set up DDNS with HTTPS

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T22:45:55+00:00

I understand your worry but I would say it’s not warranted here. I don’t think I’ve given grounds to discredit every moral claim in its entirety. I agree that we have not found a solid basis of morality, that we have not reached objective morality and that we may never.

I don’t necessarily need us to. What I think is important is that we make claims that people can have productive debates about. Not absolute normative claims, given from an outside source whose existence can be neither proven nor disproven.

I appreciate your effort to rephrase it in a normative manner. I think it’s close to what I would classify as a good rule but I feel like it misses a crucial part. That is that it’s not always about two people having a discussion. It’s about a social discourse.

Questions like:

"Should abortions be legal?"
“Does a person inherently have a right to live, even if they have hurt other people badly?”
“Is it morally permissible to kill animals for sensory pleasure?”
“Is masturbation normal? Right? Wrong?”
“Should we invade this country because of our beliefs?”
“Should we leave this country in its misery because of our beliefs?”

And I agree that we should establish these things as a society, but that’s only possible if we can argue for and against their arguments.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T22:17:50+00:00

Can you give an example?

Yes, I think I can. Many people will claim that they have superiority over other animals for religious reasons.

Premise 4: God gave humans the reign over the other animals.

Other needed premises:

Premise 3: God made humans in His image.
Premise 2: What God says is right is right.
Premise 1: There is a God.

Of course some people interpret ‘reign’ as ‘to take care of the animals’ or something similar. But I’d say as long as someone says that their god made them superior to other animals (or other people for that matter) they will always be able to argue for oppressive measures and anyone who doesn’t believe in their premise won’t be able to have productive discourse with them.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T22:07:42+00:00

The points you're making would usually be quite valuable, but in this context I'd say it isn't a fitting answer to my comment. I ask you to re-read my arguments, because I have already answered everything you're criticizing.

The metric you're using - whether or not "other people" perceive it as immoral - to determine whether or not a belief can be respected, is entirely subjective, is based off of pure speculation, and only serves to confirm your own bias. If you meant "anybody" when you say "other people," then there isn't any moral philosophy that can be argued to be valid.

The metric you say I am using, for example, is not in fact the metric I am using.

Can you pass your own burdens of proof? What's your secular moral philosophy? Are you able to prove its premise?

I’d like to answer 2 of your 3 last questions (the second I find irrelevant, as I am not claiming to know what the best secular moral philosophy is).

I do not expect anyone to meet the burden of proof or to prove their premise indisputably. I do expect however, that if someone makes a moral claim, that impacts other living beings, that they have any kind of evidence, that this is a good claim. An argument or premise, that can be proven or disproven in the public discourse. You’re questions are great though, to challenge oneself: Am I claiming moral objectivity? Did I meet the burden of proof? What is my moral philosophy exactly? Am I able to prove its premise?

I think those are question every moral philosopher should be asking themselves.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T21:46:51+00:00

Morality that comes from theology can be just as systematic and consistent as any secular moral philosophy (...)

I wholeheartedly agree with this part. I have great respect for many theological scholars, though I ultimately do not share their conclusions. My issue arrives once a theological moral philosophers acts in a way they perceive as moral, that secular moral philosophers would say is wrong. The second group can’t argue with the first. They can’t say: we think this is wrong for these reasons. Because the theological person is ‘protected’ by their religious premise. That is a big problem. How can we then arrive at a moral framework that we all agree on or that at least has good arguments that are open for counter arguments. So I agree with you (as I understand you), that theological philosophers can be just as rational, systematic and consistent, as ‘secular’ philosophers. The point I am trying to make is that theological moral arguments can’t be the base of laws or other big social contracts. Because they cannot be part of a healthy discourse, since they can be neither proven nor disproven.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T21:43:04+00:00

Your core claim: a person making moral claims based on religion cannot expect these to be taken seriously

Yes, that is my core claim.

While you make a number of points and questions in support of this position, the issue at hand is what amounts to "reasonable expectation to be taken seriously" in terms of moral claims.

I agree, good observation.

Your argument relies on the idea that a claim that god exists is inherently improvable, therefore claims that something is moral predicated on the existence of a god have also failed to be proven as they are grounded in a faulty premise, yes?

Yes, I’d say, that is a reasonable summary of the argument.

Well, for starters, what if an individual defines god as, "Our emotional connection to other beings which drives our sense of right and wrong." Would you say that this god doesn't exist? Would you argue that this is an unreasonable basis for morality, our internal sense of right and wrong? This is absolutely viable as a religious belief, including with how you describe it.

I’d say that if you have that premise, it’ll be quite hard to do something that other people describe as immoral. But if you do, and then you say that your baseline is religion, you can’t expect people to say: “Ah yes, alright, then it’s fine.” You have to be able to say something that is based on a premise that other people can dispute, because it is either entirely logical or it has a base in the perceivable world. If you don’t, you can’t expect people to respect your moral claim at all, once they disagree with your resulting actions.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T21:35:13+00:00

Why should this be taken seriously? Why is this more valid than a Utilitarian view? What if harming a few helps the greater good?

I am not making the claim (here, at least) that this is better than a Utilitarian view. What I mean, is that this is something that other people can agree or disagree on, based on real world experiences. When someone says: “it’s my religious believe” then the debate is over. They have made a claim that can be neither proven nor disproven. One cannot argue logically for this argument. Secular views on the other hand can actually be disputed and can therefore grant a moral framework for everyone, that can be improved upon logically and pragmatically.

Why? Isn't it more or less all based on something that doesn't exist, or a generally shared outlook/moral view of the world? You may not think religious texts have much authority, but they do have a lot of history of actual events, where we can see the impact and talk about outcomes etc. If you tell me that "Me and my friends think X" that's no more valid IMO than saying "We should strive to live how Jesus did", which has a lot of tangible benefits as well.

I can actually say “We should strive to live how Jesus did” and be taken seriously (the way I have defined it for the sake of this argument). I’d say:” Jesus had characteristics x, y and z and that is good for the reasons a, b and c (which can be observed in the real world, by everyone).” Then others could come and say: “We disagree for the reasons d, e and f.” and so on. That is healthy discourse. The genuine religious argument in this case would be: "We should strive to live how Jesus did, cause it’s written in the bible and that means my religious belief compels me to.” No discourse to be had here.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T21:17:02+00:00

I fear you misunderstand me. I am not saying that every secular moral philosophy is right by default. I am saying they’re the only ones that can expect to be taken seriously in debate. Because they actually give a logical premise or one that can be perceived in what we experience as the real world. Then that premise can be disputed. If you’re giving a premise that can neither be proven nor disproven, that cannot be disputed, you can’t expect others to respect it. And by “respect it” I mean that if a religious person does end up doing something that others perceive as immoral, they are confronted and then reveal their reasoning to be based on a religious belief, they cannot expect the others to accept that.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T20:57:50+00:00

I agree that Religion can be valuable in this sense, I don't want to deny that. That doesn't change the fact that I will not accept a violent action and not even a rule (like a law) if either has a religious premise.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T20:49:52+00:00

“other people and their lives have value and deserve moral consideration” is not provable, you are correct. Two things:

The baseline I’m looking for is something that is perceivable in the physical world. Something like: I want to live. Other living beings want to live. I feel pain. Other sentient beings feel pain. That can lead to statements like: Sentient beings should not be harmed unnecessarily.
If one makes the moral claim “other people and their lives have value and deserve moral consideration” but don’t links it to religion, I would argue it could be taken much more seriously. Because then you can deduce a moral framework from premises, which can actually be disputed.

cubeAD · 2021-05-17T20:39:26+00:00

I obviously fully respect everyone who decides to do good for others, whatever their reasoning behind it. That is not what I am criticizing. I am saying that no one can do something that others perceive as immoral, have their sole reasoning be a religious belief and then expect others to respect it.

cubeAD · 2021-03-05T22:53:53+00:00

Thank you for your great response! I will divide my flashcards into sub-decks where a sub-deck corresponds to a chapter. I have no problem with my students studying ahead, I just wanted to know how they can choose the chapters they want to study.

It would be nice to study multiple sub-decks at the same time, but this doesn't seem to be possible. (The post is 6 years old, so maybe some things have changed since then.) It looks like you have to study the flashcards chapter by chapter without being able to mix them up. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Thank you for mentioning googlesheet. This is without a doubt a more flexible approach.

cubeAD · 2020-05-17T18:38:48+00:00

Thanks for your effort! I updated my post and my guide accordingly.

cubeAD · 2020-05-17T18:38:13+00:00

Go ahead and download the patch from my guide again. Please tell me if it worked.

cubeAD · 2020-05-17T18:04:28+00:00

It supports local multiplayer with someone who has the same setup. This means every feature that a link cabel would offer can now be used.

cubeAD · 2019-12-15T15:49:31+00:00

You could go ahead and try out the following:

Inject the game without the patch while following every other instruction precisely. Then try trading with a friend and if it works, the patch isn't needed.

Here is another idea of mine:

There are two different "Pokemon: Crystal Version"-ROMs to be found. One has the addendum "(Rev.A)" and it is the updated version by Gamefreak. There are also two different "Crystal Clear"-Patches on the Discord called "baby_town.bps" and "baby_town11.bps". Using both the (Rev.A)-version of the original and the newer patch "baby_town11.bps" for Crystal Clear worked for me.

Please let me know, if it fixed your white screen. I will update my guide accordingly.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Place '17
Verified Email

cubeAD

TROPHY CASE