Originally posted by kingdanwaI've done you the courtesy of answering your questions--please do the same for me. I'd like to know your honest opinion as to whether the earth is round or flat.
Is that a testable truth? Who would do the testing? And how moral of a person is he?
You seem to have less of an idea what you're doing in this thread than in the Lincoln one.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNemesio seems to be suggesting that motives ought to be considered in evaluating a person's claim. If a man on death row said he was god, I wouldn't believe him. If my dog told me the moon was made of cheese, I woudn't believe him. So, in order to properly answer your question, please give me the courtesy of knowing my source and his background.
I've done you the courtesy of answering your questions--please do the same for me. I'd like to know your honest opinion as to whether the earth is round or flat.
You seem to have less of an idea what you're doing in this thread than in the Lincoln one.
And if you don't know what I'm doing in this thread, I'll repeat my question once again: Does the moral character of a person or group have any bearing on any truth claims made by that person or group?
I'm getting many mixed answers. Where do you stand?
(And by the way, you haven't answered my questions: "I'm calling for standards. Let's approach facts in the same way. EITHER we CAN consider a person's morals, OR we CAN'T. Which is is is Boss Man?"đ
Originally posted by kingdanwaSince I am asking what you think, you are the best judge of your own sources & information.
So, in order to properly answer your question, please give me the courtesy of knowing my source and his background.
And if you don't know what I'm doing in this thread, I'll repeat my question once again: Does the moral character of a person or group have any bearing on any truth claims made by that person or group?
I believe I've already answered your question about Einstein & his equation. With regard to non-mathematical propositions, I would evaluate any truth claim according to its particular merits. If the truth claim contained a moral component ("I am better than everyone else"đ, the originator's morality might be pertinent.
I'm getting bored. Another example would be good. Throw us a bone, why don't ya.
Originally posted by kingdanwaMy answer is a few posts back on this very same page. Care to respond?
(And by the way, you haven't answered my questions: "I'm calling for standards. Let's approach facts in the same way. EITHER we CAN consider a person's morals, OR we CAN'T. Which is is is Bosman?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIs this your answer? I gladly repeat my question, if this isn't your answer, could you please restate it for me.
If we're interested in something that has nothing to do with morals, we can't.
If this is your answer, let me try to restate it to make sure I'm understanding it: As long as it isn't a moral issue, morals have no bearing in evaluating the truth claim. Is that a fair assessment?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not making any claims about the geometry of our planet. The burden of offering evidence (moral or physical) is on the one making the claim.
Since I am asking what you think, you are the best judge of your own sources & information.
Originally posted by kingdanwaSo, we can all agree that morals matter if it is a question about morals (which, by the way, I don't agree with. If I say killing is wrong, but I kill people, killing is still wrong). Are there any other disciplines where morals affect truth claims?
Is this your answer? I gladly repeat my question, if this isn't your answer, could you please restate it for me.
If this is your answer, let me try to restate it to make sure I'm understanding it: As long as it isn't a moral issue, morals have no bearing in evaluating the truth claim. Is that a fair assessment?
I am a scientist and I know other scientists whose lives are not totally moral. This does not nullify their discoveries. I dissagree with any form of communism. This only cause Einstein to be wrong in my opinion, not immoral. There were many scientific discoveries made behind the iron curtain when Russia was in it prime. These discoveries were still accepted. This would mean that we should throw away the game of Botvinick, Smyslov, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov, etc. as immoral.
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse,
I don't know why I bother with this but once again:
If there were no humans there would be no morality or unmorality.
It is a human attribute so BY DEFINITION subjective. Humans can
have no such thing as objective morality. Give it up. You are
obsessed with definitions and can never come to your own
independently thought out conclusions and persist ...[text shortened]... nks did 500 years ago with the pointless debates
on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Thank you for your wonderful response. God forbid anyone ever ask a question in an effort to gain some clarity. The insanity!!! Why should anyone ever be expected to actually back up their assertions with facts and logic? And about my lack of independent thinking, I'm quite proud to be thinking the thoughts of many great men after them. You, on the other hand are filled with the freshest wisdom known to man - untainted by the mind of another subjective source.
You claim morality is a human attribute therefore it is, and I quote "BY DEFINITION subjective." Your height, eye color, hair color, race etc are all human attributes - would you consider them subjective?
I am not stating that height and hair colour are objective in the same way that morality is objective - what I'm saying is that it is not enough to simply say that "only humans engage in morality, therefore morality is subjective." That is ridiculous.
Originally posted by kingdanwaNeither. I said 'we are prone to be distracted.' I meant precisely what I said. A person who
Nemesio,
I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. Are you saying that the morals of a priest matter because his "truth" is primarily about morals? Or are you just saying that hypocrite's motives need to be examined, but scientist's dont?
-Le roi
makes a moral proclamation A and then, himself, does ~A is distracting the inattentive examiner
of the proclamation, for we expect a person who proclaims the validity of A to follow it, hence
my example with the Pope who fathers a child.
Whenever we are presented with a moral (or scientific) proclamation X, we reside within our
own hermeneutic. Consider, for example, lucifershammer (who is knowledgable about RCC
doctrine, but has a bias to favor it) and RBHILL (who is utterly ignorant towards RCC doctrine
and has a bias against it). Because we have to start somewhere in out examination of X,
knowing the hermeneutic of the person who proclaims X can give us a hint about where to
start. If lucifershammer says, 'document Y reads Z,' and lucifershammer has a tendency to
read such documents accurately and fairly, then we might, for the sake of expediency, accept
his reading. However, if RBHILL makes the claim that, 'document E reads F,' and we RBHILL
tends to misread documents, we might be more inclined to examine what is being said.
We make all sorts of shortcuts all the time. We choose a certain tack for examining an
argument based on the arguer all the time. That is because we consciously (as well as sub-
and un-consciously) are evaluating the hermeneutic around us. To deny this is foolishness.
However, and I expect this is your point, to say 'RBHILL is wrong because he is biased
against the RCC' is idiotic and should be avoided.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kingdanwa
Nemesio seems to be suggesting that motives ought to be considered in evaluating a person's claim. If a man on death row said he was god, I wouldn't believe him. If my dog told me the moon was made of cheese, I woudn't believe him. So, in order to properly answer your question, please give me the courtesy of knowing my source and his background.
You have misunderstood me. I am saying that motives can give us a clue on how we
might go about evaluating a person's claim. They are not used in the evaluation of the
claim itself, but give us insight on the way in which we will begin examining the argument.
And if you don't know what I'm doing in this thread, I'll repeat my question once again: Does the moral character of a person or group have any bearing on any truth claims made by that person or group?
I answered this: No, the person's character is irrelevant for the evaluation of the intrinsic
value of any claim they might make. However, their character might provide insight into
how we might approaching thinking about the evaluation.
I am assuming that your point is that we should be careful that we aren't mixing up the
'way in which we evaluate' with 'the evaluation itself.' I think, rather than dragging people
along, it would be better to make such a proclamation that we might evaluate it.
Ironically, the way in which you are doing it is causing people to lose the point because they
are examining your motives rather than the claim itself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kingdanwa
If this is your answer, let me try to restate it to make sure I'm understanding it: As long as it isn't a moral issue, morals have no bearing in evaluating the truth claim. Is that a fair assessment?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes.
As I have stated, I feel that Bosse de Nage is incorrect in his assessment (which, I feel is
Le Roi's point).
If a saint says 'Killing is wrong' and a mass murderer says 'Killing is wrong,' is the intrinsic
truth of the statement compromised in the latter while it is affirmed in the former? Of course
not. The statements are equally true in the mouth of the saint or killer.
The only think that the behavior of the claimant indicates is whether or not they are a hypocrite,
not whether or not the statement is intrinsically true.
Nemesio