Archived

Moral Argument

Read 17903 times

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #45 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.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

1

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #46 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.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 10:27:35 am by bruce culver »
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

2

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #47 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?

"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

3

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #48 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.

"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

4

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #49 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.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 11:13:35 am by bruce culver »
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

5

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2017, 11:56:24 pm »
Can you highlight your responses? It makes it hard to read.

Thanks
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

6

False Entity

  • ***
  • 1780 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #51 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.

7
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #52 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. 

8

jayceeii

  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #53 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.