BTW, what does anyone have to say about this statement:

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

Comment by Mertens "” October 21, 2007 @ 6:29 pm

Joy is correct, that was from the "Nation and Race" chapter (Chapter 11) of Mein Kampf.

It justifies an attempt to fulfill the "prophecy" of Charles Darwin in his Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Imagine that I want to test the truth of these two statements:
1. My car keys continue to exist when I place my hat over them.
2. It is morally wrong to have sex outside of marriage.
I can think of a million and one ways to test the truth of the first statement that would lead to the conclusion that it is objectively true

We're not talking about the ability to empirically test for the objective truth of certain propositions once you've already accepted the reality of objective truth. We're talking about proving the existence of objective truth in the first place, which can't be done. The acceptance of objective truth is simply a starting point for all rational inquiry.

Btw, objective morals of course cannot be empirically tested for in the same way as the existence of your car keys. That's because if they exist, they hold necessarily, like "1+1=2", which likewise cannot be empirically tested, but only known through rational intuition or by being told about it. Only contingent things, like the existence of your car keys, can be empirically tested.

1. The phrase "objective morality" is an oxymoron, because morality involves norms, and norms are inherently subjective.

If that were true, then the phrase "objective truth" is also an oxymoron, because truth also involves norms (true and false are normative). Do you really want to defend that view?

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about above when I said that any argument for the relativism of morality can have truth substituted in its place, with the result being that if you accept such an argument against morality, you are logically compelled to accept it against truth.

Sarcasm and rudeness (and smileys) are the chief weapons in stunney's rhetorical arsenal. It's a pity, because I think there is actually the possibility of fruitful dialog in this area. I would like to explore the idea that while morality is evolved, variable, and nonobjective, that doesn't imply that it's wholly arbitrary. Just as different evolutionary pathways can converge on something like an eye, and we assume that even aliens from Rigel will converge to a mathematics that is much like our own, it may be that different systems of morality all converge to some common form

Interesting - I expect this is already a subject of serious academic discussion somewhere. I imagine game theory might contribute something. If you believe that the defining characteristic of moral behaviour is altruism then game theory might well show in an abstract way what kinds of altruistic behaviour benefit a species/community.

The other thing that interests me is how much of this has to be genetic and how much cultural. Cultures also compete, are passed down with variation and get selected. There is no reason why they should not be subject to the similar convergence pressures as genetic evolution.

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

It has all the earmarks of a soundbite from a Nazi party rally. Who are you quoting?

Such statements imply that intellectual inferiority is a characteristic shared by all African people when compared to Caucasians which is impossible since all races have representatives at all IQ levels. Instead it means that our smart fraction(IQ>=120) is smaller. The evidence is about frequency of genius not quality of intelligence at a given level. I wonder what genetic factors are involved in the frequency of appearance of a race's cognitive elite?

BTW, what does anyone have to say about this statement:

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

while making the spectacularly false and risible claim that he had refuted Kripke's modal argument against mind-brain identity

I don't believe I ever used the term "refuted", which implies that I spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it. Rather, I saw that there were at least three things wrong with that argument, as presented by you, that any halfway intelligent person ought to be able to see immediately. From that, I had to conclude that either the argument was full of shit, OR Stunney was misrepresenting it, OR I just didn't understand it. Either of the last two options could well be the case, so I asked for someone to explain just where I was wrong, and perhaps explain Kripke in language that was free of jargon. In response to that, I got a lot of huffing and puffing about how great and important Kripke is. I'm still waiting for a substantive answer to my "refutation".

went on to provide the most spectacular mischaracterization of a philosopher's views that I have ever come across, saying that Kripke's views were stuck in a linguistic prison

Now, that is something I'm quite certain I never said. I don't even know what it means. Perhaps it refers to my impression that Kripke's argument is arid and disconnected from any interesting aspects of reality. You claimed, I believe, that Kripke's views had engendered some kind of revolution in science, overthrowing naturalism. If so, this revolution happened very quietly, since as far as I know the practices and standards of science changed not a whit as a result of Naming and Necessity. Scientists pay approximately zero attention to philosophers. Philosophers have the choice of paying attention to science, like Dennett, or charging off into their own spheres of unreality.

And BTW, I am pretty sure Dennett never claims that "consciousness is an illusion". His book claims to explain consicousness, not explain it away. Dualists like yourself conflate these two goals.

to Mark Frank:
Sarcasm and rudeness (and smileys) are the chief weapons in stunney's rhetorical arsenal. It's a pity, because I think there is actually the possibility of fruitful dialog in this area. I would like to explore the idea that while morality is evolved, variable, and nonobjective, that doesn't imply that it's wholly arbitrary. Just as different evolutionary pathways can converge on something like an eye, and we assume that even aliens from Rigel will converge to a mathematics that is much like our own, it may be that different systems of morality all converge to some common form.

The sniping between naturalists and theists is tedious — I'm not sure why I indulge in my side of it, to tell you the truth. I'm on the naturalist side of this divide, but I am interested in the place of the transcendental in reality, and how nature is composed not just of globs of stuff, but of such seemingly un-material things as mathematics and ideas. More thoughts on this here and here.

You have started resorting to sarcasm and rudeness. End of debate.

Well, I'll just have to console myself with the knowledge that a) you don't believe there's anything objectively wrong with sarcasm and rudeness; and b) you lost it, and very convincingly too, if I might say so.

You have started resorting to sarcasm and rudeness. End of debate.