have to do x for the sake of doing x, or because a god has commanded it, for example.
If you simply say, ‘Love your neighbor because if you don’t, you’ll be violating God’s wishes and there will be penalties’ one could easily reply ‘but what if one isn’t afraid of the penalties, etc.’
What looked like a categorical imperative now becomes hypothetical; love your neighbor as a means to staying out of hell. It’s now objectively true that loving the neighbor is useful for staying out of hell. But you don’t have to stay out of hell, see.
Good morals are what Sam Harris called (paraphrasing) ‘right ways to navigate the world that avoid producing the worst possible misery for everyone’.
Hi Promethean,
Interesting. Yes you can clearly get hypothetical imperatives through reason alone. According to thinkers like Kant, though, you can have rational insight into a priori universal moral truths.
I don’t have an opinion on this topic at this stage. I’m still investigating epistemology and other topics first.
I did enjoy Sam Harris’ TED talk though, where he argues the science of the future will give us ethical conclusions by giving us facts about human well-being and how to achieve it. Those “good morals” appear to presume utilitarianism, though, although I think I recall Sam Harris said it doesn’t have to.
Why don’t you simply explain to Josh what you mean?
You know what it means Felix and so does Josh….it means good (+) and bad (-) moral absolutes which atheists claim don’t exist and have never existed even though this is a pure guess.
The problem atheists have is science doesn’t agree with their scientific claim that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out.
So all atheists have is a cognitively biased religious philosophical guess that doesn’t migrate across into science.
This thread has nothing to do with morality, atheism, science, or electromagnetism. Lol
What’s the point of the thread when it’s just another boring atheists view of things Josh.
Cut to the chase and stop wasting your and everyone else’s time.
The only philosophy that science agrees with is +/-=+/- philosophy because you can only vibratory balance attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes with this formula which explains absolutely everything in the physical.
The point of the thread is EPISTEMOLOGY.
If you cannot talk about EPISTEMOLOGY, you have no real business being here.
I’m only interested in true knowledge which is founded upon a philosophical CERTAINTY that explains reality Josh……..stop wasting your time with false knowledge derived from an incorrect philosophical GUESS which doesn’t explain reality.
By all means tell me how true knowledge is attained. I’m all ears.
You’re new here. This is a man-bot.
Don’t listen to Max…he hasn’t the first clue what he’s talking about …He’s controlled because he’s weak.He’ll believe anything the automated machine tells him.He’ll try to convince you that he’s Batman or Robin….or maybe Santa Claus next.
Max, you interrupted. Jupiter was about to give me the secret to true knowledge…
The secret to true knowledge is founded upon a philosophical certainty not a philosophical guess Josh.
So what do we know for certain?
What we know for certain is that if you take two magnets with N and S poles and interact them in the 4 off possible combinations NN;NS;SN;SS you get two attractions and two repulsions and it’s a scientific FACT that it’s impossible to cancel out these force interactions.
All you can do is vibratory balanced them out with the united formula N/S=N/S.
This formula provides the correct starting philosophy for everything +/-=+/- and not +=- and -=+ philosophy or +=+ and -=- philosophy.
Right… Well, good luck with that.
I’m gonna stick with analysing the concept of knowledge, deriving a priori truths, and truths derived directly from the senses.
We’ll see who builds the better worldview.
You don’t need luck with a philosophical certainty you fool.
If you feed the bot, he will give you 100 answers repeating the same things over and over again.
This bot hungers for attention.
Go away you loser and crawl back under that rock you came from you snake.You have no idea about reality philosophy.The religions of atheism and theism are the cancers in society