Zone1 Is there objective truth? Is there Objective evil and good?

[cnm]

I thought that was Aristotle?

Can you find it? He may well have been the first record of it.

What is truth? Why did Kant think the question was absurd?

Feynphilosophy aims to help both philosophy students and the general public gain a better understanding of philosophy and its history.

www.feynphilosophy.com

​

Kant’s starting point is a nominal definition of truth. A nominal definition is a definition of a name and not of the thing itself. A nominal definition clarifies a term rather than provides the essence of it. Kant’s nominal definition of truth is “the accordance of knowledge with its object”. This definition is derived from the definition attributed to Isaac Israeli. Isaac Israeli defines truth as the adequacy of understanding and reality (adequatio intellectus et rei). This definition seems to do the job​

 

[cnm]

Wow, you typed a lot of words without saying much of anything.

So do you think Adolf Hitler was wrong for his actions against Jews? If so.. why?

I edited.

Sure. Jews as victims of the holocaust was as wrong as all the other victims of the holocaust. Because such actions will not lead to the survival and prosperity of communities. One can see that in examples such as Iraq and Gaza, where similarly immoral actions took place.

 

[Crepitus]

Can you find it? He may well have been the first record of it.

What is truth? Why did Kant think the question was absurd?

Feynphilosophy aims to help both philosophy students and the general public gain a better understanding of philosophy and its history.

www.feynphilosophy.com

​

Kant’s starting point is a nominal definition of truth. A nominal definition is a definition of a name and not of the thing itself. A nominal definition clarifies a term rather than provides the essence of it. Kant’s nominal definition of truth is “the accordance of knowledge with its object”. This definition is derived from the definition attributed to Isaac Israeli. Isaac Israeli defines truth as the adequacy of understanding and reality (adequatio intellectus et rei). This definition seems to do the job​

AI credits both of them plus others.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I edited.

Sure. Jews as victims of the holocaust was as wrong as all the other victims of the holocaust. Because such actions will not lead to the survival and prosperity of communities. One can see that in examples such as Iraq, where similarly immoral actions took place.

This is where the question of where our morals come from takes place, and assigning appreciation for those morals.

The only way you can condemn the Nazi's and Hitler in their attempt to exterminate the Jews is by subscribing to a certain morality. What morality says this is wrong?

I know that my morality, Christian/Catholic theology, dictates that what Hitler did was wrong.

Those outside of a religious ideology? I'm not sure they can point to a true reason why Hitler was wrong other than "preference".. or how it makes them feel.

That's why Judeo-Christian values, and Western Civilization, is so freaking important.

 

[cnm]

AI credits both of them plus others.

Must be true then.

 

[cnm]

What morality says this is wrong?

Community norms. Can you really not read?

 

[cnm]

That's why Judeo-Christian values, and Western Civilization, is so freaking important.

Need gawd to tell you murdering your neighbours is not the best idea?

Oh well.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Need gawd to tell you murdering your neighbours is not the best idea?

Oh well.

So what is your moral justification that murder is bad?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Community norms. Can you really not read?

But what if a community thinks murder is okay? Would you say that community is wrong? And on what grounds would you say that?

 

[cnm]

So what is your moral justification that murder is bad?

It is not a norm in my community.

 

[cnm]

But what if a community thinks murder is okay? Would you say that community is wrong? And on what grounds would you say that?

Then I would too, if I was a member of that community, seeing that would be moral. SMH. It's not rocket science.
Whether it's a valid moral probably depends on context, but I can easily see a community that thinks murdering its neighbours is ok not prospering or surviving. I mean, you probably think genociding the Palestinians is moral, not to mention murdering sailors on the high seas, because you're a member of that community.

I'd say that's wrong.

 

[Dante]

Most everyone on the Left would scream, "No!"...........until they get to Hitler or maybe even Trump. Then they have a serious problem.

Hilter is a problem because he is the universal symbol of evil that no one of any credibility really exists as representing evil.

And Trump is a problem because the Left must destroy him by turning him into the universal symbol of evil everyone has already accepted as being evil.

"Most everyone on the Left would scream, "No!"...........until they get to Hitler or maybe even Trump. Then they have a serious problem." -- WRONG

Which is why it is usually to engage you seriously. Your opening is a type of opinion that is easily knocked down as .. let AI take over:


A "specious opinion" is
a viewpoint that sounds plausible, convincing, or true on the surface but is actually false, misleading, or lacks real merit upon closer examination. It often uses deceptive reasoning or partial truths to create a strong impression, making it a form of sophistry or fallacious argument that appears sound but isn't

 

[Dante]

Most everyone on the Left would scream, "No!"...........until they get to Hitler or maybe even Trump. Then they have a serious problem.

Hilter is a problem because he is the universal symbol of evil that no one of any credibility really exists as representing evil.

And Trump is a problem because the Left must destroy him by turning him into the universal symbol of evil everyone has already accepted as being evil.

If "everyone has already accepted as being evil" what would be the point of trying to turn "him into the universal symbol of evil?"

 

[Votto]

"evil" is something that people make up. Its rather humorous to hear grown people seriously describing someone as being "evil"

 

[Votto]

If "everyone has already accepted as being evil" what would be the point of trying to turn "him into the universal symbol of evil?"

Hitler is seen as a universal symbol of evil, period.

That is just a fact.

Now, the question becomes, is this based on universal preferences or something beyond those preferences?

Oddly enough, the Nazi view of Jews is being mirrored today in large measure as children at major universities all around the world begin to chant "Gas the Jews". And as we see the Left celebrate the murder of such people as Charlie and the health care CEO and wish Trump had died in that assassination bid, are they no different than Hitler murdering his political opponents?

It's deja vu all over again.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Everything is not relative but morals need context

So it's wrong for most people to assault you or steal from you but it may be okay for some to assault you or steal from you depending on the circumstances?

 

[Hafar1014]

So it's wrong for most people to assault you or steal from you but it may be okay for some to assault you or steal from you depending on the circumstances?

Castle Doctrine and stand your ground .Someone breaks into my home or presents an imminent threat for serious bodily injury or death I have the legal and moral right to use deadly force and kill them or reasonable force. I can also use deadly force to stop a rape or kidnapping
If one steals from you you have the right to steal it back
Context

 

[Hafar1014]

Hafar1014 Where did you go? Care to answer for your claims?

There is context
Is it wrong to kill yes and no
Yes
If I fear serious bodily injury or death is imminent, or one breaks into my home car or hotel room or to stop rape or kidnaping I have the legal right to use deadly force to stop it . (Castle Doctrine and stand your ground)

Can I kill or injure someone while robbing them No

 

[SaxonJackson]

Castle Doctrine and stand your ground .Someone breaks into my home or presents an imminent threat for serious bodily injury or death I have the legal and moral right to use deadly force and kill them or reasonable force. I can also use deadly force to stop a rape or kidnapping
If one steals from you you have the right to steal it back
Context

So you have an absolute right to defend yourself or an innocent victim?

 

[Hafar1014]

So you have an absolute right to defend yourself or an innocent victim?

No I gave you the standards in the law
When a reasonable man fears serious bodily injury or death is imminent(going to happen now)or to stop rape or kidnapping, I have the right to use deadly force. Ill present my 357 Magnum S&W model 66 and blow his ass away.
I can also stop an armed robbery or mass shooting

Context
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
"the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending"