For the Sake of Science

Thought of the day

4 Responses

1. 

   jonolan, on December 17, 2009 at 5:30 pm said:

   Well, first it’s based on a false premise. That false premise being that good and evil are subjective.

   Once we ignore that fallacy though, we’re faced by the end result of subjectivity, which is meaninglessness.

   You’re trying to reduce right and wrong to being nothing but opinion statements. You can’t do that and maintain meaning beyond the purely introspective, isolated viewpoint.
2. 

   Michael Hawkins, on December 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm said:

   Well, first it’s based on a false premise. That false premise being that good and evil are subjective.

   You apparently do not understand. The argument being questioned is “Good and evil are subjective and thus meaningless”. In other words, since you disagree that good and evil are subjective, you fully agree with the premise. If not, then it’s perplexing why you would argue in favor of it.

   Once we ignore that fallacy though, we’re faced by the end result of subjectivity, which is meaninglessness.

   Did you miss the entire point of the post?

   You’re trying to reduce right and wrong to being nothing but opinion statements.

   I would argue that we all do that. Even those who believe there is a God are deriving their idea of right and wrong from some other source (hence the cherry-picking of religious morality). Reducing this source to that of basic opinions is off-base.

   You’re trying to reduce right and wrong to being nothing but opinion statements.

   Universal principles (as described by Kant, but also others), shows your statement to be immediately wrong.
3. Does a subjective notion of good and evil have meaning? « Wide as the Waters, on December 18, 2009 at 2:46 pm said:

   […] a subjective notion of good and evil have meaning? In his latest ‘Thought of the Day‘, in which atheist Michael Hawkins offers us his profound wisdom, he makes this […]
4. 

   jonolan, on December 18, 2009 at 3:49 pm said:

   If you’re arguing that good and evil are subjective yet not meaningless, then – even were I to entertain the fantasy that they were in fact subjective – I would be in disagreement with your premise.

   It is a plain fact that morality, if it were subjective, would be meaningless since it would not be considered binding past the individual and would therefor be ethics instead.

   Subjective morality is an oxymoron.