Morals, these people have none. We are 5 min late. It's a sad state of afairs. I love your conversations, my Dad has passed,and many names you mention. Books were our favorite conversations
"we hold these trues to be self evident' to a post reason world, nothing is self evident. While I largely agree with Arkes, the problem is always who gets to decide. Only those who acknowledge a transcendent standard have a solid benchmark off which to judge. If you don't, 'man will do what is good in their own eyes'. Appealing to 'natural' law in a world of self reference will be disastrous. I'd rather have the originalists view in office as that is a means of restraining the subjectivists. Reason requires beliefs presumed true off which to make judgements. You cannot escape faith in those presumed truths. In a civil environment, who gets to decide which presumptions are held as legal standards? How do we restrain tyranny?
Their problem is, those who appeal to a “transcendent standard”, none of them can agree on that standard. Morality is actually really simple. What harm does a thing cause? What benefit does a thing cause? From there, you arrive at your moral conclusion about any given proposition.
@@geoffstockton But the problem isn't that simple: you can't derive an ought from what is. Saying you must pursue the beneficial doesn't alleviate the reality that every policy benefits some but harms others: there is always a cost. Justice is far more than equity, and not all equity is just. A real issue is that consensus isn't a truth maker.
Go watch the View & MSNBC. It's more your speed. The discourse in this video will short-circuit your few brain neurotransmitters. Your comment about Eric proves they're being overloaded & stressed to critical capacity.
@@chuckdambrosia3933 Yea, I'm sure that persuading someone to appreciate Metaxas' style of being more conversational than of just being a one-sided interviewer is not necessary. Just go ahead and insult that person out of left field. I'm sure that would work better.
Morals, these people have none. We are 5 min late. It's a sad state of afairs. I love your conversations, my Dad has passed,and many names you mention. Books were our favorite conversations
"we hold these trues to be self evident' to a post reason world, nothing is self evident. While I largely agree with Arkes, the problem is always who gets to decide. Only those who acknowledge a transcendent standard have a solid benchmark off which to judge. If you don't, 'man will do what is good in their own eyes'. Appealing to 'natural' law in a world of self reference will be disastrous. I'd rather have the originalists view in office as that is a means of restraining the subjectivists.
Reason requires beliefs presumed true off which to make judgements. You cannot escape faith in those presumed truths. In a civil environment, who gets to decide which presumptions are held as legal standards? How do we restrain tyranny?
Their problem is, those who appeal to a “transcendent standard”, none of them can agree on that standard. Morality is actually really simple. What harm does a thing cause? What benefit does a thing cause? From there, you arrive at your moral conclusion about any given proposition.
@@geoffstockton But the problem isn't that simple: you can't derive an ought from what is. Saying you must pursue the beneficial doesn't alleviate the reality that every policy benefits some but harms others: there is always a cost. Justice is far more than equity, and not all equity is just.
A real issue is that consensus isn't a truth maker.
They are blurring the the law.
Reshaping America and we are 5 minutes late!!!
Mudding up the waters
😮
😅
I keep coming back to Eric only to get pissed off again and again that he doesn’t shut up
Go watch the View & MSNBC. It's more your speed. The discourse in this video will short-circuit your few brain neurotransmitters. Your comment about Eric proves they're being overloaded & stressed to critical capacity.
@@chuckdambrosia3933 Yea, I'm sure that persuading someone to appreciate Metaxas' style of being more conversational than of just being a one-sided interviewer is not necessary. Just go ahead and insult that person out of left field. I'm sure that would work better.
😮
*promosm* 😕
Arkes is not really the best listener here