Archived

Moral Argument

Read 17965 times

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #30 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.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

1

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #31 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.
"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

2

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #32 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.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 10:18:19 pm by bruce culver »
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

3

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #33 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]
"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

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #34 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.

5

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #35 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.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 07:34:41 am by bruce culver »
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

6

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #36 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.
"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

7

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #37 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.



"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

8

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #38 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.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 11:28:26 am by aleph naught »

9

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #39 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.

"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

10

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #40 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.


"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

11

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #41 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.


« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 10:10:14 pm by bruce culver »
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

12

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #42 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..

13

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #43 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.
"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

14

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: For those that doubt OMV's exist
« Reply #44 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.
"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