@Blindwatchmaker
from u ans, stop the blame-game is this serious debate man..not some street argument..
1.Condeming the unconvinced
Is it morally just to condemn someone for not believeing they sincerely find unconvincing. Again u fell for " If justice cannot assess reflective engagement due to belief’s involuntariness, how do you hold anyone accountable for any belief?", asserting that punishing unbelief is cruelty if belief isn’t a choice without grounding ur moral standard. As i ans before No, justice does not condemn solely for finding a belief unconvincing but evaluates reflective engagement with rational evidence (doxastic voluntarism). Compatibilist responsibility holds that moral agency lies in how one navigates reasons, volitional acts like evaluating evidence or cultivating epistemic virtues, not in forcing belief. Ur incompatibilist assumption, that responsibility requires libertarian freedom doesnt work because it renders all beliefs involuntary, undermining ur own skepticism’s rational accountability, u see the problem Again i told not to use “cruelty” because its begs question relying on ungrounded institutions.
2. Ok u assert that moral judgement requires moral agency and if belief isnt a choice, punishing unbelief is unjust. Ur partially engaging in the question If beliefs are involuntary, how is your skepticism rationally accountable?, by claiming respobsibility lies in pursuing truth, not beleif, but u fail to resolve how ur incompatibilist stance sustains accountability, contradicting urself by conceding compatibilist ground..so now few posts before u were incompatisbilist, now ur using compatibilist views..
Ur incompatibilism, that belief voluntariness precludes responsibility, undermines all epistemic accountability including ur skepticism. If beliefs are determined, ur truth-seeking is a reflex, not a rational act. Compatibilism resovles this by seeking that responsibility lies in reflextive engagement with reasons, not libertarian choice. Divine justice evaluates howone handles evidence like moral intuitions and cosmic order, not mere unbelief, refuting ur “cruelty” claim. Ur assertion that sincerity in searching is sufficient assumes subjective intent trumps objective truth, brother that is epistemic relativism (u were avoiding relativism and nihilism and now you, yourself are using relativistic arguments..) A transcendental moral ontology ensures justice aligns with rational value, not arbitrary punishment.
3. Sincerity and Moral Worth
U claim sincerity is the “Only relevant part” of belief’s moral worth, ok u talking abt If sincerity alone defines moral worth, how do you distinguish between a sincere skeptic and a sincere dogmatist?, by asserting sincerity is necessary but not sufficent, judged by effects and shared values. Again u fell for it, because u fail to ground these values objectively, u are presupposing a normative standard, which u cannot defend..Am i right?
Ur relaicne on sincerity and “shared human values” lacks objective normativity, as evolutionary or cultural origins reder them contingent. Without an objective truth criterion, ur disticntion between skeptic and dogmatist collapses into subjectivism, undermining ur moral critique Divin justice, assessing reflective engagement with rational cues, coherently evaluates sincerity within a rational moral order, refuting ur claim that i have emptied moral language. Ur own framework cannot sustain objective moral distinctions..am i right??
4. Epistemic humility and Moral clarity
Again u accuse me of using terms like axiological frameworks etc of being distractions. U are sidestepping the question If complex moral issues can be reduced to simple intuitions, how do you avoid oversimplifying justice into subjective sentiment? by demanding simplicity without addressing the complexity of moral ontology.
Idk i have addressed ur part before..i love philosophy and theology and have studied it as long as i remeber and now I’m pursuing PhD thus such concepts helps me revise what I have learnt till now..now philosophy precision requires technical language to address issues like justice and responsibility, dismissing it as distraction doges substantive argument, and ur afraid because these destroys ur views and u cant accept it
Ur demand for clarity without complexity assumes moral questions are reducible to intuition, risking oversimplification, i asked u if it was a yes or no question to which u ans its a multifaceted question, then how can u expect a simple ans?? My arguments are grounded in compatibilism and transcedental ontology, it directly ans ur questions..are u in some governing body for philosophy or what..u accept those which u like and reject those which answers ur question. Divine justice’s rational coherence aligned with a necessary being’s nature counters ur “redefining goodness” claim.