Andrew4Handel wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote:Moral nihilism is the default position until someone makes a valid moral claim.

You don't have to prove moral nihilism. Moral Nihilism is a subclass of moral scepticism.

Nope.

"Moral skepticism divides into three subclasses: moral error theory (or moral nihilism)(..)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

Nope.

I guess I'm just not deepity enough. To me morality is self-evident. I have a moral compass, and it doesn't really matter where it came from - god, my parents, life experience, aliens, makes no difference. Worrying about whether it's valid without a moral arbiter makes about as much sense as worrying about the existence of a rock without a rock arbiter.

Laklak, just so you know, it was aliens.

I suspected as much.

Andrew4Handel wrote:This is a serious misrepresentation of what has happened. People repeatedly make non constructive attacks on my post and my ability to reason so I pointed out I have a degree which involved having to reason accurately.

People thinking your posts were bollocks didn't depend on them not thinking you had a degree.
It depended on the content of the posts.

Andrew4Handel wrote:OMg purlezee vomit...It is reciprocal and you must be indulging in a seriously excessive fantasy if you think "listen and respect" is the motive on this forum.... it is gloat and degenerate the opposition.

If you think someone is degenerating you, you should compliant to the modernists.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The reality is people hate having their position robustly criticised.

If someone doesn't see a need for their version of 'morality' to be definitively proved correct by philosophical bullshit (not least since most people could see the futility in trying), then philosophical bullshitting really isn't likely to threaten their position.

And of course, Andrew does not provide robust criticism.

tolman wrote:
People thinking your posts were bollocks didn't depend on them not thinking you had a degree.
It depended on the content of the posts.

Also having a degree is in no way indicative of an individual's ability as a critical thinker. For the last two years of my degree, we were essentially told what the answers to the exam questions would be and how to construct those answers by rote. No reasoning or critical thinking required.

It was very dull. I got very bored. I would not reference my having a degree as any sort of evidence of reasoning or critical thinking.

While I, of course, have no degree, only grade 3 trumpet.

Degrees are evidence that you turned up to just enough lectures or blagged just enough or read just enough and did just enough in an exam on a given topic to attain a certain percentage of competence on a given day. Any teat can manage that with enough time, money and pointers, as evidenced by the fact that I managed to get not one, but two and two thirds of the bastards. Now a complete bumbling tool such as myself can prance about town with letters after their name like they're the dog's bollocks, and be seen at first glance of the cv as highly edumacated , even though they've forgotten what little they did bother to force between their cloth ears during an arbitrary time frame completely.

That is what I would say if I had one too. I would avoid the letters
after my name unless it was absolutely necessary. However I think
one must differentiate between them as they are not all the same

Degrees? We don't need no stinking degrees.

B.Sc - Bull Shit Credentials. M.Sc - More Scat. PhD - Piled Higher and Deeper.

Arnold Rimmer BSc*, SSc*



*Bronze Swimming certificate

*Silver Swimming certificate

Ah, but the certificate was a clue, wasn't it, you twonk?

laklak wrote:I guess I'm just not deepity enough. To me morality is self-evident. I have a moral compass

There is no reason to believe that moral judgements are valid.

There various reasons for this. Among other things are unresolved differences of values and intuitions, regular contradictions within ones own array of moral stances.

You might be mistaking your own sentiments for moral intuition.

It would be great if we really did have accurate moral intuitions but it seems highly implausible that we would have. Think of all the effort that goes into explain things in science such as cell functions and chemical reactions and the complex array of maths behind physics. It seem implausible that moral knowledge would be easily understandable and accessible when other types of knowledge are so hard to come by and complex.

The law itself that adjudicates on quasi moral issues is a huge field. So for instance you may have a moral opinion on land ownership issues and concerning a fair divorce settlement but it is unlikely to be adequate to adjudicate.

However over all moral judgements seem irrelevant as I have said a few times now. People can ignore them and after we are dead barring an afterlife scenario our actions will have been ultimately irrelevant.

tolman wrote:
People thinking your posts were bollocks didn't depend on them not thinking you had a degree.
It depended on the content of the posts.

People calling posts bollocks is not an argument and is simply either a deflationary or intimidation tactic. I am just pointing out that I know that I can make coherent arguments and judge the coherency of mine own posts.

To me when people say "This is bollocks" they are clearly expressing an emotion. It is an emotionally laden expletive.

It is also inflammatory and will drive away any chance of lively honest debate and leave the forums an arid wasteland of self congratulatory bullshit.

hackenslash wrote::picard:

Suffering from another comprehension fail?

I understand perfectly. You should find out what that smiley indicates.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
There is no reason to believe that moral judgements are valid.

There various reasons for this. Among other things are unresolved differences of values and intuitions, regular contradictions within ones own array of moral stances.

You might be mistaking your own sentiments for moral intuition.

So that's the difficulty you're having, which is that some stuff that you wish worked with mathematical perfection really only functions on a statistical basis. This is the same kind of difficulty that ID proponents and creationists have understanding how the world works. You just happen to be obsessed with the way that wings appear in distributions when a well-designed world wouldn't have such problems. Yep, read 'em and weep.

You might still believe in free will, or some such nonsense, but if you don't, you're just complaining because it's a habit of yours.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

tolman wrote:
People thinking your posts were bollocks didn't depend on them not thinking you had a degree.
It depended on the content of the posts.

People calling posts bollocks is not an argument and is simply either a deflationary or intimidation tactic.

It's expressing an opinion.
It would only be 'intimidation' if I had any power, which I don't believe I have.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am just pointing out that I know that I can make coherent arguments and judge the coherency of mine own posts.

And I was pointing out that your failing to make any impression isn't a result of people having been previously uninformed regarding your claimed degree.

It's because your argument doesn't have any real traction.

Your main recent point seems essentially to be that people can't 'philosophically prove' their personal morality is Right.
However, the two minor issues with that point are:
a) Most people here seem likely to have already known that before you said anything. Even the ones without real or imaginary philosophy degrees.
b) Most people don't seem to give a flying fuck.

Andrew4Handel wrote:To me when people say "This is bollocks" they are clearly expressing an emotion.

Expressing an opinion.

What's the 'emotion' supposed to be?
Bollocksnessitude?