Thomas-Jefferson Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Hey everyone so I inadvertantly debated a guy who'd called on the show claiming that subjective is objective. Video - It started while watching Cantwell live and I kept getting timed out in the chat for posting too much so I decided to just join the after chat to continue the debate, I join around the 20 minute mark and for the most part Dale is speaking and he might be drunk, after 50 minutes Dale leaves and we're able to debate 1-on-1 for the most part, unfortunately the hangout stream got cut off halfway through but we still continued the debate for another hour/two. Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Cp5hGBJ1k I feel like I didn't force the issue enough and I kept getting hit with these random claims without evidence near the end, also it was 1-3am for me and I had to stay quiet so I couldn't really talk over anyone. Anyway feedback would be nice, where I went wrong, where he went wrong, etc. Thanks.
Slavik Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 There is a good argument that is your proposed system of moral rules leads you to "genocide = moral" then you must have done something wrong and you should go back to the drawing board. Kinji's proposed self interest as a moral absolute rule means that its purely subjective to what any given person believes. Taking this logic further, looking into the history, Nazis thought that it was in their self interest to exterminate the unwanted, which using his own terms would make those actions moral. I did propose this argument when debating with him, he added that "well Nazis have lost the war, which makes it clear that it was not in their self interest." I find this rebuttal to be absolutely incorrect for the simple fact that in their present they had no idea how it would turn out, so the thought remained in their mind that it was in their self interest. Moral rules inform us how to behave in the present, there is no such definition proposed "self interest with knowledge of the future outcomes." So, taking his proposition to its logical conclusion makes absolutely no sense. 1
Recommended Posts