Shari'ah law makes sense

[Mugnuts]

No because you don't know what Christianity teaches and so you are slandering Christianity based on a faulty understanding.If you don't believe that you will answer for your sins one day then believe that but you're going to answer for them and be punished for them.Jesus taught about hell more than he did heaven.I'm not going to try to change your mind or prove God is real because no Christian is told to do it and I do not play atheist talking point tactics because they are wrong.You have been warned and told hell is real so you have no excuse.

:facepalm: you don't seem to understand English. What the fuck are you rambling on about? Tasking you in any way to actually use your own thoughts is so fucking useless. Are you some kind of christBot spewing out random paragraphs?

Or is it simply that that one question actualy got you to think rationally for an instant, and your biblical defence mechanism kicked into overdrive because you just realized your belief system is just as fucked up as theirs? Why else would you so fervently refuse to entertain the mere thought it?

Fine, be cowardly and don't give me a response to the question, but I doubt very much that you can ignore it on your own. Best not to fight it.

 

[Visaki]

Stalin was an atheist leader,stop with the rewriting of 20 th century history.We know exactly what this atheist did.

So you are claiming that Stalin wasn't a totalitarian dictator with a panache for the communist? I'm not rewriting 20th century history, you are. We know what Stalin did, but furthermore we know why he did it and "because god doesn't exist" wasn't one of top ten reasons. Then again by your logic I can tell you that your inner Hitler is showing every time you say anything, but that'd just be silly, though immensely more accurate than your statement about Stalin and me.

Yes it is true that waiting for the return of Jesus for 2000 years but it does not make God's word wrong just because man has been wrong,it makes no different what a person believes they all have been wrong but Jesus still told us to watch and to look for signs of the times and when it tells us in Revelation that those who reject the mark of the beast are beheaded and we see Christians and people being beheaded we can see the spirit of Antichrist at work in the last days.

And and you don't even really have to be a bible scholar to see it,plus many more signs Jesus told us that in the last days before he comes back it would be as in the days of Lot and we know sodomy was going on in Sodom and Gamoorah and yet you think it is coincidence that sodomy is being pushed into our society in these last days.I could go on and on with signs that tell us we are in the last days .The spirit of Sodom is back today just like Jesus said.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein (but not really)

Jesus also told, according to Bible, that the end times would come pretty fast after his execution, in the lifetime of the disciples at least, as one would expect of an apocalyptic preacher. Almost 2000 years and N+1 claims of "The End is Nigh" later we are not only still here, but living in a better world than any of our forefathers.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What would make you think I would just make it up?How about you read Revelation 20:4.Now I am not saying the the mark of the beast is here now because it isn't I'm only saying the spirit of Anti-christ is already here.I'm just backing myself up,not trying to prove you wrong because I know you don't believe the bible anyway and you'll ignore this based on that and overlook you were wrong.

Here is all references to the mark of the beast and beheading:

13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
(...)
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
(...)
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(...)
15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
(...)
16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
(...)
19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
(..)

20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The only reference to beheading in the entire book, is that one. It doesn't sate nowhere that the penalty for not receiving the mark was beheading. It state beheading, but beheading because of the witness of Jesus, not for refusing to receive the mark. That was a fabrication.

 

[Laurens]

Stalin was an atheist leader,stop with the rewriting of 20 th century history.We know exactly what this atheist did.

Yes it is true that waiting for the return of Jesus for 2000 years but it does not make God's word wrong just because man has been wrong,it makes no different what a person believes they all have been wrong but Jesus still told us to watch and to look for signs of the times and when it tells us in Revelation that those who reject the mark of the beast are beheaded and we see Christians and people being beheaded we can see the spirit of Antichrist at work in the last days.

And and you don't even really have to be a bible scholar to see it,plus many more signs Jesus told us that in the last days before he comes back it would be as in the days of Lot and we know sodomy was going on in Sodom and Gamoorah and yet you think it is coincidence that sodomy is being pushed into our society in these last days.I could go on and on with signs that tell us we are in the last days .The spirit of Sodom is back today just like Jesus said.

Stalin was an atheist, but he killed people because of his own brand of twisted communism. Not because he was an atheist.

There are actually verses in the Bible that indicate Jesus was intending to return within the lifetime of his disciples:

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” - Luke 9:27

I don't think any of them are still around. Do you?

Was Jesus lying or wrong?

 

[Xenophanes]

It just goes to show that there are no moral absolutes and there are always going to be subjective values involved in what deems something moral. As time goes on, life changes. Perspectives are always going to be different. Looking on the past is fairly easy to do and make judgments based on the times, yet looking towards the future isn't so clear cut.

Perspectives are always going to be different, but some, in fact most, perspectives are wrong.

Writing down laws in stone is the biggest mistake humans have done and try to keep doing,

This is true, but writing something down in stone is different from claiming it is true, and furthermore the claim of subjectivism actually does not help us remove the inclincation to write things down in stone, in fact it leads to accepting the abuse of others and allowing people to be dogmatic about their own views.

but I'm not worried about it too much. It's not hard to see the pattern tends to move towards humanism, and secularization of crimes and punishments based on reality and evidence. Taking steps backwards to barbaric times will only mean we will have to keep repeating old mistakes.

You cannot claim evidence and reality, and claim subjectivism or non-absolutism.

There are moral absolutes, if you mean by that, moral truths. Subjective views only come into the subject through preferences, and just because you have preferences, does not mean that those preferences are good preferences to have. Moral discussion should be about solving moral problems, not about determining what we can be certain about, but by eliminating moral values that are counter-productive. It is hard, but criticism and open discussion might help us get closer to the truth, even if we cannot attain it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Xenophanes!

There are moral absolutes, if you mean by that, moral truths. Subjective views only come into the subject through preferences, and just because you have preferences, does not mean that those preferences are good preferences to have. Moral discussion should be about solving moral problems, not about determining what we can be certain about, but by eliminating moral values that are counter-productive. It is hard, but criticism and open discussion might help us get closer to the truth, even if we cannot attain it.

Would you care to elaborate on what these are and how to identify them?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Xenophanes]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Xenophanes!

There are moral absolutes, if you mean by that, moral truths. Subjective views only come into the subject through preferences, and just because you have preferences, does not mean that those preferences are good preferences to have. Moral discussion should be about solving moral problems, not about determining what we can be certain about, but by eliminating moral values that are counter-productive. It is hard, but criticism and open discussion might help us get closer to the truth, even if we cannot attain it.

Would you care to elaborate on what these are and how to identify them?

Kindest regards,

James

I can not tell you what all of the moral truths there are, we have to work towards this. This leads me onto your second question. I am going to answer this question but I need to give some back ground so that we do not misunderstand each other. Firstly "identify" means something like "see it" this has an observational bias, as though moral truth is a material substance. We can never determine (i.e justify) that we have moral truth but we can adopt tenets that do not have sufficient criticism against them. If they have no criticism we cannot say they are false, so we say they are true. That does not mean they are inccorigible though, they could be false. This leads me onto another point. Just because you cannot determine that what you have is true, does not mean it is not true. There is a difference bettween determined truth and truth. A moral theory, or claims, like a scientific theories, or claims, must be open to criticism. We work towards truth through criticism. This has the assumption that there are moral truths. Can I argue that there are moral truths, probably not, but the converse, that there are no moral truths, leads to a logical reductio.

One moral truth I think is "you ought to respect the individuality of others"

 

[Mugnuts]

Perspectives are always going to be different, but some, in fact most, perspectives are wrong.

I think you need to elaborate more. Define your context of wrong here.

Writing down laws in stone is the biggest mistake humans have done and try to keep doing,

This is true, but writing something down in stone is different from claiming it is true, and furthermore the claim of subjectivism actually does not help us remove the inclincation to write things down in stone, in fact it leads to accepting the abuse of others and allowing people to be dogmatic about their own views.

I was using both the literal and metaphorical sense of "setting in stone". Also I don't seem to understand this statement about leading to abuse. Please elaborate more.

You cannot claim evidence and reality, and claim subjectivism or non-absolutism.

Yet again, what are you talking about?

There are moral absolutes, if you mean by that, moral truths.

As Dragn Glas has asked, please be a little more fruitful in your claim about some moral absolutes.

What is a 'moral truth'?

Subjective views only come into the subject through preferences, and just because you have preferences, does not mean that those preferences are good preferences to have.

Hence the subjective views of people founding religions by forming their ideas as the word of god(s) being shown how not to do it. That's where the 'evidence' plays a spectacular role on guiding our decisions and what should or shouldn't become a law of the times. I have no doubt that future generations will change or amend laws of our time with a future version of :facepalm:

Moral discussion should be about solving moral problems, not about determining what we can be certain about, but by eliminating moral values that are counter-productive. It is hard, but criticism and open discussion might help us get closer to the truth, even if we cannot attain it.

Two things.
1) I don't remember claiming the need for certainty, in fact I didn't. Are you referring to somethingsomeone else, or just making a point?

2) What 'truth' are you referring to here?

 

[Xenophanes]

Perspectives are always going to be different, but some, in fact most, perspectives are wrong.

I think you need to elaborate more. Define your context of wrong here.

Writing down laws in stone is the biggest mistake humans have done and try to keep doing,

This is true, but writing something down in stone is different from claiming it is true, and furthermore the claim of subjectivism actually does not help us remove the inclincation to write things down in stone, in fact it leads to accepting the abuse of others and allowing people to be dogmatic about their own views.

I was using both the literal and metaphorical sense of "setting in stone". Also I don't seem to understand this statement about leading to abuse. Please elaborate more.

Subjectivism leads to the idea that only people can judge their own actions, and therefore to murderers being able to only judge their own action. There are two types of subjectivism: agent and ascriber. Both of them lead to an inability to condemn moral wrong-doing.

You cannot claim evidence and reality, and claim subjectivism or non-absolutism.

Yet again, what are you talking about?

If you say that reality exists, that is an absolute. Or are you denying moral reality, and therefore advocating moral nihilism?

There are moral absolutes, if you mean by that, moral truths.

As Dragn Glas has asked, please be a little more fruitful in your claim about some moral absolutes.

What is a 'moral truth'?

Subjective views only come into the subject through preferences, and just because you have preferences, does not mean that those preferences are good preferences to have.

Hence the subjective views of people founding religions by forming their ideas as the word of god(s) being shown how not to do it. That's where the 'evidence' plays a spectacular role on guiding our decisions and what should or shouldn't become a law of the times. I have no doubt that future generations will change or amend laws of our time with a future version of :facepalm:

The sources of moral claims have nothing to do with their truth.

Also, evidence does not guide our decisions, it has a purely epistemological import, it helps us corroborate or locate errors in our theories. The only thing that guides our decisions are the preference we currently have (which can be criticised) and in osme cases theories of morality.

Moral discussion should be about solving moral problems, not about determining what we can be certain about, but by eliminating moral values that are counter-productive. It is hard, but criticism and open discussion might help us get closer to the truth, even if we cannot attain it.

Two things.
1) I don't remember claiming the need for certainty, in fact I didn't. Are you referring to somethingsomeone else, or just making a point?

2) What 'truth' are you referring to here?

1) I was making a point and it was also about not just determining certainty, but determining anything to any degree of likelihood. In fact the scientific search for moral truth can only be dispensed in criticising moral theories, never in substantiating them.

2) We are talking about moral truth, are we not?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Xenophanes!

Xenophanes said:
There are moral absolutes, if you mean by that, moral truths. Subjective views only come into the subject through preferences, and just because you have preferences, does not mean that those preferences are good preferences to have. Moral discussion should be about solving moral problems, not about determining what we can be certain about, but by eliminating moral values that are counter-productive. It is hard, but criticism and open discussion might help us get closer to the truth, even if we cannot attain it.

Would you care to elaborate on what these are and how to identify them?

Kindest regards,

James

I can not tell you what all of the moral truths there are, we have to work towards this. This leads me onto your second question. I am going to answer this question but I need to give some back ground so that we do not misunderstand each other. Firstly "identify" means something like "see it" this has an observational bias, as though moral truth is a material substance. We can never determine (i.e justify) that we have moral truth but we can adopt tenets that do not have sufficient criticism against them. If they have no criticism we cannot say they are false, so we say they are true. That does not mean they are inccorigible though, they could be false. This leads me onto another point. Just because you cannot determine that what you have is true, does not mean it is not true. There is a difference bettween determined truth and truth. A moral theory, or claims, like a scientific theories, or claims, must be open to criticism. We work towards truth through criticism. This has the assumption that there are moral truths. Can I argue that there are moral truths, probably not, but the converse, that there are no moral truths, leads to a logical reductio.

What you appear to be admitting is that there are moral truths, which we define as such - whether they are or not is unknown.

This would suggest that one can't claim - as you did - that there are moral truths.

One moral truth I think is "you ought to respect the individuality of others"

Subjectively perhaps - but objectively?

And I note the assumption that this refers to sapients - ie, persons, rather than sentients, non-persons, otherwise known as animals.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Xenophanes]

Greetings,

This would suggest that one can't claim - as you did - that there are moral truths.

One moral truth I think is "you ought to respect the individuality of others"

Subjectively perhaps - but objectively?

And I note the assumption that this refers to sapients - ie, persons, rather than sentients, non-persons, otherwise known as animals.

Kindest regards,

James

I claim it is an objective truth, there is no such thing as subjective truth.

It has nothing to do with definitions. I do not know how you read that into it. We do not define it as true (otherwise we can not say it is false, when we have a criticism; truths by definiton are tautologies), we catagorize it as true, until there is criticism. This might seem strange. But it has to do with the fact that Humans are fallible, and the Popper asymmetry. Truth cannot be determined, but that does not mean we do not have truth. We can only say that any particular thing is not the truth when we have a criticism of it. This is is because verificationism, (or the weaker version sometimes called confirmation) is false.

Please read this article, and in-depth, it might help:

http://plijournal.com/papers/david-miller-sokal-and-bricmont-back-to-the-frying-pan/

 

[Deleted member 619]

I claim it is an objective truth, there is no such thing as subjective truth.

I claim that your claim is the product of an orifice most readily associated with a more solid form of waste.

Wine tastes better than whisky.

Your claim is refuted.

 

[Mugnuts]

I'm on a tablet so I'm going to skip the quote function from the last response. Too much effort needed...

I seem to be missing where I adopted a 'subjectivism' view. That's quite silly, so no, I was not adhering to 'absolutism' and 'subjectivism' making your question about moral nihilism pointless.

Please don't tell me you are going to argue if reality exists, are you?

Source of moral claims have nothing to do with their truth. :? Ok, I never implicated anything of the kind...not sure what that was addressing at all?


Evidence does guide are decisions, and I am going to flat out say it is ignorant to claim otherwise. Do I really have to give an example of this?
Do you really think that we have an epistemological point of view as children when we perform actions? We learn as we go based on the evidence left behind from everything we do the first time. We then later have a preference after that point, unless you can suggest an alternate starting point to how we may ascertain what our preferences are/can be.

From the last statement regarding us talking about 'moral truth'...well no 'we' aren't talking about that....or at least no one was until you brought it in. I understand your reply to the question in the response to Dragan Glas, but I don't buy into the need for such categorization. The notions of 'Right' and 'Wrong' will evolve alongside our species and will remain to be subjective. I fail to see how 'moral truth' has anything to do with anything.

I'm trying to figure out what it is you are posting here and all I see is a bunch of word salad.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

This would suggest that one can't claim - as you did - that there are moral truths.

Xenophanes said:
One moral truth I think is "you ought to respect the individuality of others"

Subjectively perhaps - but objectively?

And I note the assumption that this refers to sapients - ie, persons, rather than sentients, non-persons, otherwise known as animals.

Kindest regards,

James

I claim it is an objective truth, there is no such thing as subjective truth.

It has nothing to do with definitions. I do not know how you read that into it. We do not define it as true (otherwise we can not say it is false, when we have a criticism; truths by definiton are tautologies), we catagorize it as true, until there is criticism. This might seem strange. But it has to do with the fact that Humans are fallible, and the Popper asymmetry. Truth cannot be determined, but that does not mean we do not have truth. We can only say that any particular thing is not the truth when we have a criticism of it. This is is because verificationism, (or the weaker version sometimes called confirmation) is false.

Please read this article, and in-depth, it might help:

http://plijournal.com/papers/david-miller-sokal-and-bricmont-back-to-the-frying-pan/

If we categorize it as true, it's still subjective truth - we cannot know if it exists as objective truth or not. Assuming that there's a objective truth is indistinguishable from assuming there's a god: it's a argument from ignorance.

I'm not sure if I need to clarify this point but in case you're labouring under a misapprehension about my understanding of post-modernism...

Post-modernism holds that no truth is sacrosanct - this is a far cry from what it's come to mean in the mind of the general public: that "there's no such thing as truth", not to mention it's off-spring, that "all opinions are equally valid".

With all due respect, my above answer still stands.

And you haven't really answered my question.

Perhaps if I put it differently:

You say, "One moral truth I think is 'you ought to respect the individuality of others'": I would ask, "Why?". [Objectively, as against subjectively.]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mugnuts]

One moral truth I think is "you ought to respect the individuality of others"

Charles Manson.

 

[Xenophanes]

One moral truth I think is "you ought to respect the individuality of others"

Charles Manson.

I respect his individuality. That is why can hold him responsible for his moral misdemeanors and wrong-doings.

 

[Xenophanes]

Greetings,

[
I'm not sure if I need to clarify this point but in case you're labouring under a misapprehension about my understanding of post-modernism...

Post-modernism holds that no truth is sacrosanct - this is a far cry from what it's come to mean in the mind of the general public: that "there's no such thing as truth", not to mention it's off-spring, that "all opinions are equally valid".

With all due respect, my above answer still stands.

And you haven't really answered my question.

Perhaps if I put it differently:

You say, "One moral truth I think is 'you ought to respect the individuality of others'": I would ask, "Why?". [Objectively, as against subjectively.]

Kindest regards,

James

I do not think that just because we catagorise something as true, even though it could be false, means it is subjective. Or that just because we cannot determine what the truth is, then truth is subjective. The truth of a claim depends on it saying something about the world (correspondence with the facts). If it does not say something about the world then it false. We can rid ourselves of theories by testing them against reality, if there is counter-evidece then the theory is false. in order to take criticism seriously, we need to to take bivalence seriously, in order that if we get a counter-example, then we can catagorize our theory as false. A claim is objective just in the sense that it tries to say something about the world. For instance einsteins theory is a theory that claims something about the world, therefore it is objective. It could be shown that it is false, but that means it failed to say something about the world, that it claimed it could. This does not mean it is subjective; it means that it is false. Catagorised truth is always tentative, because humans are fallible.

The "why? question can be taken in two ways. The first is why do you believe this. In otherwords what evidence have you got to back you your claim? I would say none, because evidence never can support a theory ( I am an anti-inductivist, inductivism was destroyed by Hume). the other way it can be taken is "What moral problem does repsecting people's individuality solve?" I would say it solves many problems, but as per my reponse to magnuts, it solves one problem in particular, that of holding people responsible for their actions. The best thing you can ask when somone confronts you with a theory is "what problem does it solve"

 

[Mugnuts]

I respect his individuality. That is why can hold him responsible for his moral misdemeanors and wrong-doings.

Who can? I, we, you, society, etc. You are missing a key part of this sentence for it to make a point.

And you didn't address my post before the Manson reply.

I'm actually looking forward to hear what comes next. After all, it's not every day you find someone who can respect the individuality of one who incited savage killings and never shown any remorse for the actions decades later.

On a side note, I was wondering how criticizing hackenslash's choice of adjectives adheres to respecting his individuality? Does a colourful use of language fall into the 'moral misdemeanors' category?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

If we categorize it as true, it's still subjective truth - we cannot know if it exists as objective truth or not. Assuming that there's a objective truth is indistinguishable from assuming there's a god: it's a argument from ignorance.

I'm not sure if I need to clarify this point but in case you're labouring under a misapprehension about my understanding of post-modernism...

Post-modernism holds that no truth is sacrosanct - this is a far cry from what it's come to mean in the mind of the general public: that "there's no such thing as truth", not to mention it's off-spring, that "all opinions are equally valid".

With all due respect, my above answer still stands.

And you haven't really answered my question.

Perhaps if I put it differently:

You say, "One moral truth I think is 'you ought to respect the individuality of others'": I would ask, "Why?". [Objectively, as against subjectively.]

Kindest regards,

James

I do not think that just because we catagorise something as true, even though it could be false, means it is subjective. Or that just because we cannot determine what the truth is, then truth is subjective. The truth of a claim depends on it saying something about the world (correspondence with the facts). If it does not say something about the world then it false. We can rid ourselves of theories by testing them against reality, if there is counter-evidece then the theory is false. in order to take criticism seriously, we need to to take bivalence seriously, in order that if we get a counter-example, then we can catagorize our theory as false. A claim is objective just in the sense that it tries to say something about the world. For instance einsteins theory is a theory that claims something about the world, therefore it is objective. It could be shown that it is false, but that means it failed to say something about the world, that it claimed it could. This does not mean it is subjective; it means that it is false. Catagorised truth is always tentative, because humans are fallible.

You appear to be mixing up claims about physical reality and claims about moral values: these are not the same thing.

Claims about moral values are subjective - they are the result of the culture in which you exist at a given time in history, including the present.

Since we are doing the categorising as to whether something is moral or not, albeit based on some cultural perspective ("criteria"), it is still our subjective view.

As I keep saying, to claim something is objectively moral is a baseless assertion as it assumes there is such a thing as "objective morality".

Claims about physical reality have a different basis - that of the scientific method, a process by which we attempt to remove the frailty of a subjective perspective to make it as objective as possible.

The "why? question can be taken in two ways. The first is why do you believe this. In otherwords what evidence have you got to back you your claim? I would say none, because evidence never can support a theory ( I am an anti-inductivist, inductivism was destroyed by Hume).

Evidence can support a theory about physical reality to a greater or lesser extent dependent on the quality and quantity of evidence.

The Newton-Raphson method allows one to find any root of any number to a specified number of decimal places.

Does it give the absolute answer? Sometimes (simple roots) - sometimes not (complex ones): in the latter case all that one can get is a better and better approximation, depending on how many decimal places you choose.

This is essentially what a scientific theory provides - our best approximation to date.

Hume's point is a difficult one to answer: after all, one can get the right answer (successfully explaining/predicting physical phenomena) for the wrong reasons.

With regard to moral issues, as you say, there is no objective evidence for such.

Note the distinction between objective evidence for claims about physical reality versus the lack of objective evidence for claims about morality.

the other way it can be taken is "What moral problem does repsecting people's individuality solve?" I would say it solves many problems, but as per my reponse to magnuts, it solves one problem in particular, that of holding people responsible for their actions. The best thing you can ask when somone confronts you with a theory is "what problem does it solve"

In doing so, you've now changed it from a claim of an objective moral basis for respecting individuality to a question regarding the rationale for respecting individuality.

This rationale is still subjective - the answer depends on whom you ask.

In talking about "theories", i still think you're conflating two different domains - scientific theories about physical reality and philosophical theories about morality.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

For the record, that Hume did was not to undermine induction, but to point out its limitations. Induction is iterative, rather than absolute.

Anybody who thinks this presents a problem for the supporting of theories and hypotheses with evidence is a fucking moron, and really needs to get his degree refunded. TBH, if he thinks philosophy is a route to conclusions he should be doing that anyway, because he's entirely missed the point of philosophy and is doing it wrong.