Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Moral Argument => Topic started by: Rostos on July 25, 2016, 06:28:06 am

Title: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on July 25, 2016, 06:28:06 am
When you make a moral claim, ie, racism is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, are you making a claim with an intent for it to be a fact?

That is, are you saying something that is indeed factual?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Ivaj on July 31, 2016, 03:59:55 am
No just expressing a preference.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on July 31, 2016, 10:40:49 am
No just expressing a preference.

The question really should be: When moral claims are made, i.e., racism is wrong, murder is wrong, what do these claims express?

It's fully possible that while moral claims express factual propositions, Ivaj is an incompetent English speaker and uses moral language to express his own preferences. The non-cognitivist has to give an account of moral language in general, not just of what they are saying when they speak about morality. So the question really is: What are competent English speakers saying when they make moral judgments?

And the answer to that question is clearly not an expression of preference, since it's possible to make moral judgments without expressing a preference. E.g., "There is a right thing to do, but I don't know what it is", "that's the wrong thing to do, but I honestly don't care", etc. That these sorts of statements are coherent, and not conceptually inconsistent, proves that moral judgments are not mere expressions of preference.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on July 31, 2016, 08:45:07 pm
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Ivaj on August 01, 2016, 11:23:22 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

That is correct.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on August 03, 2016, 11:22:07 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

And yet, you still make assertions like "torture is wrong"? There's something very inconsistent about that.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on August 06, 2016, 09:02:57 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

That is correct.

Right...and this is how you live your life?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on August 06, 2016, 09:03:36 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

And yet, you still make assertions like "torture is wrong"? There's something very inconsistent about that.

What is inconsistent about it?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on August 06, 2016, 10:42:45 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

And yet, you still make assertions like "torture is wrong"? There's something very inconsistent about that.

What is inconsistent about it?

Because unless he can defend non-cognitivism, which he probably can't, that means he is asserting a contradiction.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: hatsoff on August 29, 2016, 09:12:36 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

That is correct.

Right...and this is how you live your life?

Wait a minute; weren't you describing hypothetical actions that you commit?  Ivaj never said how he would respond.  Presumably he would want to resist your violence, and try to have you punished.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on November 18, 2016, 01:57:01 pm
Yes, those are all factual claims. All of those things are morally wrong by definition.

Furthermore the definition of moral right and wrong is not arbitrary; it is not a matter of personal preference or even group preference; it has been determined by human social evolution.

Broadly across time and cultures the fundamental principle of morality has been defined as the principle of reciprocity. That principle can be formulated in many ways, but it all boils down to the idea that if you want your wellbeing to be respected by others then rationally, you are obliged to respect the wellbeing of others. One formulation of this is the golden rule.

Since no sane person would wish to be raped or murdered or discriminated on because of some superficial characteristic such as race, all of those actions are morally wrong by definition. And that is a fact.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Ivaj on November 19, 2016, 12:52:23 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

That is correct.

Right...and this is how you live your life?

Of course
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Hope on January 17, 2017, 08:52:41 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on January 17, 2017, 09:30:16 am
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 18, 2017, 08:28:19 pm
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

That is correct.

Right...and this is how you live your life?

Wait a minute; weren't you describing hypothetical actions that you commit?  Ivaj never said how he would respond.  Presumably he would want to resist your violence, and try to have you punished.

No, when i said that is how he lives his life i mean that is how he would see it. That is, if this happened in real life, he would deem that i have done nothing wrong.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 18, 2017, 08:31:00 pm
Yes, those are all factual claims. All of those things are morally wrong by definition.

What definition? The one invented by man kind?

Furthermore the definition of moral right and wrong is not arbitrary; it is not a matter of personal preference or even group preference; it has been determined by human social evolution.

Which humans? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany?

Broadly across time and cultures the fundamental principle of morality has been defined as the principle of reciprocity. That principle can be formulated in many ways, but it all boils down to the idea that if you want your wellbeing to be respected by others then rationally, you are obliged to respect the wellbeing of others. One formulation of this is the golden rule.

Again, this is nothing but a man made invention of how they like to act, or a preference.

Since no sane person would wish to be raped or murdered or discriminated on because of some superficial characteristic such as race, all of those actions are morally wrong by definition. And that is a fact.

So you are still grounding it in preferences/desires...not in fact of the act itself.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 18, 2017, 08:31:43 pm
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

Did you have a rebuttal?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 18, 2017, 08:32:13 pm
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 23, 2017, 09:13:32 pm
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on February 23, 2017, 10:39:37 pm
You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 24, 2017, 11:18:27 pm
No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Thats like saying it is a fact that there are people who believe the earth is flat. And so what?

Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

What on earth are you saying here? Are you saying that inventions become facts?


Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

This is the most confused statement i have ever seen in my life.

Again, are you saying that inventions become facts?

Therefore a society that believes it is good to take homosexuals to a top of a building, blind fold them and throw them off...does that make it right what they are doing?

I mean, it is a fact that this is a societies morality, does that make it right??


Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 24, 2017, 11:20:35 pm
You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

I agree moral facts are self evident. The question is, what are moral facts doing existing in a godless world? Where are they grounded?

The problem of evil is actually an argument for Gods existence. In the absence of God, there is no such thing as evil.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on February 24, 2017, 11:54:47 pm
You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

I agree moral facts are self evident. The question is, what are moral facts doing existing in a godless world? Where are they grounded?

Moral properties are identical to natural properties, probably.

Quote
The problem of evil is actually an argument for Gods existence. In the absence of God, there is no such thing as evil.

You keep saying that, but you've never been able to explain why it's true.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 25, 2017, 12:21:00 am
You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

I agree moral facts are self evident. The question is, what are moral facts doing existing in a godless world? Where are they grounded?

Moral properties are identical to natural properties, probably.

Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Quote
The problem of evil is actually an argument for Gods existence. In the absence of God, there is no such thing as evil.

You keep saying that, but you've never been able to explain why it's true.

Lets clear up the previous argument then we will discuss this more.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on February 25, 2017, 09:52:07 am
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 25, 2017, 05:18:30 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 25, 2017, 10:44:09 pm




You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Thats like saying it is a fact that there are people who believe the earth is flat. And so what?[/quote]

And so that is what morality is, no more, no less. You can try and pretend that they are somehow ontologically objective, but you might as well believe the earth is flat.

Quote
Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

What on earth are you saying here? Are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, of course inventions can become facts. Are you saying there are no facts about the United States?

Quote
Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

This is the most confused statement i have ever seen in my life.

Again, are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, I am and my statement is not even the least bit confused. You are the one who is confused. Please tell me how moral values can be mind-independent. You can't and you never will be able to because they are mind-dependent. You just won't admit it, because then the whole pretense of the MA falls hard.

Quote
Therefore a society that believes it is good to take homosexuals to a top of a building, blind fold them and throw them off...does that make it right what they are doing?

I mean, it is a fact that this is a societies morality, does that make it right??[/b]


No, I think they are objectively wrong to do that, and here is why. It's not that muslim society doesn't have the principle of reciprocity. Every society has it necessarily as a matter of social evolutionary imperative, and it is the fundamental principle of morality universally. Every society also has rules for what constitutes justification for violating the principle, but those vary quite a bit. However, those justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms to see if they are sensible or not. I think a very good case could be made that homosexuality doesn't cause any harm to society that would justify such a punishment for it. It would be very hard to prove that, but that doesn't mean there is not a fact of the matter.

But I never said that my view of morality is capable of solving every moral dilemma or giving a black and white answer to every moral question. But then neither can divine command theory either. In fact, you bring up muslims killing gays, but the Bible says that homosexual behavior should be punishable by death also. If morality is determined by God and the Bible is God's word, why are the muslims not right to kill gays? It's actually easier to answer on my view than on divine command theory.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 26, 2017, 04:56:47 am




You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Thats like saying it is a fact that there are people who believe the earth is flat. And so what?

And so that is what morality is, no more, no less. You can try and pretend that they are somehow ontologically objective, but you might as well believe the earth is flat.

Dont you get it? Under your way it is nothing more than a group of people making up a definition. It has no grounding outside the human mind.

It is no different to a flat earth society, they just define the earth as being flat.


Quote
Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

What on earth are you saying here? Are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, of course inventions can become facts. Are you saying there are no facts about the United States?

Consider this.

Rostos believes big foot exists.

It is a fact that Rostos believes big foot exists.

Does that make it a fact that big foot exists?


Quote
Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

This is the most confused statement i have ever seen in my life.

Again, are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, I am and my statement is not even the least bit confused. You are the one who is confused. Please tell me how moral values can be mind-independent. You can't and you never will be able to because they are mind-dependent. You just won't admit it, because then the whole pretense of the MA falls hard.

So therefore under your world view, morality is merely a man made invention. Is that correct?

Quote
Therefore a society that believes it is good to take homosexuals to a top of a building, blind fold them and throw them off...does that make it right what they are doing?

I mean, it is a fact that this is a societies morality, does that make it right??[/b]


No, I think they are objectively wrong to do that, and here is why. It's not that muslim society doesn't have the principle of reciprocity. Every society has it necessarily as a matter of social evolutionary imperative, and it is the fundamental principle of morality universally. Every society also has rules for what constitutes justification for violating the principle, but those vary quite a bit. However, those justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms to see if they are sensible or not. I think a very good case could be made that homosexuality doesn't cause any harm to society that would justify such a punishment for it. It would be very hard to prove that, but that doesn't mean there is not a fact of the matter.

You are importing standards here such as reciprocity, justification. I dont see why in a naturalistic world how these are objective.

But I never said that my view of morality is capable of solving every moral dilemma or giving a black and white answer to every moral question. But then neither can divine command theory either. In fact, you bring up muslims killing gays, but the Bible says that homosexual behavior should be punishable by death also. If morality is determined by God and the Bible is God's word, why are the muslims not right to kill gays? It's actually easier to answer on my view than on divine command theory.

It doesnt have to solve every dilemma. You just have to show 1. The bible doesnt advocate moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The OT passages for homosexuality regarding punishment no longer apply and havent fr 2000 odd years.

[/quote]
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 26, 2017, 04:59:34 pm
Quote
Dont you get it? Under your way it is nothing more than a group of people making up a definition. It has no grounding outside the human mind.

It is no different to a flat earth society, they just define the earth as being flat.

The flat earth society believe something about an ontologically objective fact and they are wrong. That is quite different than people believing an ontologically subjective but epistemically objective fact.

And morality is not just a definition made up by a group of people on a whim. It was determined by something that transcends any individual or any group, i.e., social evolutionary imperative. That is what it is grounded in, not in personal opinion or even fashion.  If a human society thought it fashionable to murder that wouln't make it morally right, and that society probably would not survive long.

Quote
Consider this.

Rostos believes big foot exists.

It is a fact that Rostos believes big foot exists.

Does that make it a fact that big foot exists?

Of course not, but that is a bad analogy. I already gave you much better analogy: I believe the United States exists. Of course, it doesn't exist because I believe it does, but neither does it exist ontologically objectively. It exist as a social construct. But as such there are epistemically objective facts about it. Moral facts are not exactly the same as that, but pretty similar. That killing people for fun is morally wrong is an epistemically objective fact based on a social evolutionary determined social construct called morality, with a fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity.

Quote
So therefore under your world view, morality is merely a man made invention. Is that correct?

Not really. I mean human morality is to some extent man made, but other social species also have societies that apply the principle of reciprocity, though they of course can't articulate it in language the way we can. Again it is a matter of social evolutionary imperative not personal opinion or even fashion, at least not at the fundamental level

Quote
You are importing standards here such as reciprocity, justification. I don't see why in a naturalistic world how these are objective.
.

They are only objective in the epistemic sense that they are not a matter of opinion or fashion. They are not mind-independent though. They are ontically subjective (mind-dependent)

Quote
It doesnt have to solve every dilemma. You just have to show 1. The bible doesnt advocate moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The OT passages for homosexuality regarding punishment no longer apply and havent fr 2000 odd years.

Not sure what you mean by I have to show 1.  What I have to show to defeat the moral argument is that there is nothing incoherent about moral truths (or even just apparent moral truths) on naturalistic assumptions.

Of course, that doesn't prove morality isn't God given, just that the moral argument doesn't show that they are.

Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 26, 2017, 05:29:38 pm
Quote
Dont you get it? Under your way it is nothing more than a group of people making up a definition. It has no grounding outside the human mind.

It is no different to a flat earth society, they just define the earth as being flat.

The flat earth society believe something about an ontologically objective fact and they are wrong. That is quite different than people believing an ontologically subjective but epistemically objective fact.

And morality is not just a definition made up by a group of people on a whim. It was determined by something that transcends any individual or any group, i.e., social evolutionary imperative. That is what it is grounded in, not in personal opinion or even fashion.  If a human society thought it fashionable to murder that wouln't make it morally right, and that society probably would not survive long.

They are wrong because we can COMPARE there beliefs to the FACT itself which exists outside there mind/preference.

What is this fact for morality under naturalism? You keep referring to socio evolutionary, how does that make it objective?

One group/society has evolved such that it is a custom to eat there neighbor, another group/society has evolved  such as to love there neighbor. Which group is right/wrong? Under evolution, morality was adopted because it has survival advantages, how on earth does it make morality objective?

If you rewind the evolution clock back and start again, another species could have arisen where things like rape was considered good.

Quote
Consider this.

Rostos believes big foot exists.

It is a fact that Rostos believes big foot exists.

Does that make it a fact that big foot exists?

Of course not, but that is a bad analogy. I already gave you much better analogy: I believe the United States exists. Of course, it doesn't exist because I believe it does, but neither does it exist ontologically objectively. It exist as a social construct. But as such there are epistemically objective facts about it. Moral facts are not exactly the same as that, but pretty similar. That killing people for fun is morally wrong is an epistemically objective fact based on a social evolutionary determined social construct called morality, with a fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity.

This is nonsense. ISIS have a different social construct to others, Al Qada as well....Who is right/wrong?

Quote
So therefore under your world view, morality is merely a man made invention. Is that correct?

Not really. I mean human morality is to some extent man made, but other social species also have societies that apply the principle of reciprocity, though they of course can't articulate it in language the way we can. Again it is a matter of social evolutionary imperative not personal opinion or even fashion, at least not at the fundamental level

A society/group believe the earth is flat, for whatever reason. It is a fact that these people believe the earth is flat. This is just something that they agreed upon for whatever reason.

This group is wrong. They are ONLY wrong because we can compare there beliefs/opinion to the fact itself which exists outside there opinion/preference.

Now you seem to be saying, a group/society has a morality for example where it is based on reciprocity. And this came about via the socio evolutionary process. Now, it is a fact that this groups morality is based on reciprocity which came about via the socio evolutionary process. But how on earth does that make morality for this group objective? How does it make things like reciprocity good? How does it make it wrong if one doesnt reciprocite?

You seem to be saying that evolution is the law giver to some degree. Evolution/biology is morally neutral and selects traits to be adventagous for the fight for survival. Thats all it is. In a naturalistic world, surviving is neither objectively good or objectively right, it just is.

Again, if we rewind the clock then we could have easily been a creature where things like rape were deemed to be good/right.

All you seem to be doing is grounding morality in the socio evolutionary process, but again, this process is neither good or right, it just is, its not the way it ought to be.

Quote
You are importing standards here such as reciprocity, justification. I don't see why in a naturalistic world how these are objective.
.

They are only objective in the epistemic sense that they are not a matter of opinion or fashion. They are not mind-independent though. They are ontically subjective (mind-dependent)

WHAT? How on earth does it make good or right?


Quote
It doesnt have to solve every dilemma. You just have to show 1. The bible doesnt advocate moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The OT passages for homosexuality regarding punishment no longer apply and havent fr 2000 odd years.

Not sure what you mean by I have to show 1.  What I have to show to defeat the moral argument is that there is nothing incoherent about moral truths (or even just apparent moral truths) on naturalistic assumptions.

Of course, that doesn't prove morality isn't God given, just that the moral argument doesn't show that they are.

They do, because moral facts are PRESCRIPTIONS, not descriptions. You appeal to the socio evolutoinary process. This process is a DESCRIPTION, not a prescription. Prescriptions come from minds/intelligence.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 26, 2017, 06:28:09 pm
Quote
This is nonsense. ISIS have a different social construct to others, Al Qada as well....Who is right/wrong?

No, it is not nonsense. ISIS has a defective view of morality. That is they think that what makes something right or wrong is whether it comports with their inhumane interpretation of the Quranic law, which is not a proper understanding. So, it can be judged wrong on that basis. Also, it is very likely that evolution will judge them wrong also as the rest of human society is going to eventually crush them and their aberrant morality and they will not survive to pass it on to future generations.

Don't get me wrong. Of course, something that is ontologically objective, is going to be more epistemically objective than something that it is ontologically subjective. However, if I am right that the principle of reciprocity defines the fundamental basis of human morality, then it must be true that the principle of reciprocity is the fundamental principle in every society, except possibly some aberrant societies that probably will not survive for long. Note: Nazi society lasted 12 years. Maoism lasted about 27 years. Could it be because their morality was aberrant? And yet, even these societies did not completely reject reciprocity. However, they engaged in egregious violations of reciprocity based on justifications that can be pretty objectively be determined to have been factually wrong.

Quote
Now you seem to be saying, a group/society has a morality for example where it is based on reciprocity. And this came about via the socio evolutionary process. Now, it is a fact that this groups morality is based on reciprocity which came about via the socio evolutionary process. But how on earth does that make morality for this group objective? How does it make things like reciprocity good? How does it make it wrong if one doesnt reciprocite?

Because it is the fundamental principle of morality that defines what is morally right and wrong, Violating the principle is wrong by definition. When I say someone has done something morally wrong, if I know what I'm talking about, I am saying nothing more or less than that the person has violated the principle of reciprocity without proper justification. 

Quote
You seem to be saying that evolution is the law giver to some degree. Evolution/biology is morally neutral and selects traits to be adventagous for the fight for survival. Thats all it is. In a naturalistic world, surviving is neither objectively good or objectively right, it just is.

Yes, I would say evolution is the law giver. It's sort of a metaphorical way to put it, but pretty accurate. Well, in some sense it is true that it is not objectively right or wrong. In the ontological sense there is no right and wrong. However, evolution can and has determined the fundamental principle of morality as reciprocity, exactly because it is essential to the survival of social groups. As such it defines morality, so in the moral sense, yes, reciprocity is good by definition.

Now, it could be argued that on this view  morality is just a tautology and therefore uninformative. Well, sort of. But not completely, it can inform us of how we ought to behave if we care about survival and human well being.

Quote
Again, if we rewind the clock then we could have easily been a creature where things like rape were deemed to be good/right.

Maybe. I'm not sure that it is possible that sentient social beings could ever evolve that way. But if they did, then they would still be acting immorally by the definition that evolved in our world, so I'm not even sure that is relevant.

Quote
All you seem to be doing is grounding morality in the socio evolutionary process, but again, this process is neither good or right, it just is, its not the way it ought to be.

Of course, the moral ought cannot be predicated on a moral ought. But it is the behavior that societies ought to encourage in their members if they are to survive to pass on those values.

I know, there is something somewhat emotionally unsatisfying about this appraisal of morality, but that is what morality seems to be, and it is not obliged to satisfy us emotionally. That is where love and compassion come in, socially constructive emotions that bolster our sense of morality. Still ontologically subjective, but fortunately few humans will not feel in their bones that they are good.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 26, 2017, 07:34:07 pm
Quote
This is nonsense. ISIS have a different social construct to others, Al Qada as well....Who is right/wrong?

No, it is not nonsense. ISIS has a defective view of morality. That is they think that what makes something right or wrong is whether it comports with their inhumane interpretation of the Quranic law, which is not a proper understanding. So, it can be judged wrong on that basis. Also, it is very likely that evolution will judge them wrong also as the rest of human society is going to eventually crush them and their aberrant morality and they will not survive to pass it on to future generations.

Defective against what? Your preference/desire? Your societies preference/desire? Evolution judges people? LOLOLOL

Don't get me wrong. Of course, something that is ontologically objective, is going to be more epistemically objective than something that it is ontologically subjective. However, if I am right that the principle of reciprocity defines the fundamental basis of human morality, then it must be true that the principle of reciprocity is the fundamental principle in every society, except possibly some aberrant societies that probably will not survive for long. Note: Nazi society lasted 12 years. Maoism lasted about 27 years. Could it be because their morality was aberrant? And yet, even these societies did not completely reject reciprocity. However, they engaged in egregious violations of reciprocity based on justifications that can be pretty objectively be determined to have been factually wrong.

The principle of reciprocity is nothing more than an agreed construct between members of a society. Ie, a game of make believe. It is nothing more than a man made invention which is no more right and no more wrong than a group or society that does the opposite.

You seem to think that if a group/society makes up (man made) construct, then that makes it objective. This is missing the point terribly.

I will repeat, if a society agrees to care for each other or wether a society agrees to kill each other, in a naturalstic world, neither are right or wrong. One could say, well it is wrong to us, well so what, it is just wrong to there preference/desire...doesnt make it objectively wrong.


Quote
Now you seem to be saying, a group/society has a morality for example where it is based on reciprocity. And this came about via the socio evolutionary process. Now, it is a fact that this groups morality is based on reciprocity which came about via the socio evolutionary process. But how on earth does that make morality for this group objective? How does it make things like reciprocity good? How does it make it wrong if one doesnt reciprocite?

Because it is the fundamental principle of morality that defines what is morally right and wrong, Violating the principle is wrong by definition. When I say someone has done something morally wrong, if I know what I'm talking about, I am saying nothing more or less than that the person has violated the principle of reciprocity without proper justification. 

No its not. Where did you get this from? All what you seem to be doing is grounding facts from the invention of a man made construct. Group A has developed a morality, if anyone crosses that morality then they are wrong.
Then when i mention ISIS you seem to say it is wrong because it violates a certain groups morality. This is nonsense.

Under your world view, ISIS morality is just as valid as any other groups.


Quote
You seem to be saying that evolution is the law giver to some degree. Evolution/biology is morally neutral and selects traits to be adventagous for the fight for survival. Thats all it is. In a naturalistic world, surviving is neither objectively good or objectively right, it just is.

Yes, I would say evolution is the law giver. It's sort of a metaphorical way to put it, but pretty accurate. Well, in some sense it is true that it is not objectively right or wrong. In the ontological sense there is no right and wrong. However, evolution can and has determined the fundamental principle of morality as reciprocity, exactly because it is essential to the survival of social groups. As such it defines morality, so in the moral sense, yes, reciprocity is good by definition.

Biology/nature is morally neutral. It doesnt say how thinks OUGHT to be, things just are. Evolution doesnt dictate how things OUGHT to be.

Now, it could be argued that on this view  morality is just a tautology and therefore uninformative. Well, sort of. But not completely, it can inform us of how we ought to behave if we care about survival and human well being.

Again, why is it right or good for humans to survive? I see absolutely no reason under naturalism.

Quote
Again, if we rewind the clock then we could have easily been a creature where things like rape were deemed to be good/right.

Maybe. I'm not sure that it is possible that sentient social beings could ever evolve that way. But if they did, then they would still be acting immorally by the definition that evolved in our world, so I'm not even sure that is relevant.

Its possible.

Quote
All you seem to be doing is grounding morality in the socio evolutionary process, but again, this process is neither good or right, it just is, its not the way it ought to be.

Of course, the moral ought cannot be predicated on a moral ought. But it is the behavior that societies ought to encourage in their members if they are to survive to pass on those values.


I know, there is something somewhat emotionally unsatisfying about this appraisal of morality, but that is what morality seems to be, and it is not obliged to satisfy us emotionally. That is where love and compassion come in, socially constructive emotions that bolster our sense of morality. Still ontologically subjective, but fortunately few humans will not feel in their bones that they are good.

Again, this is nothing but a desire/preference. Its not what it ought to be.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 26, 2017, 10:13:12 pm
Quote
This is nonsense. ISIS have a different social construct to others, Al Qada as well....Who is right/wrong?

No, it is not nonsense. ISIS has a defective view of morality. That is they think that what makes something right or wrong is whether it comports with their inhumane interpretation of the Quranic law, which is not a proper understanding. So, it can be judged wrong on that basis. Also, it is very likely that evolution will judge them wrong also as the rest of human society is going to eventually crush them and their aberrant morality and they will not survive to pass it on to future generations.

Defective against what? Your preference/desire? Your societies preference/desire? Evolution judges people? LOLOLOL

Nobody's desires or preferences have anything to do with why it is defective. It is defective against reason and the principle of reciprocity. And, metaphorically of course, YES, evolution judges people or in this case societies. Societies that have defective values don't survive to pass those values on. Such societies get paid the "wages of sin", i.e., they die and their values don't get passed on. What is so hard to understand about this?

Quote
Don't get me wrong. Of course, something that is ontologically objective, is going to be more epistemically objective than something that it is ontologically subjective. However, if I am right that the principle of reciprocity defines the fundamental basis of human morality, then it must be true that the principle of reciprocity is the fundamental principle in every society, except possibly some aberrant societies that probably will not survive for long. Note: Nazi society lasted 12 years. Maoism lasted about 27 years. Could it be because their morality was aberrant? And yet, even these societies did not completely reject reciprocity. However, they engaged in egregious violations of reciprocity based on justifications that can be pretty objectively be determined to have been factually wrong.

The principle of reciprocity is nothing more than an agreed construct between members of a society. Ie, a game of make believe. It is nothing more than a man made invention which is no more right and no more wrong than a group or society that does the opposite.

Please. You still haven't gotten the point that the principle of reciprocity, which is NOT a matter of agreement, but rather a matter of evolutionary imperative, is what defines moral right and wrong. If a society does the opposite then BY DEFINITION that society is an immoral society. It's not even possible for a society to do the opposite, because then it wouldn't even be a society. Social behavior is practically defined by reciprocity. Of course it doesn't express exactly the same way in every society. Different societies have different ideas of what justifies violating the principle. Putting people in jail violates the principle, but what justifies putting a person in jail varies between societies. It's difficult to say objectively what is proper and improper justification, but not in every case. If a justification is based on false information or bad reasoning, then it is faulty justification. Slavery was once thought justified, but we've learned that much of the justification for it, i.e., racism is factually wrong.

Quote
You seem to think that if a group/society makes up (man made) construct, then that makes it objective. This is missing the point terribly.

I will repeat, if a society agrees to care for each other or wether a society agrees to kill each other, in a naturalstic world, neither are right or wrong. One could say, well it is wrong to us, well so what, it is just wrong to there preference/desire...doesnt make it objectively wrong.[/b]

You are the one that is missing the point. Get this straight: What determines the fundamental principle of morality is social evolution not anybody's opinion or even agreement among people.  Reciprocity defines what is right and wrong morally. As such if someone says that reciprocity doesn't define morality or if they say that there is nothing morally wrong with violating the principle of reciprocity, then they are just talking nonsense.

Quote
Now you seem to be saying, a group/society has a morality for example where it is based on reciprocity. And this came about via the socio evolutionary process. Now, it is a fact that this groups morality is based on reciprocity which came about via the socio evolutionary process. But how on earth does that make morality for this group objective? How does it make things like reciprocity good? How does it make it wrong if one doesnt reciprocite?

Because it is the fundamental principle of morality that defines what is morally right and wrong, Violating the principle is wrong by definition. When I say someone has done something morally wrong, if I know what I'm talking about, I am saying nothing more or less than that the person has violated the principle of reciprocity without proper justification. 

No its not. Where did you get this from? All what you seem to be doing is grounding facts from the invention of a man made construct. Group A has developed a morality, if anyone crosses that morality then they are wrong.
Then when i mention ISIS you seem to say it is wrong because it violates a certain groups morality. This is nonsense.

Under your world view, ISIS morality is just as valid as any other groups.
[/quote]

No, it is not. And you will see that in a few years ISIS will cease to exist as a society, if it can even be considered to be a society now. And the reason I can objectively say they are an immoral society is because they egregiously violate the fundamental principle of reciprocity without any kind of reasonable justification. And as a result of their immorality they will not survive for long.

Quote
Quote
You seem to be saying that evolution is the law giver to some degree. Evolution/biology is morally neutral and selects traits to be adventagous for the fight for survival. Thats all it is. In a naturalistic world, surviving is neither objectively good or objectively right, it just is.

Yes, I would say evolution is the law giver. It's sort of a metaphorical way to put it, but pretty accurate. Well, in some sense it is true that it is not objectively right or wrong. In the ontological sense there is no right and wrong. However, evolution can and has determined the fundamental principle of morality as reciprocity, exactly because it is essential to the survival of social groups. As such it defines morality, so in the moral sense, yes, reciprocity is good by definition.

Biology/nature is morally neutral. It doesnt say how thinks OUGHT to be, things just are. Evolution doesnt dictate how things OUGHT to be.

Biology and nature may be morally neutral, but YES evolution does dictate how things ought to be. It dictates how individuals within a society ought to behave towards one another if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. Now, you can say that is not a moral ought, but in fact it is THE moral ought. Of course it is not stated in moral terms. How could it be. If something is defined in it's own terms then it is completely meaningless. Would it make sense to say "One ought to behave morally because it is the moral thing to do?"

Quote
Now, it could be argued that on this view  morality is just a tautology and therefore uninformative. Well, sort of. But not completely, it can inform us of how we ought to behave if we care about survival and human well being.

Again, why is it right or good for humans to survive? I see absolutely no reason under naturalism.

Of course, there is nothing morally right or wrong about whether humans survive. Why are you trying to define morality in terms of morality? What is morally right and wrong is defined in terms of reciprocity and it is the way members of society ought to treat one another if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. That is what morality is in a nut shell.  To ask why is survival morally good is just nonsense. It's not morally good or bad and the understanding of morality I'm proposing doesn't depend on it being so.

Quote
Again, if we rewind the clock then we could have easily been a creature where things like rape were deemed to be good/right.

Quote
Maybe. I'm not sure that it is possible that sentient social beings could ever evolve that way. But if they did, then they would still be acting immorally by the definition that evolved in our world, so I'm not even sure that is relevant.

Its possible.

Please, neither one of us knows that for certain, and I think I could make a pretty good argument for why it's likely not the case

Quote
Quote
All you seem to be doing is grounding morality in the socio evolutionary process, but again, this process is neither good or right, it just is, its not the way it ought to be.

Of course, the moral ought cannot be predicated on a moral ought. But it is the behavior that societies ought to encourage in their members if they are to survive to pass on those values.


I know, there is something somewhat emotionally unsatisfying about this appraisal of morality, but that is what morality seems to be, and it is not obliged to satisfy us emotionally. That is where love and compassion come in, socially constructive emotions that bolster our sense of morality. Still ontologically subjective, but fortunately few humans will not feel in their bones that they are good.

Again, this is nothing but a desire/preference. Its not what it ought to be.

I've now seven ways to Sunday explained why it is NOT just a desire or preference. It's freaking fact of nature. Are you telling me human society is what it is due to nothing but the desires of individuals or social fashions. If you are, you don't know what you are talking about.

And how in the world could morality be what it morally ought to be? Natural things are what they are, not what they ought to be. And again morality is defined by how members of society ought to treat each other if the society is going to survive.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 27, 2017, 06:14:11 pm
Quote
This is nonsense. ISIS have a different social construct to others, Al Qada as well....Who is right/wrong?

No, it is not nonsense. ISIS has a defective view of morality. That is they think that what makes something right or wrong is whether it comports with their inhumane interpretation of the Quranic law, which is not a proper understanding. So, it can be judged wrong on that basis. Also, it is very likely that evolution will judge them wrong also as the rest of human society is going to eventually crush them and their aberrant morality and they will not survive to pass it on to future generations.

Defective against what? Your preference/desire? Your societies preference/desire? Evolution judges people? LOLOLOL

Nobody's desires or preferences have anything to do with why it is defective. It is defective against reason and the principle of reciprocity. And, metaphorically of course, YES, evolution judges people or in this case societies. Societies that have defective values don't survive to pass those values on. Such societies get paid the "wages of sin", i.e., they die and their values don't get passed on. What is so hard to understand about this?

This is hilarious. You have ultimately imported the principle of reciprocity as something that is objective. Please show how such a prescriptive principle existed before humans existed.

Quote
Don't get me wrong. Of course, something that is ontologically objective, is going to be more epistemically objective than something that it is ontologically subjective. However, if I am right that the principle of reciprocity defines the fundamental basis of human morality, then it must be true that the principle of reciprocity is the fundamental principle in every society, except possibly some aberrant societies that probably will not survive for long. Note: Nazi society lasted 12 years. Maoism lasted about 27 years. Could it be because their morality was aberrant? And yet, even these societies did not completely reject reciprocity. However, they engaged in egregious violations of reciprocity based on justifications that can be pretty objectively be determined to have been factually wrong.

Again, show me how the principle of reciprocity is objective. That is, that it is not merely an invention of mankind.

The principle of reciprocity is nothing more than an agreed construct between members of a society. Ie, a game of make believe. It is nothing more than a man made invention which is no more right and no more wrong than a group or society that does the opposite.

Please. You still haven't gotten the point that the principle of reciprocity, which is NOT a matter of agreement, but rather a matter of evolutionary imperative, is what defines moral right and wrong. If a society does the opposite then BY DEFINITION that society is an immoral society. It's not even possible for a society to do the opposite, because then it wouldn't even be a society. Social behavior is practically defined by reciprocity. Of course it doesn't express exactly the same way in every society. Different societies have different ideas of what justifies violating the principle. Putting people in jail violates the principle, but what justifies putting a person in jail varies between societies. It's difficult to say objectively what is proper and improper justification, but not in every case. If a justification is based on false information or bad reasoning, then it is faulty justification. Slavery was once thought justified, but we've learned that much of the justification for it, i.e., racism is factually wrong.

Even if it isnt an imperative, how does that make it objective? Evolution also gave us diseases, so what is your point?

Quote
You seem to think that if a group/society makes up (man made) construct, then that makes it objective. This is missing the point terribly.

I will repeat, if a society agrees to care for each other or wether a society agrees to kill each other, in a naturalstic world, neither are right or wrong. One could say, well it is wrong to us, well so what, it is just wrong to there preference/desire...doesnt make it objectively wrong.[/b]


You are the one that is missing the point. Get this straight: What determines the fundamental principle of morality is social evolution not anybody's opinion or even agreement among people.  Reciprocity defines what is right and wrong morally. As such if someone says that reciprocity doesn't define morality or if they say that there is nothing morally wrong with violating the principle of reciprocity, then they are just talking nonsense.

Again, please show me how the principle of reciprocity is objective. Evolution is DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. Evolution tells us what is happening, not how it ought to be. You dont understand the difference?

Quote
Now you seem to be saying, a group/society has a morality for example where it is based on reciprocity. And this came about via the socio evolutionary process. Now, it is a fact that this groups morality is based on reciprocity which came about via the socio evolutionary process. But how on earth does that make morality for this group objective? How does it make things like reciprocity good? How does it make it wrong if one doesnt reciprocite?

Because it is the fundamental principle of morality that defines what is morally right and wrong, Violating the principle is wrong by definition. When I say someone has done something morally wrong, if I know what I'm talking about, I am saying nothing more or less than that the person has violated the principle of reciprocity without proper justification. 

Its not, you seem to not understand that this is something that is man made invention.The principle of reciprocity is nothing more than a man made construct. It is not objective.

No its not. Where did you get this from? All what you seem to be doing is grounding facts from the invention of a man made construct. Group A has developed a morality, if anyone crosses that morality then they are wrong.
Then when i mention ISIS you seem to say it is wrong because it violates a certain groups morality. This is nonsense.

Under your world view, ISIS morality is just as valid as any other groups.

No, it is not. And you will see that in a few years ISIS will cease to exist as a society, if it can even be considered to be a society now. And the reason I can objectively say they are an immoral society is because they egregiously violate the fundamental principle of reciprocity without any kind of reasonable justification. And as a result of their immorality they will not survive for long.

Who cares if they cease to exist. How does that make it wrong? Under naturalism, existing or ceasing to exist is neither right or wrong. It just is.

It maybe a DESIRE and PREFERENCE to exist, but how does that make it objective that it is right/good to exist in a naturalistic world?


Quote
Quote
You seem to be saying that evolution is the law giver to some degree. Evolution/biology is morally neutral and selects traits to be adventagous for the fight for survival. Thats all it is. In a naturalistic world, surviving is neither objectively good or objectively right, it just is.

Yes, I would say evolution is the law giver. It's sort of a metaphorical way to put it, but pretty accurate. Well, in some sense it is true that it is not objectively right or wrong. In the ontological sense there is no right and wrong. However, evolution can and has determined the fundamental principle of morality as reciprocity, exactly because it is essential to the survival of social groups. As such it defines morality, so in the moral sense, yes, reciprocity is good by definition.

Biology/nature is morally neutral. It doesnt say how thinks OUGHT to be, things just are. Evolution doesnt dictate how things OUGHT to be.

Biology and nature may be morally neutral, but YES evolution does dictate how things ought to be. It dictates how individuals within a society ought to behave towards one another if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. Now, you can say that is not a moral ought, but in fact it is THE moral ought. Of course it is not stated in moral terms. How could it be. If something is defined in it's own terms then it is completely meaningless. Would it make sense to say "One ought to behave morally because it is the moral thing to do?"

No it doesnt. Do you know the difference between DESCRIPTIVE and PRESCRIPTIVE?

Quote
Now, it could be argued that on this view  morality is just a tautology and therefore uninformative. Well, sort of. But not completely, it can inform us of how we ought to behave if we care about survival and human well being.

Again, why is it right or good for humans to survive? I see absolutely no reason under naturalism.

Of course, there is nothing morally right or wrong about whether humans survive. Why are you trying to define morality in terms of morality? What is morally right and wrong is defined in terms of reciprocity and it is the way members of society ought to treat one another if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. That is what morality is in a nut shell.  To ask why is survival morally good is just nonsense. It's not morally good or bad and the understanding of morality I'm proposing doesn't depend on it being so.

Nonsense....Please defend how the principle of reciprocity is objective..Ie, it is true REGARDLESS of any human opinion.


Quote
Again, if we rewind the clock then we could have easily been a creature where things like rape were deemed to be good/right.

Quote
Maybe. I'm not sure that it is possible that sentient social beings could ever evolve that way. But if they did, then they would still be acting immorally by the definition that evolved in our world, so I'm not even sure that is relevant.

Its possible.

Please, neither one of us knows that for certain, and I think I could make a pretty good argument for why it's likely not the case

Many evolutionary biologists claim this

Quote
Quote
All you seem to be doing is grounding morality in the socio evolutionary process, but again, this process is neither good or right, it just is, its not the way it ought to be.

Of course, the moral ought cannot be predicated on a moral ought. But it is the behavior that societies ought to encourage in their members if they are to survive to pass on those values.

Why?


I know, there is something somewhat emotionally unsatisfying about this appraisal of morality, but that is what morality seems to be, and it is not obliged to satisfy us emotionally. That is where love and compassion come in, socially constructive emotions that bolster our sense of morality. Still ontologically subjective, but fortunately few humans will not feel in their bones that they are good.

Again, this is nothing but a desire/preference. Its not what it ought to be.

I've now seven ways to Sunday explained why it is NOT just a desire or preference. It's freaking fact of nature. Are you telling me human society is what it is due to nothing but the desires of individuals or social fashions. If you are, you don't know what you are talking about.

Its not.

And how in the world could morality be what it morally ought to be? Natural things are what they are, not what they ought to be. And again morality is defined by how members of society ought to treat each other if the society is going to survive.

Because PRESCRIPTIONS come from minds/intelligence, not nature/biology which is morally indifferent.
[/quote]
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on February 27, 2017, 06:54:57 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 27, 2017, 10:16:15 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Almost right. It boils down i think to reciprocity. That is if a society is going to survive, its members ought to treat each other the way they would want to be treated by others (and of course this assumes sanity on the parts of the parties involved). Since no normal person wants to have their welfare disregarded, to be treated as inferior to others or have things done to them w/o consent, then those all follow from the general principle.

What Rostos can't seem to grasp, and i wonder why, is that this (reciprocity) is moral goodness BY DEFINITION. It's like pointing to a dog and asking "Why is that a dog?" The only reason is because it fits the definition of dog, and therefore it is a dog. It can't be because it has some sort of quality of dogness about it, because the definition of dogness would just be totally dependent on the definition of dog.

Things are only morally good if they fit the definition of moral goodness, and that definition has been determined for us by social evolution.

Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 28, 2017, 12:36:56 am
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 28, 2017, 11:20:01 am
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

Rostos!

You are the one talking in a circle. We define moral right (good) and wrong (evil) for you and then you ask us to defend that definition in terms of moral right (good) and wrong (evil). What sense does that make? In order to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, you have to have a definition of morality first, of course that cannot be itself defined in moral terms. If it were it would be circular, and empty tautology, ie., meaningless.

We are being circular. Instead you trying to demand that we be circular, and when we refuse, you claim that we are being circular. You're argument is just nonsense.

You are right that on naturalism there is no such thing as ontologically objective good and evil. That's practically a premise of my argument, not a defeater for it. However, on naturalism there is such a thing as epistemically objective good and evil, but it requires there to be a definition of morality first.

Now, this is the point in the argument where Dr. Craig would probably accuse me of confusing moral ontology with moral semantics. That might be a rhetorically good move, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not saying that moral values exist because of the definition of moral values, but it is a necessary condition for their existence, or at the very least it is a necessary condition for us to speak sensibly about moral right and wrong.

Yes, there is a moral "ought" and it appears to be this, and it is necessarily conditional. The moral ought is, IMO, the members of a society ought to respect each others well being if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. To ask why societies ought to pass on their values is meaningless. You don't define oughts in terms of other oughts, or at least there have to be some oughts that are not defined by other oughts. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of oughts.

So, there is no reason why societies ought to pass on their values. But it is a fact that if they don't survive they won't pass on their values, just like if an individual dies before they have offspring, they won't pass their genes on to the next generation. That's why I say that morality is determined by social evolutionary imperative. It is imperative that the values of a society are conducive to the society's survival, because if they aren't then those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to the survival of the society. And that is what makes sense of the condition of the moral ought. It's not that societies ought to survive to pass on their values, but rather because if they don't pass on those values those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to group survival.

Apparently reciprocity is a value that is necessary to the survival of groups (It has indispensible group survival value) and that is why it exists as the fundamental principle of every moral system, whether people recognize it as such or not. As such it defines moral right and wrong at the fundamental level. And as such the only answer that is necessary to answer the question why is it morally wrong to rape, is that it violates the principle of reciprocity and is therefore morally wrong by definition.

Nothing I just explained is illusory. If anything is illusory about moral values it is that there must be something deeper about it all than just social evolutionary imperative. Of course, there could be. There could be a deeper idealistic reason or even a theistic one. I rather doubt it. I think the reason we feel it is deeper is because our psyches have been conditioned by evolutionary forces also to make us have an inherent sense of the value of reciprocity and an inherent sense of the value of the well being of others. And in my opinion that is all well and good and love is a wonderful thing even if it is just a product of evolution rather than the decree of a benevolent cosmic despot.



Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on February 28, 2017, 11:25:32 am
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

No, it's just that my original statement answered the question. I just didn't want to have to tell you that you were completely missing the point.

If you don't understand, the problem is with you. I've fully answered your question as clearly as possible.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 28, 2017, 05:31:12 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

No, it's just that my original statement answered the question. I just didn't want to have to tell you that you were completely missing the point.

If you don't understand, the problem is with you. I've fully answered your question as clearly as possible.

No you didnt. All what you did was claim that there were properties that were identicle to creaturely flourishing. But so what, how on earth does that make creaturely flourishing good?

You see, your argument is essentially no different to Sam Harris. The argument collapses because a value statement was made with absolutely no defense of it.

Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on February 28, 2017, 05:42:40 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

Rostos!

You are the one talking in a circle. We define moral right (good) and wrong (evil) for you and then you ask us to defend that definition in terms of moral right (good) and wrong (evil). What sense does that make? In order to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, you have to have a definition of morality first, of course that cannot be itself defined in moral terms. If it were it would be circular, and empty tautology, ie., meaningless.

And this is the problem, who defines what moral is? You dont seem to realise that when you are appealingto such definition, under naturalism this is nothing more than a man made invention. It isnt grounded in anything else apart from mankind.
Once this man made definition has been established, you then proceed to compare acts against this definition as right/wrong.
This argument doesnt even get off the ground because there has been no defense of the value judgement of what moral/immoral.
ISIS has there very own definition of what moral/immoral is. According to ISIS, throwing homosexuals off buildings is not immoral. Hey, its there definition so according to them, they are not wrong.


We are being circular. Instead you trying to demand that we be circular, and when we refuse, you claim that we are being circular. You're argument is just nonsense.

As i explained above, you and aleph argue in a circle because you have established a value judgement without giving any defense of it.

You are right that on naturalism there is no such thing as ontologically objective good and evil. That's practically a premise of my argument, not a defeater for it. However, on naturalism there is such a thing as epistemically objective good and evil, but it requires there to be a definition of morality first.

Again, under naturalism, this is a MAN MADE definition. ISIS have there own definition, Hitler had his. Al Qada have there's. Who is right/wrong? Under naturalism, it is man made therefore no one is right/wrong.

Now, this is the point in the argument where Dr. Craig would probably accuse me of confusing moral ontology with moral semantics. That might be a rhetorically good move, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not saying that moral values exist because of the definition of moral values, but it is a necessary condition for their existence, or at the very least it is a necessary condition for us to speak sensibly about moral right and wrong.

Under naturalism, again, this definition is a man made invention. They dont exist in reality, ie, they are illusory.
It is not different to a group of people/society such as ISIS getting together and having there own deinition of what is moral/immoral. I cant believe you cant see this.


Yes, there is a moral "ought" and it appears to be this, and it is necessarily conditional. The moral ought is, IMO, the members of a society ought to respect each others well being if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. To ask why societies ought to pass on their values is meaningless. You don't define oughts in terms of other oughts, or at least there have to be some oughts that are not defined by other oughts. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of oughts.

Oh my. For the hundredth time, there is NO OUGHT under naturalism. Who on earth imposes this on us? Where? Who? Who are they?

So, there is no reason why societies ought to pass on their values. But it is a fact that if they don't survive they won't pass on their values, just like if an individual dies before they have offspring, they won't pass their genes on to the next generation. That's why I say that morality is determined by social evolutionary imperative. It is imperative that the values of a society are conducive to the society's survival, because if they aren't then those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to the survival of the society. And that is what makes sense of the condition of the moral ought. It's not that societies ought to survive to pass on their values, but rather because if they don't pass on those values those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to group survival.

So if they dont pass on there values that means something wrong happened? LOLOL..

This is your issue and the same with Alephs. You give a definition, cannot defend that definition then start your argument based on that definition. This is horrid reasoning.



Apparently reciprocity is a value that is necessary to the survival of groups (It has indispensible group survival value) and that is why it exists as the fundamental principle of every moral system, whether people recognize it as such or not. As such it defines moral right and wrong at the fundamental level. And as such the only answer that is necessary to answer the question why is it morally wrong to rape, is that it violates the principle of reciprocity and is therefore morally wrong by definition.

Why is it wrong if groups dont survive? Please dont appeal to desires/preferences.

Nothing I just explained is illusory. If anything is illusory about moral values it is that there must be something deeper about it all than just social evolutionary imperative. Of course, there could be. There could be a deeper idealistic reason or even a theistic one. I rather doubt it. I think the reason we feel it is deeper is because our psyches have been conditioned by evolutionary forces also to make us have an inherent sense of the value of reciprocity and an inherent sense of the value of the well being of others. And in my opinion that is all well and good and love is a wonderful thing even if it is just a product of evolution rather than the decree of a benevolent cosmic despot.

It is illusory because your argument hinges on a definition and standard that is not objective under naturalism. It is not grounded in reality.


Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on February 28, 2017, 09:49:06 pm

Rostos!

You are the one talking in a circle. We define moral right (good) and wrong (evil) for you and then you ask us to defend that definition in terms of moral right (good) and wrong (evil). What sense does that make? In order to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, you have to have a definition of morality first, of course that cannot be itself defined in moral terms. If it were it would be circular, and empty tautology, ie., meaningless
.

And this is the problem, who defines what moral is? You dont seem to realise that when you are appealingto such definition, under naturalism this is nothing more than a man made invention. It isnt grounded in anything else apart from mankind.

Once this man made definition has been established, you then proceed to compare acts against this definition as right/wrong.

This argument doesnt even get off the ground because there has been no defense of the value judgement of what is moral/immoral.

ISIS has there very own definition of what moral/immoral is. According to ISIS, throwing homosexuals off buildings is not immoral. Hey, its there definition so according to them, they are not wrong.

But I've already explained this. It is not up to individuals or even societies to determine the definition. The fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity is determined by social evolutionary imperative. Why do I constantly have to keep answering the same questions. Are you incapable of absorbing any of this? If ISIS has defined a different fundamental principle, then they are simply wrong. But I think actually it's more likely that they simply have different ideas regarding what constitutes justifcation for violating the principle. In that case their justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms. Remember? You cannot evaluate moral ideas in moral terms, because render the evaluation circular. ISIS thinks that their inhumane interpetations of the Quran are valid justification, but in fact they are superstition and hence invalid.It's just like people used to believe it was justified to sacrifice a baby to appease the gods and save the people from their wrath and other such nonsense. Now we know that is just factually erroneous justifcation.

Quote
We are NOT being circular. Instead you trying to demand that we be circular, and when we refuse, you claim that we are being circular. You're argument is just nonsense.

As i explained above, you and aleph argue in a circle because you have established a value judgement without giving any defense of it.

Actually I haven't given a value judgment. I've defined the basic principle behind moral judgments. Actually, I haven't even defined it. I've simply identified it. As I've pointed out as nauseum it was defined for us by social evolution.

Quote
Quote
You are right that on naturalism there is no such thing as ontologically objective good and evil. That's practically a premise of my argument, not a defeater for it. However, on naturalism there is such a thing as epistemically objective good and evil, but it requires there to be a definition of morality first.

Again, under naturalism, this is a MAN MADE definition. ISIS have there own definition, Hitler had his. Al Qada have there's. Who is right/wrong? Under naturalism, it is man made therefore no one is right/wrong.

No, again, that is wrong. It's not even man made,per se, it's a matter of social evolutionary imperative. Again how many times do I have to keep correcting the same errors?

 If I am right, it may even be a matter of natural necessity. That is it may be that in every possible naturalistic world that has sentient social creatures morality will be defined by the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity may be a defining feature of sentient societies. There are many ways I could put it, but it all boils down to it not being a human invention, per se. It's certainly not the invention of any individual human or any particular society. If it were reciprocity wouldn't be universal at the fundamental level as it appears to be.

Quote
Quote
Now, this is the point in the argument where Dr. Craig would probably accuse me of confusing moral ontology with moral semantics. That might be a rhetorically good move, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not saying that moral values exist because of the definition of moral values, but it is a necessary condition for their existence, or at the very least it is a necessary condition for us to speak sensibly about moral right and wrong.

Under naturalism, again, this definition is a man made invention. They dont exist in reality, ie, they are illusory.

Then all social constructs are illusory. Countries don't really exist? There are no facts about countries or laws or anything like that. Try telling the judge that the law is just an illusion.

Quote
It is not different to a group of people/society such as ISIS getting together and having there own deinition of what is moral/immoral. I cant believe you cant see this.[/b]

It's totally different than that, and mark my words ISIS's aberrent moral understandings will lead to their fairly rapid demise as a society if they can even be called a society.

Quote
Quote
Yes, there is a moral "ought" and it appears to be this, and it is necessarily conditional. The moral ought is, IMO, the members of a society ought to respect each others well being if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. To ask why societies ought to pass on their values is meaningless. You don't define oughts in terms of other oughts, or at least there have to be some oughts that are not defined by other oughts. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of oughts.

Oh my. For the hundredth time, there is NO OUGHT under naturalism. Who on earth imposes this on us? Where? Who? Who are they?

Please, for the thousandth time, SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE and that "dictates" that the members of society ought to respect the principle of reciprocity, if the society is to survive to pass on its values.

Quote
Quote
So, there is no reason why societies ought to pass on their values. But it is a fact that if they don't survive they won't pass on their values, just like if an individual dies before they have offspring, they won't pass their genes on to the next generation. That's why I say that morality is determined by social evolutionary imperative. It is imperative that the values of a society are conducive to the society's survival, because if they aren't then those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to the survival of the society. And that is what makes sense of the condition of the moral ought. It's not that societies ought to survive to pass on their values, but rather because if they don't pass on those values those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to group survival.

So if they dont pass on there values that means something wrong happened? LOLOL..

Sort of. Of course its not morally wrong for them not pass on their values, but it is "wrong" in an evolutionary sense, because evolution is all about survival (of genes and memes).

Quote
This is your issue and the same with Alephs. You give a definition, cannot defend that definition then start your argument based on that definition. This is horrid reasoning.[/b]

Dude, my verbal reasoning skills test in the upper 5%, not of the general population, but of college graduates.
I'm not a genius, but I'm well above average in verbal reasoning and no slouch at mathematical reasoning either.

I am not engaging in "horrid" reasoning. I'll admit that there is a chance that my argument is not right, but it is extremely well reasoned. Your problems with it are off-base. Again, you are asking me to give a moral justification for the definition of a moral principle, which is patently absurd.

Can morality be morally right or wrong? How could you ever make such a judgment w/o begging the question?




Quote
Quote
Apparently reciprocity is a value that is necessary to the survival of groups (It has indispensible group survival value) and that is why it exists as the fundamental principle of every moral system, whether people recognize it as such or not. As such it defines moral right and wrong at the fundamental level. And as such the only answer that is necessary to answer the question why is it morally wrong to rape, is that it violates the principle of reciprocity and is therefore morally wrong by definition.

Why is it wrong if groups dont survive? Please dont appeal to desires/preferences.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? The principle itself CAN NOT be wrong or right because it defines wrong and right. How can a definition define itself?

Quote
Quote
Nothing I just explained is illusory. If anything is illusory about moral values it is that there must be something deeper about it all than just social evolutionary imperative. Of course, there could be. There could be a deeper idealistic reason or even a theistic one. I rather doubt it. I think the reason we feel it is deeper is because our psyches have been conditioned by evolutionary forces also to make us have an inherent sense of the value of reciprocity and an inherent sense of the value of the well being of others. And in my opinion that is all well and good and love is a wonderful thing even if it is just a product of evolution rather than the decree of a benevolent cosmic despot.

It is illusory because your argument hinges on a definition and standard that is not objective under naturalism. It is not grounded in reality.

Actually my standard is epistemically objective. Just look at what moral values are and see if they don't boil down to reciprocity. Yes, violations of reciprocity are allowed for but they have to be justified, and usually that justification is in terms of preventing greater harm. It's not at all an illusion that morality exists like that as a social evolutionarily determined social construct.

I've been thinking about this. The word illusion as usually used doesn't refer to just any kind of mental impression. It refers to subjective impressions that are mistaken for ontologically objective things. It is not a word that we would use for impressions that we have about social constructs. We do not say that the United States is just an illusion. Again, try that argument on the judge some time. "Your honor, the law is just an illusion!"

So, again the illusion would be thinking that moral values have ontologically objective existence. Recognizing that they exist as a social construct is not an illusion. Thinking they don't exist at all...well, maybe that's not an illusion per se, but its an erroneous idea, unless one has a ridiculously narrow definition of existence.


Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: aleph naught on March 01, 2017, 02:29:20 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

No, it's just that my original statement answered the question. I just didn't want to have to tell you that you were completely missing the point.

If you don't understand, the problem is with you. I've fully answered your question as clearly as possible.

No you didnt. All what you did was claim that [goodness is identical to some property related to] creaturely flourishing. But so what, how on earth does that make creaturely flourishing good?

Think about it..
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on March 01, 2017, 04:23:10 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

No, it's just that my original statement answered the question. I just didn't want to have to tell you that you were completely missing the point.

If you don't understand, the problem is with you. I've fully answered your question as clearly as possible.

No you didnt. All what you did was claim that [goodness is identical to some property related to] creaturely flourishing. But so what, how on earth does that make creaturely flourishing good?

Think about it..

I have. There is absolutely no grounding that it is objectively good that humans ought to flourish under naturalism. Desirable? Sure. Preference? Sure...

But an objective fact? Absolutely not.

You see Aleph, that is why you keep on avoiding it. As did Sam Harris. Once you cannot show that under naturalism it is a fact that humans ought to flourish, then your whole argument collapses.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on March 01, 2017, 04:29:37 pm

Rostos!

You are the one talking in a circle. We define moral right (good) and wrong (evil) for you and then you ask us to defend that definition in terms of moral right (good) and wrong (evil). What sense does that make? In order to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, you have to have a definition of morality first, of course that cannot be itself defined in moral terms. If it were it would be circular, and empty tautology, ie., meaningless
.

And this is the problem, who defines what moral is? You dont seem to realise that when you are appealingto such definition, under naturalism this is nothing more than a man made invention. It isnt grounded in anything else apart from mankind.

Once this man made definition has been established, you then proceed to compare acts against this definition as right/wrong.

This argument doesnt even get off the ground because there has been no defense of the value judgement of what is moral/immoral.

ISIS has there very own definition of what moral/immoral is. According to ISIS, throwing homosexuals off buildings is not immoral. Hey, its there definition so according to them, they are not wrong.

But I've already explained this. It is not up to individuals or even societies to determine the definition. The fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity is determined by social evolutionary imperative. Why do I constantly have to keep answering the same questions. Are you incapable of absorbing any of this? If ISIS has defined a different fundamental principle, then they are simply wrong. But I think actually it's more likely that they simply have different ideas regarding what constitutes justifcation for violating the principle. In that case their justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms. Remember? You cannot evaluate moral ideas in moral terms, because render the evaluation circular. ISIS thinks that their inhumane interpetations of the Quran are valid justification, but in fact they are superstition and hence invalid.It's just like people used to believe it was justified to sacrifice a baby to appease the gods and save the people from their wrath and other such nonsense. Now we know that is just factually erroneous justifcation.

Quote
We are NOT being circular. Instead you trying to demand that we be circular, and when we refuse, you claim that we are being circular. You're argument is just nonsense.

As i explained above, you and aleph argue in a circle because you have established a value judgement without giving any defense of it.

Actually I haven't given a value judgment. I've defined the basic principle behind moral judgments. Actually, I haven't even defined it. I've simply identified it. As I've pointed out as nauseum it was defined for us by social evolution.

Quote
Quote
You are right that on naturalism there is no such thing as ontologically objective good and evil. That's practically a premise of my argument, not a defeater for it. However, on naturalism there is such a thing as epistemically objective good and evil, but it requires there to be a definition of morality first.

Again, under naturalism, this is a MAN MADE definition. ISIS have there own definition, Hitler had his. Al Qada have there's. Who is right/wrong? Under naturalism, it is man made therefore no one is right/wrong.

No, again, that is wrong. It's not even man made,per se, it's a matter of social evolutionary imperative. Again how many times do I have to keep correcting the same errors?

 If I am right, it may even be a matter of natural necessity. That is it may be that in every possible naturalistic world that has sentient social creatures morality will be defined by the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity may be a defining feature of sentient societies. There are many ways I could put it, but it all boils down to it not being a human invention, per se. It's certainly not the invention of any individual human or any particular society. If it were reciprocity wouldn't be universal at the fundamental level as it appears to be.

Quote
Quote
Now, this is the point in the argument where Dr. Craig would probably accuse me of confusing moral ontology with moral semantics. That might be a rhetorically good move, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not saying that moral values exist because of the definition of moral values, but it is a necessary condition for their existence, or at the very least it is a necessary condition for us to speak sensibly about moral right and wrong.

Under naturalism, again, this definition is a man made invention. They dont exist in reality, ie, they are illusory.

Then all social constructs are illusory. Countries don't really exist? There are no facts about countries or laws or anything like that. Try telling the judge that the law is just an illusion.

Quote
It is not different to a group of people/society such as ISIS getting together and having there own deinition of what is moral/immoral. I cant believe you cant see this.[/b]

It's totally different than that, and mark my words ISIS's aberrent moral understandings will lead to their fairly rapid demise as a society if they can even be called a society.

Quote
Quote
Yes, there is a moral "ought" and it appears to be this, and it is necessarily conditional. The moral ought is, IMO, the members of a society ought to respect each others well being if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. To ask why societies ought to pass on their values is meaningless. You don't define oughts in terms of other oughts, or at least there have to be some oughts that are not defined by other oughts. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of oughts.

Oh my. For the hundredth time, there is NO OUGHT under naturalism. Who on earth imposes this on us? Where? Who? Who are they?

Please, for the thousandth time, SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE and that "dictates" that the members of society ought to respect the principle of reciprocity, if the society is to survive to pass on its values.

Quote
Quote
So, there is no reason why societies ought to pass on their values. But it is a fact that if they don't survive they won't pass on their values, just like if an individual dies before they have offspring, they won't pass their genes on to the next generation. That's why I say that morality is determined by social evolutionary imperative. It is imperative that the values of a society are conducive to the society's survival, because if they aren't then those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to the survival of the society. And that is what makes sense of the condition of the moral ought. It's not that societies ought to survive to pass on their values, but rather because if they don't pass on those values those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to group survival.

So if they dont pass on there values that means something wrong happened? LOLOL..

Sort of. Of course its not morally wrong for them not pass on their values, but it is "wrong" in an evolutionary sense, because evolution is all about survival (of genes and memes).

Quote
This is your issue and the same with Alephs. You give a definition, cannot defend that definition then start your argument based on that definition. This is horrid reasoning.[/b]

Dude, my verbal reasoning skills test in the upper 5%, not of the general population, but of college graduates.
I'm not a genius, but I'm well above average in verbal reasoning and no slouch at mathematical reasoning either.

I am not engaging in "horrid" reasoning. I'll admit that there is a chance that my argument is not right, but it is extremely well reasoned. Your problems with it are off-base. Again, you are asking me to give a moral justification for the definition of a moral principle, which is patently absurd.

Can morality be morally right or wrong? How could you ever make such a judgment w/o begging the question?




Quote
Quote
Apparently reciprocity is a value that is necessary to the survival of groups (It has indispensible group survival value) and that is why it exists as the fundamental principle of every moral system, whether people recognize it as such or not. As such it defines moral right and wrong at the fundamental level. And as such the only answer that is necessary to answer the question why is it morally wrong to rape, is that it violates the principle of reciprocity and is therefore morally wrong by definition.

Why is it wrong if groups dont survive? Please dont appeal to desires/preferences.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? The principle itself CAN NOT be wrong or right because it defines wrong and right. How can a definition define itself?

Quote
Quote
Nothing I just explained is illusory. If anything is illusory about moral values it is that there must be something deeper about it all than just social evolutionary imperative. Of course, there could be. There could be a deeper idealistic reason or even a theistic one. I rather doubt it. I think the reason we feel it is deeper is because our psyches have been conditioned by evolutionary forces also to make us have an inherent sense of the value of reciprocity and an inherent sense of the value of the well being of others. And in my opinion that is all well and good and love is a wonderful thing even if it is just a product of evolution rather than the decree of a benevolent cosmic despot.

It is illusory because your argument hinges on a definition and standard that is not objective under naturalism. It is not grounded in reality.

Actually my standard is epistemically objective. Just look at what moral values are and see if they don't boil down to reciprocity. Yes, violations of reciprocity are allowed for but they have to be justified, and usually that justification is in terms of preventing greater harm. It's not at all an illusion that morality exists like that as a social evolutionarily determined social construct.

I've been thinking about this. The word illusion as usually used doesn't refer to just any kind of mental impression. It refers to subjective impressions that are mistaken for ontologically objective things. It is not a word that we would use for impressions that we have about social constructs. We do not say that the United States is just an illusion. Again, try that argument on the judge some time. "Your honor, the law is just an illusion!"

So, again the illusion would be thinking that moral values have ontologically objective existence. Recognizing that they exist as a social construct is not an illusion. Thinking they don't exist at all...well, maybe that's not an illusion per se, but its an erroneous idea, unless one has a ridiculously narrow definition of existence.

Bruce, your problem is fatal. You have imported a standard of reciprocity. This standard is what humans OUGHT to do. You then try and ground this principle through the socio evolutionary process.

Firstly, biology/evolution is morally neutral. That is, biology/evolution just IS, it doesnt tell us what it OUGHT to be. You need to remember that evolution also gave us diseases, extinctions etc etc.

You cannot get an ought from an is.

Such an standard under naturalism is NOT objective. It is nothing more than an agreement between groups, but thats all it is. It isnt grounded anywhere apart from the human mind.

That is why you cannot condemn ISIS for there actions as being wrong. Undesirable? Sure. But not wrong.

Your whole argument breaks down because you cannot ground your principle reciprocity in anything other than a human preference.

Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans OUGHT to flourish. Once this has been established, then the whole argument breaks down.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on March 02, 2017, 10:01:52 am
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

No, it's just that my original statement answered the question. I just didn't want to have to tell you that you were completely missing the point.

If you don't understand, the problem is with you. I've fully answered your question as clearly as possible.

No you didnt. All what you did was claim that [goodness is identical to some property related to] creaturely flourishing. But so what, how on earth does that make creaturely flourishing good?

Think about it..

I have. There is absolutely no grounding that it is objectively good that humans ought to flourish under naturalism. Desirable? Sure. Preference? Sure...

But an objective fact? Absolutely not.

You see Aleph, that is why you keep on avoiding it. As did Sam Harris. Once you cannot show that under naturalism it is a fact that humans ought to flourish, then your whole argument collapses.

No it doesn't. You just can't seem to understand that definitions are by their nature tautologies. They cannot be justified on their own terms. Sam Harris defining human flourishing as "the good" so there is no sense in demanding a justifcation for that. It's axiomatic to his argument. Sometimes it is said that these types of beliefs are justified as being self-evident or "properly basic".

It's funny I bet you're all for properly basic beliefs when it comes to the belief that God exists, but you would never allow for Sam Harris to hold that human flourishing is good as properly basic belief.

To me the notion does seem pretty self-evident. I would pretty much just give a face palm to anybody who is going to deny that human flourishing is good. Of course it's not objectively "good" NOTHING is objectively "good" and that is true even under theistic assumptions.  So, if you want to have any discussion of what is "good" you have to start with some basic principle, an axiom, and frankly anybody that can't accept "Human flourish is good" as axiomatic is IMO just being difficult for no good reason.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on March 02, 2017, 10:18:58 am

Rostos!

You are the one talking in a circle. We define moral right (good) and wrong (evil) for you and then you ask us to defend that definition in terms of moral right (good) and wrong (evil). What sense does that make? In order to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, you have to have a definition of morality first, of course that cannot be itself defined in moral terms. If it were it would be circular, and empty tautology, ie., meaningless
.

And this is the problem, who defines what moral is? You dont seem to realise that when you are appealingto such definition, under naturalism this is nothing more than a man made invention. It isnt grounded in anything else apart from mankind.

Once this man made definition has been established, you then proceed to compare acts against this definition as right/wrong.

This argument doesnt even get off the ground because there has been no defense of the value judgement of what is moral/immoral.

ISIS has there very own definition of what moral/immoral is. According to ISIS, throwing homosexuals off buildings is not immoral. Hey, its there definition so according to them, they are not wrong.

But I've already explained this. It is not up to individuals or even societies to determine the definition. The fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity is determined by social evolutionary imperative. Why do I constantly have to keep answering the same questions. Are you incapable of absorbing any of this? If ISIS has defined a different fundamental principle, then they are simply wrong. But I think actually it's more likely that they simply have different ideas regarding what constitutes justifcation for violating the principle. In that case their justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms. Remember? You cannot evaluate moral ideas in moral terms, because render the evaluation circular. ISIS thinks that their inhumane interpetations of the Quran are valid justification, but in fact they are superstition and hence invalid.It's just like people used to believe it was justified to sacrifice a baby to appease the gods and save the people from their wrath and other such nonsense. Now we know that is just factually erroneous justifcation.

Quote
We are NOT being circular. Instead you trying to demand that we be circular, and when we refuse, you claim that we are being circular. You're argument is just nonsense.

As i explained above, you and aleph argue in a circle because you have established a value judgement without giving any defense of it.

Actually I haven't given a value judgment. I've defined the basic principle behind moral judgments. Actually, I haven't even defined it. I've simply identified it. As I've pointed out as nauseum it was defined for us by social evolution.

Quote
Quote
You are right that on naturalism there is no such thing as ontologically objective good and evil. That's practically a premise of my argument, not a defeater for it. However, on naturalism there is such a thing as epistemically objective good and evil, but it requires there to be a definition of morality first.

Again, under naturalism, this is a MAN MADE definition. ISIS have there own definition, Hitler had his. Al Qada have there's. Who is right/wrong? Under naturalism, it is man made therefore no one is right/wrong.

No, again, that is wrong. It's not even man made,per se, it's a matter of social evolutionary imperative. Again how many times do I have to keep correcting the same errors?

 If I am right, it may even be a matter of natural necessity. That is it may be that in every possible naturalistic world that has sentient social creatures morality will be defined by the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity may be a defining feature of sentient societies. There are many ways I could put it, but it all boils down to it not being a human invention, per se. It's certainly not the invention of any individual human or any particular society. If it were reciprocity wouldn't be universal at the fundamental level as it appears to be.

Quote
Quote
Now, this is the point in the argument where Dr. Craig would probably accuse me of confusing moral ontology with moral semantics. That might be a rhetorically good move, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not saying that moral values exist because of the definition of moral values, but it is a necessary condition for their existence, or at the very least it is a necessary condition for us to speak sensibly about moral right and wrong.

Under naturalism, again, this definition is a man made invention. They dont exist in reality, ie, they are illusory.

Then all social constructs are illusory. Countries don't really exist? There are no facts about countries or laws or anything like that. Try telling the judge that the law is just an illusion.

Quote
It is not different to a group of people/society such as ISIS getting together and having there own deinition of what is moral/immoral. I cant believe you cant see this.[/b]

It's totally different than that, and mark my words ISIS's aberrent moral understandings will lead to their fairly rapid demise as a society if they can even be called a society.

Quote
Quote
Yes, there is a moral "ought" and it appears to be this, and it is necessarily conditional. The moral ought is, IMO, the members of a society ought to respect each others well being if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. To ask why societies ought to pass on their values is meaningless. You don't define oughts in terms of other oughts, or at least there have to be some oughts that are not defined by other oughts. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of oughts.

Oh my. For the hundredth time, there is NO OUGHT under naturalism. Who on earth imposes this on us? Where? Who? Who are they?

Please, for the thousandth time, SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE and that "dictates" that the members of society ought to respect the principle of reciprocity, if the society is to survive to pass on its values.

Quote
Quote
So, there is no reason why societies ought to pass on their values. But it is a fact that if they don't survive they won't pass on their values, just like if an individual dies before they have offspring, they won't pass their genes on to the next generation. That's why I say that morality is determined by social evolutionary imperative. It is imperative that the values of a society are conducive to the society's survival, because if they aren't then those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to the survival of the society. And that is what makes sense of the condition of the moral ought. It's not that societies ought to survive to pass on their values, but rather because if they don't pass on those values those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to group survival.

So if they dont pass on there values that means something wrong happened? LOLOL..

Sort of. Of course its not morally wrong for them not pass on their values, but it is "wrong" in an evolutionary sense, because evolution is all about survival (of genes and memes).

Quote
This is your issue and the same with Alephs. You give a definition, cannot defend that definition then start your argument based on that definition. This is horrid reasoning.[/b]

Dude, my verbal reasoning skills test in the upper 5%, not of the general population, but of college graduates.
I'm not a genius, but I'm well above average in verbal reasoning and no slouch at mathematical reasoning either.

I am not engaging in "horrid" reasoning. I'll admit that there is a chance that my argument is not right, but it is extremely well reasoned. Your problems with it are off-base. Again, you are asking me to give a moral justification for the definition of a moral principle, which is patently absurd.

Can morality be morally right or wrong? How could you ever make such a judgment w/o begging the question?




Quote
Quote
Apparently reciprocity is a value that is necessary to the survival of groups (It has indispensible group survival value) and that is why it exists as the fundamental principle of every moral system, whether people recognize it as such or not. As such it defines moral right and wrong at the fundamental level. And as such the only answer that is necessary to answer the question why is it morally wrong to rape, is that it violates the principle of reciprocity and is therefore morally wrong by definition.

Why is it wrong if groups dont survive? Please dont appeal to desires/preferences.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? The principle itself CAN NOT be wrong or right because it defines wrong and right. How can a definition define itself?

Quote
Quote
Nothing I just explained is illusory. If anything is illusory about moral values it is that there must be something deeper about it all than just social evolutionary imperative. Of course, there could be. There could be a deeper idealistic reason or even a theistic one. I rather doubt it. I think the reason we feel it is deeper is because our psyches have been conditioned by evolutionary forces also to make us have an inherent sense of the value of reciprocity and an inherent sense of the value of the well being of others. And in my opinion that is all well and good and love is a wonderful thing even if it is just a product of evolution rather than the decree of a benevolent cosmic despot.

It is illusory because your argument hinges on a definition and standard that is not objective under naturalism. It is not grounded in reality.

Actually my standard is epistemically objective. Just look at what moral values are and see if they don't boil down to reciprocity. Yes, violations of reciprocity are allowed for but they have to be justified, and usually that justification is in terms of preventing greater harm. It's not at all an illusion that morality exists like that as a social evolutionarily determined social construct.

I've been thinking about this. The word illusion as usually used doesn't refer to just any kind of mental impression. It refers to subjective impressions that are mistaken for ontologically objective things. It is not a word that we would use for impressions that we have about social constructs. We do not say that the United States is just an illusion. Again, try that argument on the judge some time. "Your honor, the law is just an illusion!"

So, again the illusion would be thinking that moral values have ontologically objective existence. Recognizing that they exist as a social construct is not an illusion. Thinking they don't exist at all...well, maybe that's not an illusion per se, but its an erroneous idea, unless one has a ridiculously narrow definition of existence.

Bruce, your problem is fatal. You have imported a standard of reciprocity. This standard is what humans OUGHT to do. You then try and ground this principle through the socio evolutionary process.

Firstly, biology/evolution is morally neutral. That is, biology/evolution just IS, it doesnt tell us what it OUGHT to be. You need to remember that evolution also gave us diseases, extinctions etc etc.

You cannot get an ought from an is.

Such an standard under naturalism is NOT objective. It is nothing more than an agreement between groups, but thats all it is. It isnt grounded anywhere apart from the human mind.

That is why you cannot condemn ISIS for there actions as being wrong. Undesirable? Sure. But not wrong.

Your whole argument breaks down because you cannot ground your principle reciprocity in anything other than a human preference.

Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans OUGHT to flourish. Once this has been established, then the whole argument breaks down.

LOL, "You can't get an ought from an is" supports my case not yours. It's merely a corollary of one of the premises of my argument.  That is, values judgments are ontologically subjective.

That's right you can't get to an ought from an is only (though an "is" is a necessary condition, just not sufficient). That means you can't get an ought from the mere assertion of God's existence either. You have to first subjectively determine some kind of goal or objective that you (or God) are trying to reach before you can make an ought statement. So, before you can make any moral judgments first you have to have some objective in mind that can be used to define the moral ought. It's utterly impossible that that objective that is being used to define the moral ought could itself be defined in terms of the moral ought.

And that is what you are trying to demand that we do. I've pointed this out to you umpteen times, but you just stubbornly refuse to see it.

Yes, I know that my argument and Sam Harris's which are similar but a bit different cannot themselves be defended in moral terms. That is because they are an attempt to define morality, and definitions are axiomatic. They cannot be defend in terms of the very thing they set out to define, and to ask us to do so is patently absurd.

Now if you want to dress your zombie argument up and trot it out again. Go ahead, but I'm sick of trying to kill something that I've already killed a hundred times. I'll leave you to pal around with the undead some more if you wish. This argument is more than just redundant. It's becoming repetitively redundant.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on March 05, 2017, 08:23:46 pm
Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

Because the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Still not answering the question. All what you are doing is arguing in a circle.

No, it's just that my original statement answered the question. I just didn't want to have to tell you that you were completely missing the point.

If you don't understand, the problem is with you. I've fully answered your question as clearly as possible.

No you didnt. All what you did was claim that [goodness is identical to some property related to] creaturely flourishing. But so what, how on earth does that make creaturely flourishing good?

Think about it..

I have. There is absolutely no grounding that it is objectively good that humans ought to flourish under naturalism. Desirable? Sure. Preference? Sure...

But an objective fact? Absolutely not.

You see Aleph, that is why you keep on avoiding it. As did Sam Harris. Once you cannot show that under naturalism it is a fact that humans ought to flourish, then your whole argument collapses.

No it doesn't. You just can't seem to understand that definitions are by their nature tautologies. They cannot be justified on their own terms. Sam Harris defining human flourishing as "the good" so there is no sense in demanding a justifcation for that. It's axiomatic to his argument. Sometimes it is said that these types of beliefs are justified as being self-evident or "properly basic".

Why is human flourishing OBJECTIVELY GOOD under naturalism? I have yet to see ANYONE defend this.

It's funny I bet you're all for properly basic beliefs when it comes to the belief that God exists, but you would never allow for Sam Harris to hold that human flourishing is good as properly basic belief.

How so under naturalism? You need to defend it. I am asking for a defense for the FOUNDATION.

To me the notion does seem pretty self-evident. I would pretty much just give a face palm to anybody who is going to deny that human flourishing is good. Of course it's not objectively "good" NOTHING is objectively "good" and that is true even under theistic assumptions.  So, if you want to have any discussion of what is "good" you have to start with some basic principle, an axiom, and frankly anybody that can't accept "Human flourish is good" as axiomatic is IMO just being difficult for no good reason.

Again, you dont seem to grasp the argument. I am asking for a defense of the FOUNDATION or GROUNDING of why it is objectively good. You just cant say it is a proper basic belief or it seems obvious. I agree that they are properly basic, but why think they are properly basic under naturalism? That is, what is there foundation/grounding?

Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on March 05, 2017, 08:32:19 pm

Rostos!

You are the one talking in a circle. We define moral right (good) and wrong (evil) for you and then you ask us to defend that definition in terms of moral right (good) and wrong (evil). What sense does that make? In order to determine whether something is morally right or wrong, you have to have a definition of morality first, of course that cannot be itself defined in moral terms. If it were it would be circular, and empty tautology, ie., meaningless
.

And this is the problem, who defines what moral is? You dont seem to realise that when you are appealingto such definition, under naturalism this is nothing more than a man made invention. It isnt grounded in anything else apart from mankind.

Once this man made definition has been established, you then proceed to compare acts against this definition as right/wrong.

This argument doesnt even get off the ground because there has been no defense of the value judgement of what is moral/immoral.

ISIS has there very own definition of what moral/immoral is. According to ISIS, throwing homosexuals off buildings is not immoral. Hey, its there definition so according to them, they are not wrong.

But I've already explained this. It is not up to individuals or even societies to determine the definition. The fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity is determined by social evolutionary imperative. Why do I constantly have to keep answering the same questions. Are you incapable of absorbing any of this? If ISIS has defined a different fundamental principle, then they are simply wrong. But I think actually it's more likely that they simply have different ideas regarding what constitutes justifcation for violating the principle. In that case their justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms. Remember? You cannot evaluate moral ideas in moral terms, because render the evaluation circular. ISIS thinks that their inhumane interpetations of the Quran are valid justification, but in fact they are superstition and hence invalid.It's just like people used to believe it was justified to sacrifice a baby to appease the gods and save the people from their wrath and other such nonsense. Now we know that is just factually erroneous justifcation.

Quote
We are NOT being circular. Instead you trying to demand that we be circular, and when we refuse, you claim that we are being circular. You're argument is just nonsense.

As i explained above, you and aleph argue in a circle because you have established a value judgement without giving any defense of it.

Actually I haven't given a value judgment. I've defined the basic principle behind moral judgments. Actually, I haven't even defined it. I've simply identified it. As I've pointed out as nauseum it was defined for us by social evolution.

Quote
Quote
You are right that on naturalism there is no such thing as ontologically objective good and evil. That's practically a premise of my argument, not a defeater for it. However, on naturalism there is such a thing as epistemically objective good and evil, but it requires there to be a definition of morality first.

Again, under naturalism, this is a MAN MADE definition. ISIS have there own definition, Hitler had his. Al Qada have there's. Who is right/wrong? Under naturalism, it is man made therefore no one is right/wrong.

No, again, that is wrong. It's not even man made,per se, it's a matter of social evolutionary imperative. Again how many times do I have to keep correcting the same errors?

 If I am right, it may even be a matter of natural necessity. That is it may be that in every possible naturalistic world that has sentient social creatures morality will be defined by the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity may be a defining feature of sentient societies. There are many ways I could put it, but it all boils down to it not being a human invention, per se. It's certainly not the invention of any individual human or any particular society. If it were reciprocity wouldn't be universal at the fundamental level as it appears to be.

Quote
Quote
Now, this is the point in the argument where Dr. Craig would probably accuse me of confusing moral ontology with moral semantics. That might be a rhetorically good move, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am not saying that moral values exist because of the definition of moral values, but it is a necessary condition for their existence, or at the very least it is a necessary condition for us to speak sensibly about moral right and wrong.

Under naturalism, again, this definition is a man made invention. They dont exist in reality, ie, they are illusory.

Then all social constructs are illusory. Countries don't really exist? There are no facts about countries or laws or anything like that. Try telling the judge that the law is just an illusion.

Quote
It is not different to a group of people/society such as ISIS getting together and having there own deinition of what is moral/immoral. I cant believe you cant see this.[/b]

It's totally different than that, and mark my words ISIS's aberrent moral understandings will lead to their fairly rapid demise as a society if they can even be called a society.

Quote
Quote
Yes, there is a moral "ought" and it appears to be this, and it is necessarily conditional. The moral ought is, IMO, the members of a society ought to respect each others well being if the society is going to survive to pass on it's values. To ask why societies ought to pass on their values is meaningless. You don't define oughts in terms of other oughts, or at least there have to be some oughts that are not defined by other oughts. Otherwise, you would have an infinite regress of oughts.

Oh my. For the hundredth time, there is NO OUGHT under naturalism. Who on earth imposes this on us? Where? Who? Who are they?

Please, for the thousandth time, SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE and that "dictates" that the members of society ought to respect the principle of reciprocity, if the society is to survive to pass on its values.

Quote
Quote
So, there is no reason why societies ought to pass on their values. But it is a fact that if they don't survive they won't pass on their values, just like if an individual dies before they have offspring, they won't pass their genes on to the next generation. That's why I say that morality is determined by social evolutionary imperative. It is imperative that the values of a society are conducive to the society's survival, because if they aren't then those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to the survival of the society. And that is what makes sense of the condition of the moral ought. It's not that societies ought to survive to pass on their values, but rather because if they don't pass on those values those values will disappear and be replaced by ones that are conducive to group survival.

So if they dont pass on there values that means something wrong happened? LOLOL..

Sort of. Of course its not morally wrong for them not pass on their values, but it is "wrong" in an evolutionary sense, because evolution is all about survival (of genes and memes).

Quote
This is your issue and the same with Alephs. You give a definition, cannot defend that definition then start your argument based on that definition. This is horrid reasoning.[/b]

Dude, my verbal reasoning skills test in the upper 5%, not of the general population, but of college graduates.
I'm not a genius, but I'm well above average in verbal reasoning and no slouch at mathematical reasoning either.

I am not engaging in "horrid" reasoning. I'll admit that there is a chance that my argument is not right, but it is extremely well reasoned. Your problems with it are off-base. Again, you are asking me to give a moral justification for the definition of a moral principle, which is patently absurd.

Can morality be morally right or wrong? How could you ever make such a judgment w/o begging the question?




Quote
Quote
Apparently reciprocity is a value that is necessary to the survival of groups (It has indispensible group survival value) and that is why it exists as the fundamental principle of every moral system, whether people recognize it as such or not. As such it defines moral right and wrong at the fundamental level. And as such the only answer that is necessary to answer the question why is it morally wrong to rape, is that it violates the principle of reciprocity and is therefore morally wrong by definition.

Why is it wrong if groups dont survive? Please dont appeal to desires/preferences.

How many times do I have to answer the same question? The principle itself CAN NOT be wrong or right because it defines wrong and right. How can a definition define itself?

Quote
Quote
Nothing I just explained is illusory. If anything is illusory about moral values it is that there must be something deeper about it all than just social evolutionary imperative. Of course, there could be. There could be a deeper idealistic reason or even a theistic one. I rather doubt it. I think the reason we feel it is deeper is because our psyches have been conditioned by evolutionary forces also to make us have an inherent sense of the value of reciprocity and an inherent sense of the value of the well being of others. And in my opinion that is all well and good and love is a wonderful thing even if it is just a product of evolution rather than the decree of a benevolent cosmic despot.

It is illusory because your argument hinges on a definition and standard that is not objective under naturalism. It is not grounded in reality.

Actually my standard is epistemically objective. Just look at what moral values are and see if they don't boil down to reciprocity. Yes, violations of reciprocity are allowed for but they have to be justified, and usually that justification is in terms of preventing greater harm. It's not at all an illusion that morality exists like that as a social evolutionarily determined social construct.

I've been thinking about this. The word illusion as usually used doesn't refer to just any kind of mental impression. It refers to subjective impressions that are mistaken for ontologically objective things. It is not a word that we would use for impressions that we have about social constructs. We do not say that the United States is just an illusion. Again, try that argument on the judge some time. "Your honor, the law is just an illusion!"

So, again the illusion would be thinking that moral values have ontologically objective existence. Recognizing that they exist as a social construct is not an illusion. Thinking they don't exist at all...well, maybe that's not an illusion per se, but its an erroneous idea, unless one has a ridiculously narrow definition of existence.

Bruce, your problem is fatal. You have imported a standard of reciprocity. This standard is what humans OUGHT to do. You then try and ground this principle through the socio evolutionary process.

Firstly, biology/evolution is morally neutral. That is, biology/evolution just IS, it doesnt tell us what it OUGHT to be. You need to remember that evolution also gave us diseases, extinctions etc etc.

You cannot get an ought from an is.

Such an standard under naturalism is NOT objective. It is nothing more than an agreement between groups, but thats all it is. It isnt grounded anywhere apart from the human mind.

That is why you cannot condemn ISIS for there actions as being wrong. Undesirable? Sure. But not wrong.

Your whole argument breaks down because you cannot ground your principle reciprocity in anything other than a human preference.

Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans OUGHT to flourish. Once this has been established, then the whole argument breaks down.

LOL, "You can't get an ought from an is" supports my case not yours. It's merely a corollary of one of the premises of my argument.  That is, values judgments are ontologically subjective.

What on earth does ontologically subjective even mean?

That's right you can't get to an ought from an is only (though an "is" is a necessary condition, just not sufficient). That means you can't get an ought from the mere assertion of God's existence either. You have to first subjectively determine some kind of goal or objective that you (or God) are trying to reach before you can make an ought statement. So, before you can make any moral judgments first you have to have some objective in mind that can be used to define the moral ought. It's utterly impossible that that objective that is being used to define the moral ought could itself be defined in terms of the moral ought.

You have said absolutely nothing here. Your thoughts here are very sloppy. All what you are doing is is using some subjective desire/preference and making that objective. This is a very big mess.

And that is what you are trying to demand that we do. I've pointed this out to you umpteen times, but you just stubbornly refuse to see it.



Yes, I know that my argument and Sam Harris's which are similar but a bit different cannot themselves be defended in moral terms. That is because they are an attempt to define morality, and definitions are axiomatic. They cannot be defend in terms of the very thing they set out to define, and to ask us to do so is patently absurd.

Now if you want to dress your zombie argument up and trot it out again. Go ahead, but I'm sick of trying to kill something that I've already killed a hundred times. I'll leave you to pal around with the undead some more if you wish. This argument is more than just redundant. It's becoming repetitively redundant.

You have killed NOTHING. All you have done is made a subjective claim and then defined that as being objective, ie, reciprocity. You dont seem to understand that this is nothing more than a man made invention. This does not in any way make it objective.

A group or society getting together and deciding to agree to reciprocity is no different or is indifferent to a group or society that decide the opposite.

You see, under naturalism, they are just as valid as each other. There is no ought, no obligation under naturalism.

Sure a group can decide to make it a rule, but thats all it is, a game of make believe. Any further meaning is ILLUSORY.

Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: bruce culver on March 05, 2017, 10:03:31 pm
Quote
LOL, "You can't get an ought from an is" supports my case not yours. It's merely a corollary of one of the premises of my argument.  That is, values judgments are ontologically subjective.

What on earth does ontologically subjective even mean?

I think I've defined it more than a couple of times already. Once, again, it means mind-dependent existence. Something that only exists in minds.

Quote
That's right you can't get to an ought from an is only (though an "is" is a necessary condition, just not sufficient). That means you can't get an ought from the mere assertion of God's existence either. You have to first subjectively determine some kind of goal or objective that you (or God) are trying to reach before you can make an ought statement. So, before you can make any moral judgments first you have to have some objective in mind that can be used to define the moral ought. It's utterly impossible that that objective that is being used to define the moral ought could itself be defined in terms of the moral ought.

You have said absolutely nothing here. Your thoughts here are very sloppy. All what you are doing is is using some subjective desire/preference and making that objective. This is a very big mess.

Buddy, I'm telling you I test in the upper 5% of COLLEGE GRADUATES on tests of verbal reasoning. If you can't follow my reasoning, the chances that it's because my reasoning is sloppy instead of yours being sloppy isn't all that good. It's not impossible that you are a genius and catching something that I'm missing, but I rather doubt it. And I'm not at all doing what you said I was doing. I haven't made anything subjective objective in what I said. Moral systems are axiomatic. Their fundamental principles may be unanalyzable. I actually think they are analyzable, I've given quite a bit of analysis. But of course they cannot in self-referential terms, because then you would just be talking in circles. I've pointed out the fact that you continue as me to define moral good in terms of moral good, which is insane, but you keep doing it.

Quote
And that is what you are trying to demand that we do. I've pointed this out to you umpteen times, but you just stubbornly refuse to see it.

Yes, I know that my argument and Sam Harris's which are similar but a bit different cannot themselves be defended in moral terms. That is because they are an attempt to define morality, and definitions are axiomatic. They cannot be defend in terms of the very thing they set out to define, and to ask us to do so is patently absurd.

Now if you want to dress your zombie argument up and trot it out again. Go ahead, but I'm sick of trying to kill something that I've already killed a hundred times. I'll leave you to pal around with the undead some more if you wish. This argument is more than just redundant. It's becoming repetitively redundant.


Quote
You have killed NOTHING. All you have done is made a subjective claim and then defined that as being objective, ie, reciprocity. You dont seem to understand that this is nothing more than a man made invention. This does not in any way make it objective.

Ontologically objective, no. epistemically objective, yes. Look up the terms and THINK a little harder maybe it will come to you, but I assure you I am not talking nonsense. Moral values exist in human minds and have no existence outside of human minds, yet they are not a matter of personal opinion or mere fashion, not at the fundamental level. At the fundamental level, they are a matter of evolutionary imperative and hence epistemically objective.

Quote
A group or society getting together and deciding to agree to reciprocity is no different or is indifferent to a group or society that decide the opposite.

You see, under naturalism, they are just as valid as each other. There is no ought, no obligation under naturalism.

OMG! You just aren't capable of thinking are you? A group of people can decide not to live in reciprocal relationships, but then that group isn't even a society, and even if you could consider them one in some sort of weird way, their society wouldn't survive to pass on its values. It's those rules that mediate the reciprocal relationships of the society that is morality. And as such they are based on the principle of reciprocity. That is epistemically objective fact.

Quote
Sure a group can decide to make it a rule, but thats all it is, a game of make believe. Any further meaning is ILLUSORY.

It's not a game of make believe. It's a game of group survival. Those two things are very, very different. Can't you see that. Hey, a corporation is a kind of game also. Corporations have no objective existence, outside of the material assets they hold, but a corporation is a lot more than just it's material assets and a lot of what makes it what it is is ontologically subjective, i.e.,mind-dependent. So, do corporations have no epistemically objective existence. Are they JUST a game of make-believe with no further meaning? I don't think that's a very reasonable assessment.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Rostos on March 07, 2017, 11:56:24 pm
Can you highlight your responses? It makes it hard to read.

Thanks
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: False Entity on March 08, 2017, 01:12:18 am
Can you highlight your responses? It makes it hard to read.

Thanks


THIS is the peak of irony. I am literally laughing out loud.
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: Steve Baughman on September 16, 2019, 02:58:09 pm
"it's possible to make moral judgments without expressing a preference. E.g., "There is a right thing to do, but I don't know what it is", "that's the wrong thing to do, but I honestly don't care", etc. That these sorts of statements are coherent, and not conceptually inconsistent, proves that moral judgments are not mere expressions of preference."

Aleph, I think you are correct with this example. But a consistent non-cognitivist would either not say that, or would say it as shorthand for "there is way that best serves XYX purpose but I don't care."   So I don't think your example proves that what seem to be moral judgments cannot be mere expressions of preference. 
Title: Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
Post by: jayceeii on October 01, 2019, 08:49:13 am
"it's possible to make moral judgments without expressing a preference. E.g., "There is a right thing to do, but I don't know what it is", "that's the wrong thing to do, but I honestly don't care", etc. That these sorts of statements are coherent, and not conceptually inconsistent, proves that moral judgments are not mere expressions of preference."

Aleph, I think you are correct with this example. But a consistent non-cognitivist would either not say that, or would say it as shorthand for "there is way that best serves XYX purpose but I don't care."   So I don't think your example proves that what seem to be moral judgments cannot be mere expressions of preference.
“There is a right thing to do, but I don’t know what it is,” does NOT express a moral judgment, instead merely perplexity. The moral judgment would come in when this person is told thing A or thing B is the right thing to do, as they agree or disagree. For instance most today would not call driving cars immoral; but God and distant future generations who were hoping for tractors instead of unfair luxuries, might disagree. In this case the world is making a moral judgment their rights supercede the distant future.

“That’s the wrong thing to do, but I honestly don’t care,” amounts to a moral judgment that the thing is not important. They are saying they are right not to take any action about it. Such is the state of the world with respect to global warming today, and where those who do take action are rely upon “every little bit counts,” without counting the little bits to find they don’t amount to a solution. Men judge their extravagant lifestyles trump all.

All moral judgments humans are making can be called preferences, which is to say these are not founded upon eternal principles or profound understanding of the existential situation. In general men are agreeing with the laws and what the others are concluding. To really know what is right is not possible without a solid existential foundation, i.e. knowing who and what you and all the other souls really are, and where the eternal benefits of the souls really lie. Without this knowledge morality is just a shot in the dark.