[Split and moved from the Challenge - Carleas]
I read your post. Not sure I can discuss it yet (I believe the debate has to be over first.) But yeah, I read it and I’m watching.
It would be useful to understand what Ecmandu means when he says that “Morality is objective”.
Which one of the following is it?
-
The belief that moral statements have truth value (i.e. that any given moral statement is either true or false)
-
The belief that what is morally right for one is necessarily morally right for everyone else
-
Both (1) and (2)
-
Something else
Not really. But promethean mentioned the is/ought problem being most critical to the debate. If it lags, I’ll tackle it.
Yeah, you can say things like that Magnus.
I’m just super-curious to read the response.
I also want to say…
Beyond what promethean said before the debate and what Magnus just said…
No more commentary until after the discussion.
That’s not true. I’d be happy to explain why, but in order to not spoil the fun, I won’t do it now.
Looks like Aventador might not make the 24 hour mark. That’d be disappointing.
If he doesn’t show up, you automatically win and he’s officially defeated by Ecmandu in a debate. “Who did you lose to, Pedro?” “Well, I lost to a guy who once attempted to win a debate by arguing that he’s a fool.”
But let’s hope he’s merely building the tension. He wants you to get you all hyped up. He wants you to go “Oh my God, I am gonna win this one! I’M GONNA WIN THIS ONE!” only to deliver a deadly blow, an apocalyptic response, at the last minute. That would be an instant KO as you wouldn’t be able to recuperate.
I wouldn’t go that far Magnus. My primary intent is to get these arguments into this section. I want him to respond.
Less than three hours to go.
But it looks like he left. I guess he forgot about the debate? I’f that’s the case, I am very disappointed.
I’m going to pm him and offer a slight extension for his first response.
No clue what’s going on here.
I cna only hope that someone didn’t hurt his feelings.
So… I’m just going to put this out there.
If Aventador bails… does anyone else want the debate?
There’s an open slot. No use wasting it.
I don’t think he knows what “objective” or “morality” (or many other relevant words) means so debating could be difficult.
I already said what objective means…
It’s true regardless of what anyone’s opinion is.
Not that complicated.
I also defined moral objectivity.
It’s right or wrong regardless of what anyone’s opinion is.
sigh
It’s right there in print.
Ecmandu -
I wont debate with you about the objectivity of morality - but - I will debate you on whether you can prove it.
A - Ecmandu can prove that morality is objective.
B - Ecmandu cannot prove that morality is objective.
And in case you can’t figure it out - I will support B.
Obsrvr… I’m just restating things in my debate intro.
Yes, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is…
Nobody wants their consent violated.
I even stated in that intro that because in some way, shape or form EVERYONE is having their consent violated that existence itself is immoral.
Again, as I also stated in that debate intro:
This means there is currently no good or bad; just better or worse.
Then I stated that objective morality as a goal is to make reality good (while in the meantime doing harm reduction)
I already wrote all of this.
Observer’s saying he wants to debate with you whether or not you can PROVE that morality is objective. I assume he agrees with you that morality is objective, so he can’t debate that one.
Are you interested in that?
Magnus, it’s an inferential / self evident proof.
I can say that the counting numbers increasing with the +1 algorithm include the entire well ordered set…,
And someone can say “well, you didn’t count all of them and you can’t, so how do you know it’s true?”
At a certain point, and I’m going to be crass here… that’s just being a shit.
Morality is objective: nobody wants their consent violated. It’s an axiomatic, self evident experiential and inferential proof… it’s also true by definition.