Morality 3: Of objectivity and oughtness

5
I’ve left a few loose ends on the recent series on morality, I plan on wrapping that up shortly, but life has continued to be busy and I want to make sure I give both topics adequate thought and reflection. In the mean time here’s the latest from QualiaSoup:

5 Comments


  1. I just watched the video where Craig debates with Harris, last week; his
    argument was the same. Harris did a very good job of dismantling him,
    but this video does an even better job. I give QualiaSoup an extra round
    of applause for hitting the subjectivity issue at 12 minutes into his
    video; the very same thought nagged at me through the Craig/Harris
    debate.

    Also, I don't think anyone has really taken the ontological argument to its full extent. The ontological argument could be valid if an individual could imagine a perfect being, in every functioning detail. Every detail, down to the behavior of the smallest particles of what this perfect being is doing. I see this as the best ontological argument.

    By this time, however, the issue is that nothing known to us can imagine a perfect being. Additionally, if a person could imagine the greatest being, then they'd have to comprehend themselves in their entirety. This greatest being imagined would also have to imagine themselves imagining themselves entirely, and so on. By the time we're done, we have an omniscient being in our midst who defies logic by fulfilling infinite knowledge. Such an individual would be empirical evidence with implications so great, that the ontological argument is pointless to create in the first place.


  2. I just watched the video where Craig debates with Harris, last week; his
    argument was the same. Harris did a very good job of dismantling him,
    but this video does an even better job. I give QualiaSoup an extra round
    of applause for hitting the subjectivity issue at 12 minutes into his
    video; the very same thought nagged at me through the Craig/Harris
    debate.

    Also, I don't think anyone has really taken the ontological argument to
    its full extent. The ontological argument could be valid if an
    individual could imagine a perfect being, in every functioning detail.
    Every detail, down to the behavior of the smallest particles of what
    this perfect being is doing. I see this as the best ontological
    argument.

    By this time, however, the issue is that nothing known to us can imagine
    a perfect being. Additionally, if a person could imagine the greatest
    being, then they'd have to comprehend themselves in their entirety. This
    greatest being imagined would also have to imagine themselves imagining
    themselves entirely, and so on. By the time we're done, we have an
    omniscient being in our midst who defies logic by fulfilling infinite quantities of
    knowledge. Such an individual would be empirical evidence with
    implications so great, that the ontological argument is irrelevant.


  3. Well said. If you'd like, feel free to expound on your thoughts on the subjectivity part of all of this and send it my way for a guest post.


  4. Will do. I should be able to get something out around the middle of next week.


  5. Finally, someone speaking at length about all of the topics that I see go ignored in these debates. You don't know how satisfying it is to hear all of this in 17 minutes- this will be a great resource for me to show people who are willing to listen with an open mind.

    17 minutes is much shorter than some of the heated, one-sided discussions I am forced into by groups of religious people who, if they had a chance to hear over their own blathering, could actually grasp the concept I'm getting at.

Comments are closed.