feplus

Gotoh is an archetype of very late, very strong recruits. Think Athos.

Knowing with certainty is unnecessary. If you can justify an act as more probably ethical than not, that's satisfactory. I don't believe you appreciate the consequences of your radical paralysis argument. Most people would agree that, in a vacuum, saving a life is ethical. Sometimes it isn't, but with imperfect foreknowledge it is the appropriate course of action. If we deny this on the grounds that "it's completely unknown," that renders every teleological moral paradigm paralyzed, theist and secular.

1. Ceteris paribus, it is better to save lives from a natural evil than not save lives. 2. It is only better not to save lives if there is a greater cost associated with that action. 3. Humans lack the foreknowledge to know if and when there is a greater cost. 4. Humans ought to save lives from natural evils in all cases.

Saving many lives from a natural evil is probably the moral course of action. Sometimes it isn't, but making this judgment requires perfect foreknowledge. We lack this foreknowledge, God possesses it. For us, the moral thing to do is always to stop that natural evil; for God, the moral thing to do is sometimes stop that natural evil. This argument won't satisfy everyone, but it's a starting point. We can trust our moral intuitions (and the teachings of whatever scripture one subscribes to) because they are reliable even if they aren't perfect.

Couple of things to note: 1. You didn't argue this, but many believe that God doesn't stop any natural disasters. We can't say for sure. It's certainly possible that he stops some disasters in advance (which we never know about) and doesn't stop others. 2. I am not arguing for a deistic God. If God allows natural evils to happen, it must be in pursuit of some greater good. No exceptions. So. There is a fundamental difference between how God makes valuative decisions and how humans make valuative decisions, but this does not lead us to moral paralysis. God operates with perfect information. Humans operate with imperfect information. The reason God allows some natural evils to occur is because he possesses foreknowledge. We lack this foreknowledge. While God acts according to what is definitely moral, we act according to what is probably moral. God deals in certainty, we deal in justification. This is analogous to the act/rule distinction of utilitarianism.

Why not? That could've been part of a greater plan, too.

I was not addressing the first post. I was addressing Klok. But fine. Free will theodicy does address human evils. It does not immediately address natural evils. Here's a possible explanation: natural evils are part of some greater plan. For example, a tsunami abroad might lead to charity and missionary work, which might save the souls of many who would not otherwise be saved.

It'll be interesting to see if this thread can remain civil. Fingers crossed. @Klok: The "atheist's wager" is typically handled via free-will theodicy. God is willing and able to prevent evil, but chooses not to in order to preserve moral autonomy. What about this response is unsatisfying to you? @Gilgamesh: The hiddenness of God is a problem as old as the Old Testament. Simple answers don't work well. Here is a good overview which gives a fair shake to both sides.

@Klok: I did not say the Bible was evidence that God exists.

"Proof" is not what's needed. Justification is what's needed. In your box example, an honest person would say he is unsure. He is unsure about what "blue" means and has no way of determining what's outside his box. But if a person denies that God exists, then he is making a positive claim, just like the theist. He would need to offer up some justification.

Those who deny that God exists should be able to provide reasons why their beliefs are more likely true than false. Same applies to theists.

First point is an error. A blind assertion is unsourced. The opening post was sourced. Second point is an error. I argued superficial irreligiosity was one byproduct of millennials' flaws, not that superficial irreligiosity was the cause of millennials' flaws. So this is actually a double error. Because I personally frustrate you, you sarcastically undermined the value of a philosophy degree in general. "...shows you what good it is to have a philosophy degree." I am happy to provide specifics. What sort of evidence would lead you to accepting my position (and the truth) on this question?

@Sakusa: I am going to condense your post's length and respond to the points I feel are worth responding to. I am going to respond to these numerically (first paragraph is 1, etc.). If you feel there is some significant argument I have glossed over, please let me know. 1. My discussion on the self-esteem movement demonstrates that I am not interested in "blaming" millennials. If I were, I would not have spent time explaining why previous generations contributed to the problem. 2. What do you want data on? For the possible (and contentious!) link between premarital sex and divorce: examples one, two, and three. The steady rise of STD infections is not controversial, so I believe one source should be fine. If you want data on the promiscuity of "ye olden days," I don't think it exists. I've never come across it, anyway; both sides are speculative. The reason I suspect a connection is that "ye olden days" did not benefit from modern medicine. No reliable birth control, no way to properly treat syphilis and the like. This made extra-marital sex a much less appealing proposition. 3. All the sources provided are reputable. They are not intended to be definitive; they spark a conversation. Trying to "debunk" them confuses the purpose of their inclusion. 4. I have complained about being misinterpreted because I am constantly being misinterpreted. 5. I welcome criticism. I enjoyed reading your post and responding to your post. I do not enjoy Chiki's obsession with trying to correct me. I am sure you can appreciate the difference. @dondon: Your post makes the following errors: * that my opening post was a "blind assertion" when it was in fact sourced * that I claimed "not believing in God" was the cause of millennials' weaknesses * that your dislike for one person with a philosophy degree indicates something about all philosophers * that the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics have not made significant contributions to collective understanding Please learn from these corrections and do not make the same errors in future posts.

It's not my place to constantly speak on others' behalf. What I say continues to blow past you. I do not care that you disagree with a source intended to spark conversation. I do not care that you find my outlook obnoxious. I care a little about the misrepresentations, but I've come to expect those from you. What I would care about is if you took the time to articulate your own position with your own sources. Open two-way dialogue. Don't let every single post in this thread be a "debunking" of someone else. It's becoming unbearable.

There is nothing to "counter." You are arguing against things I did not argue. You are "debunking" sources intended to start a conversation. People agree with you because not everyone agrees with me. That's fine. And I want you to stop focusing on me and start focusing on you. You have made ten posts in this thread. Seven of those ten are directed towards "debunking" my claims. The remaining three are directed towards correcting (what you perceive to be) others' mistakes. Do you see why this is frustrating?

That's exactly right. You have an opinion about my opinion. I want you to stop being passive-aggressive. I want you to stop implying I don't understand such and such. I want you to stop inventing errors so you can correct them. I want you to stop misinterpreting what I write. I want you to stop treating sources I post as definitive and proceeding to "debunk" them. I want you to give an opinion you can stick by and justify. I want you to provide sources for those opinions. I want conversation to be two-way. Most users in this thread have managed.

1. I said the same thing in my opening post wrt the self-esteem movement. I'm less interesting in "blaming" millennials and more interested in diagnosing their weaknesses. 2. "If done safely" is the operative phrase; it often is not done safely, which leads to the spreading of STDs. There are also problems with objectification, and some studies link premarital promiscuity with later divorce (though this field of research is in its infancy). On a cruder level, sex was one of the "draws" to marriage traditionally, and it being freely available might have something to do with people getting married later and less often.

I've resigned myself to the fact that all of our conversations will be a struggle. You don't have to agree with my conclusions about millennials. You don't have to take my sources as definitive. You don't have to share my pessimism. I started this thread to spark a conversation I found interesting. Most users have managed to stay on-topic, stay civil, and make contributions. I'd encourage you to follow their example. Share your own opinion. Give us reasons to agree with you. Provide your own sources. Your obsession with correcting my imaginary mistakes is tiring.

Here's a starting point.

Hitler faced a ton of opposition and armed guerrilla resistance to Nazi efforts saved many lives.

That's an issue of how to best structure and implement background checks rather than a criticism of background checks themselves. If even one life is saved as a result of these checks, it's a worthwhile policy. The only "expenses" that come to mind are slight inconvenience for gun owners, and [ii] the possibility that background checks become politicized. Neither are insurmountable objections. And how many more lives would've been lost if the Boston bombers had legal access to industrial-grade explosives rather than a piddling pressure cooker makeshift?

The Young Turks channel is commercial demagoguery. Cenk's a smart and very well-educated guy, but he's also a harlot. He and his comrades intentionally distort and simplify conservative beliefs and actions to cash checks from the views of their liberal audience. I don't think the conversation will improve by talking about them. Eminently reasonable. Many committed gun nuts (myself included) agree with your proposals. Actually, I struggle to come up with good reasons we shouldn't implement those policies.

This is true. There are also many differences between the United States and other developed countries: geography, a deeply-rooted gun culture, proximity to unstable nations, and the aftereffects of institutional racism to name a few. Linear comparisons between America and Europe wrt the effectiveness of gun control legislation are unwise. What works for Britain and Australia cannot be assumed to work for America. I'm curious about your thoughts on the "moral argument" for gun rights. Grant that widespread gun access leads to more crime; what about those who say we are entitled to buy guns? That it should be a protected activity even if it's not always best for society?

This is incorrect. It is not invalid to say that all Asians like rice. In logic, validity applies to arguments, not claims. Saying all Asians like rice is a verifiable empirical claim. It happens to be false. But I have not made any absolute generalizations like this. Example from the opening post: being less likely to get married at a young age is not a criteria for being a millennial. Yet the generalization is true.

It's fine to vent from time to time. It isn't fine to complain in place of open discussion. I worry that millennials trend towards the latter. Consider the rise of political blogs. For really the first time, people don't get their news from relatively impartial sources giving both sides a say; you can have your news tailor-made to fit your political temperament. You can spend all day on Daily Kos or Breitbart and never get the alternative perspective. This leads to intellectual stagnation. The rise of safe spaces is a continuation of this trend.