[font=]A burden of proof lies with the person who has made a claim; in an honest discussion that person bears a responsibility to actually back up what he has said rather than taking illegitimate refuge by using evasive tactics. [/font]Perhaps you will recognize the following vague claim: “for me morality is about the well being of human beings”. Prefacing that claim with the words ‘for me’ doesn’t excuse you from providing an explanation because you are making a statement about the nature of morality.
Nope. This is where you continuously keep misrepresenting my position (attempting to turn the tables) and this is why you view what I have said as "evasive tactics". I HAVE NOT made a statement of the "the nature of morality". On the contrary, I have stated what morality means to me (a preference) - unlike you who claims to have an "objective standard" (presumably a deity which you haven't demonstrated). So no sir, you are quite mistaken here. My position on morality (as you define it) is that it is just as illusive as the deity you believe in.
Your view is not in any way analogous to some versions of atheism (e.g. you are not arguing for ‘a-morality’) so you should stop complaining and own up to the ‘burden’ that you assumed when you made that claim. Also, you seem to think that the burden of proof can only lie on one side of the debate when; in actuality, both sides often bear a burden of responsibility to provide reasoning or evidence for their assertions – just because one side (me) bears a burden of proof doesn’t mean that the other side (you) doesn’t also simultaneously bear a similar burden.
Except you haven't demonstrated that I have a burden of proof. You just keep saying it
because you want
me to have one so you can attempt to attack it. Again, I haven't made any assertions on the "the nature of morality". Multiple times now you have misrepresented my position (Strawman Fallacy).
One participant in a debate has fallaciously ‘shifted the burden of proof’ when, according to the Nizkor Project, “[font=]a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B”. [/font]I have not anywhere on this thread said that my version of morality is correct because you have not given any evidence to back up yours; therefore, I have not illegitimately shifted the burden of proof. Before you accuse someone of a logical fallacy you should take the time to learn more than just the name of the fallacy; in other words, if you think I am guilty of a fallacy you need to explain why I am guilty of it.
I apologize for the false charge and rescind it, as what I meant
was something different from what I stated. Happy?
Pretty much every time I have asked you a question about your claims regarding your personal view of morality you have accused me of projecting an objective standard onto your view.
It seems to me that you keep attempting to make me take a position that I haven't taken, namely one on "the nature of morality" and I haven't done that nor have I attempted to do so.
Given your repeated excuses for not being forthcoming with any answers to my questions regarding morality, I think that your understanding of the distinction between objective and subjective moral views is about as adequate as your understanding of the word ‘bolster’.
Sounds good! Because I understand the term very well. Unfazed.
Just because a person’s moral outlook could be described as ‘subjective’ doesn’t mean that they didn’t use some rational process to arrive at their moral conclusions. If a rational process is involved then it should also be possible to describe it as well as to define the premises upon which it is based. The absence of such a process and description would make your moral view no better than the moral view of a person who simply rolls a die any time he is confronted with a moral choice. Your view of subjectivity is conceptually indistinguishable from a decision making process that is purely arbitrary. Odd, considering the fact that you bill yourself as ‘a promoter of reason’; perhaps a better moniker would be ‘evader of reasons’.
"Feel the Christian love!" LOL. I'm unfazed by your rants again. YOU can attempt to "describe" what I have previously stated all you like, but your doing so doesn't make your assertions regarding "the nature of morality" anymore true regarding them. Once again, I have not made an assertion regarding the nature of morality, and any attempt by you to put words in my mouth to that effect is a strawman fallacy. On the contrary, I have no idea what such "nature" could even look like, and in fact, I have been given no good reasons for thinking that such a concept is even coherent.
Btw, merely making a charge regarding what you see as "my position" (which is based on a strawman), that it is "indistinguishable from a decision making process that is purely arbitrary" without backing it up/defining your terms/etc is a little hypocritical don't ya think - since you just got done attempting to charge me with a similar claimed 'offense'.
You should have looked at yourself in the mirror when you made that "evader" charge.