Archived

Moral Argument

Read 17956 times

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2016, 05:42:48 pm »
Quote
No. Moral laws are not like physical laws, such as the law of gravity. Gravity tells us simply what is. It doesn't tell us whether falling at 9.8 m/s2 is good, bad, or neutral. Moral laws, though, do give us a standard by which we must adhere. Since moral laws are prescriptive (they tell not what one is doing but what one ought to do) and universal, they must transcend humanity. Moral laws cannot be based in physical reality but must come from a moral lawgiver.

I really don't understand that distinction between "is" and ought" in case of morality. In case of moral deeds "is" is the same as "ought" simply by definition. What would it even mean that there is action X and Y and X is morally good yet you're not ought to choose it in order to be good?

Big difference. If i put poison in your coffee, science (chemistry) can tell us HOW i killed you. It explains what IS. What science cannot tell us is if killing you is good/bad/right/wrong. This is the difference between is/ought.
Physical laws tell us what is, not what it ought to be. Essentially laws like the laws of physics are DESCRIPTIVE, tell us what is. Moral laws by there nature tell us what it OUGHT to be.

 

Quote
"No.” God’s moral character is essential to Him; that’s why we said it was part of His nature. To say that some property is essential to God is to say that there is no possible world in which God could have existed and lacked that property. God didn’t just happen by accident to be loving, kind, just, and so forth. He is that way essentially.

Is this part of god's character that you call "good" good because it's part of god's character or is it good on its own? You can't say "both" because one doesn't require second and you can't say "neither" because there are no other options (something is either good by definition or it's based on deeper foundation)

I am not. God is essential and possesses the omnis, and one of those is moral perfection. Therefore moral perfection is IN HIS NATURE.
"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

1
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2016, 06:10:39 pm »
Quote
Big difference. If i put poison in your coffee, science (chemistry) can tell us HOW i killed you. It explains what IS. What science cannot tell us is if killing you is good/bad/right/wrong. This is the difference between is/ought.
Physical laws tell us what is, not what it ought to be. Essentially laws like the laws of physics are DESCRIPTIVE, tell us what is. Moral laws by there nature tell us what it OUGHT to be.

Since they are "is" and "ought" like at the same time I still see nothing wrong with belief system I presented. Also you seem to be arguing for some sort of authoritarian system in which supreme leader order people what to do in accordance to his judgment. It has nothing to do with objectivism plus one can always ask why we should follow such a guy. I think it all ultimately comes down to topic below

Quote
I am not. God is essential and possesses the omnis, and one of those is moral perfection. Therefore moral perfection is IN HIS NATURE.

Wait, therefore? Are you trying to argue that since god perfectly matches objective moral standard it logically follows he becomes this standard and from that moment forward objective moral standard can't exist without god? I didn;t expect circular reasoning in this thread.

Also you didn;t answer my question.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

2

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2016, 09:01:54 pm »
It's funny how Rostos loses the capacity to use the quote feature just when he knows he's been thoroughly refuted.

Still waiting for you to show how moral values and duties are grounded outside the human mind.

Don't you believe that moral values and duties are grounded outside the human mind?  You believe they are grounded in a god don't you?  Unless you think that human minds are gods...

No, humans minds are not Gods
"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: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2016, 09:06:48 pm »
Quote
Big difference. If i put poison in your coffee, science (chemistry) can tell us HOW i killed you. It explains what IS. What science cannot tell us is if killing you is good/bad/right/wrong. This is the difference between is/ought.
Physical laws tell us what is, not what it ought to be. Essentially laws like the laws of physics are DESCRIPTIVE, tell us what is. Moral laws by there nature tell us what it OUGHT to be.

Since they are "is" and "ought" like at the same time I still see nothing wrong with belief system I presented. Also you seem to be arguing for some sort of authoritarian system in which supreme leader order people what to do in accordance to his judgment. It has nothing to do with objectivism plus one can always ask why we should follow such a guy. I think it all ultimately comes down to topic below

You dont have to follow them. But if you dont, then you are wrong. It is like saying, i dont want to accept that the earth is not spherical in shape. Sure, you dont have to, but if you dont, then you are wrong.
If you dont accept objective moral values and duties exist, then you cant condemn moral actions. Yet we all do, because we believe as a proper basic belief that moral values and duties are objective.


Quote
I am not. God is essential and possesses the omnis, and one of those is moral perfection. Therefore moral perfection is IN HIS NATURE.

Wait, therefore? Are you trying to argue that since god perfectly matches objective moral standard it logically follows he becomes this standard and from that moment forward objective moral standard can't exist without god? I didn;t expect circular reasoning in this thread.

Also you didn;t answer my question.

Yes, without God there is no objective standard.
"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
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2016, 08:22:08 am »
Quote
You dont have to follow them. But if you dont, then you are wrong. It is like saying, i dont want to accept that the earth is not spherical in shape. Sure, you dont have to, but if you dont, then you are wrong.
If you dont accept objective moral values and duties exist, then you cant condemn moral actions. Yet we all do, because we believe as a proper basic belief that moral values and duties are objective.

You can't just call every single belief you want to keep properly based. You have as many reasons to call belief in OMV properly based as you have to call belief in Objective Music Taste properly based. Also what about this:

Let's define mathematical function unicorn(x)=y where x is any possible moral dillema, that is for example "Am I ought to give up a seat to an old lady in a bus at 7 pm on saturday (plus basically the whole description of current state of reality)" And y gives value yes or no. This function by definition tell you what you're ought to do and it's better than god because we're certain it does exist. The only problem is we don't know the answer to all x's but obviously it's the same problem as in the case of god

Quote
Yes, without God there is no objective standard.

So god is good by definition than? In other words everything god does is good because god does it? That implies good is totally subjective to god's will. Plus I gave you mathematical formula that is very simple and objective foundation for morality.

Your struggle against Euthyphro dilemma is more and more boring. You insist on third option yet you couldn't articuate it in any of your posts. You seem to presuppose that it's false dichotomy even though your best try to show it in your post boiled down to: "Objective moral standard exists outside god. God perfectly fulfill this objective standard. Therefore God is objective moral standard and without him objective standard can't exist" this is so ridiculous I start to doubt whether you yourself believe it.


You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

5

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2016, 05:43:23 pm »
Quote
You dont have to follow them. But if you dont, then you are wrong. It is like saying, i dont want to accept that the earth is not spherical in shape. Sure, you dont have to, but if you dont, then you are wrong.
If you dont accept objective moral values and duties exist, then you cant condemn moral actions. Yet we all do, because we believe as a proper basic belief that moral values and duties are objective.

You can't just call every single belief you want to keep properly based. You have as many reasons to call belief in OMV properly based as you have to call belief in Objective Music Taste properly based. Also what about this:

Let's define mathematical function unicorn(x)=y where x is any possible moral dillema, that is for example "Am I ought to give up a seat to an old lady in a bus at 7 pm on saturday (plus basically the whole description of current state of reality)" And y gives value yes or no. This function by definition tell you what you're ought to do and it's better than god because we're certain it does exist. The only problem is we don't know the answer to all x's but obviously it's the same problem as in the case of god

All what you have to do is show 1 objective moral value existing to prove objective moral values exist. For example, is it a fact that raping and torturing a young girl for fun is wrong? Or is it just a matter of preference like preferring blondes over brunettes?

Taste in music is not objective, it is subjective. If i like a song you dont like, will you tell me i am wrong for liking and enjoying that song? of course not. At most you will say "i hate that song", but you wont say to me i am wrong in enjoying that song will you? Of course not. This is simply taste in music is subjective.

Now, if i tell you for the past 6 months i have had a young girl in my baseman whom i have been raping and torturing and treating like a sex slave, you will immediately tell me that what i have been doing is wrong, wouldnt you?

Notice how the terms right/wrong ONLY apply to objective items?


Quote
Yes, without God there is no objective standard.

So god is good by definition than? In other words everything god does is good because god does it? That implies good is totally subjective to god's will. Plus I gave you mathematical formula that is very simple and objective foundation for morality.

God by definition is a maximally great being. A characteristic of a maximally great being is omnibenevolence. As i said it is in Gods nature. His commands that flow down to us is from this nature.

Your struggle against Euthyphro dilemma is more and more boring. You insist on third option yet you couldn't articuate it in any of your posts. You seem to presuppose that it's false dichotomy even though your best try to show it in your post boiled down to: "Objective moral standard exists outside god. God perfectly fulfill this objective standard. Therefore God is objective moral standard and without him objective standard can't exist" this is so ridiculous I start to doubt whether you yourself believe it.

It is not boring, Notice how this argument is not even used by atheists in academia? It is primarily used by internet atheists. Simply because the dilemna is a false one.
"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
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2016, 07:02:47 pm »
Oh but one can strongly believe that there is objective music taste. I know that people disagree on that subject, but so do people in case of morality.

Secondly, I literally give you the answer how you can have objective morality without god. What my mathematics formula lacks that your god have? My function Unicorn(x)=y by definition attach objective moral assessment to every possible moral dilemma. It is objective standard. The only objection you can have here is that we don't know the answers but so you don't know in case of god.

By the way, why do you insist on good god? Evil god gives you objective standard as well.

But what's most important I still don't see how you get objective morality from god, so let me ask you a question and I'd be glad if you answered it this time:

Do you agree that a being is good either because it's good by definition OR because it conforms to some higher  standard of good?

If not what's third option?

Third option can't be mix of two earlier ones because former involves latter meaning you end up with former one.





« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 07:10:20 pm by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

7

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2016, 11:41:20 pm »
Oh but one can strongly believe that there is objective music taste. I know that people disagree on that subject, but so do people in case of morality.

I think you are getting confusing between ONTOLOGY and epistemology. People have disagreements all the time.

Think of these 2 examples.

1. Person A thinks Justin Biebers music is awful. Person B thinks its good. Who is right/wrong? Well, neither because there is no independent arbiter to confirm if its good or awful.

2. Person A thinks the earth is flat. Person B thinks is spherical in shape. Who is right or wrong? 2 things here. 1, clearly the earth has a shape, but these 2 people are disagreeing about it, should we deny because 2 people are disagreeing that would mean the earth objectively doesnt a particular shape? of course not. 2. In this case, someone is right and someone is wrong because we can appeal to the independent arbiter, that is, the fact itself.

See the difference?


Secondly, I literally give you the answer how you can have objective morality without god. What my mathematics formula lacks that your god have? My function Unicorn(x)=y by definition attach objective moral assessment to every possible moral dilemma. It is objective standard. The only objection you can have here is that we don't know the answers but so you don't know in case of god.

Hang on, what is the outcomes of these dilemas...or rather, what does it hope to achieve.

By the way, why do you insist on good god? Evil god gives you objective standard as well.

But what's most important I still don't see how you get objective morality from god, so let me ask you a question and I'd be glad if you answered it this time:

Do you agree that a being is good either because it's good by definition OR because it conforms to some higher  standard of good?

If not what's third option?

Third option can't be mix of two earlier ones because former involves latter meaning you end up with former one.

Because the definition of God is perfectly good. How do i know? Well, we get the insight of God through Christ.
"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

8
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2016, 07:30:40 am »
Quote
1. Person A thinks Justin Biebers music is awful. Person B thinks its good. Who is right/wrong? Well, neither because there is no independent arbiter to confirm if its good or awful.

How do you know there is no objective music standard? Let's say I can't help feeling there is such thing. Does it mean I can take it as my properly based belief and start looking for perfect composer? Your analogy intended to disprove objective music standard may very well be used to disprove objective moral standards. I'm not sure whether you ever used moral argument for god, the fact you try to smuggle it as properly based belief suggests such a practice took place. So if you're just saying that "without god there isn't objective morality" then what I wrote isn't really an objection, but if what you're saying is "withoug god there isn;t objective morality, BUT there is objective morality so there is god" then I'd completely disagree on this premise.

Quote
Because the definition of God is perfectly good. How do i know? Well, we get the insight of God through Christ.

You didn't answer anything like "Yes, I agree" or "No, I do't agree" and I still wish you do it just for clarification. I think it's at least one certain thing, namely you can either agree ordisagree with what I say.

Also I have another question. Do you agree that perfectly evil god would warrant objective moral standard as well? The only difference would be that the further from god we get, the more morally supreme we are, that is contrary to standard model.

And what's the difference whether you say such thing about god, or about say Justin Bieber? Or if you don't like real beings I can switch to Harry Potter. Or if you don't like any entity with any physical form I can switch to say Casper the Friendly Ghost or I can define new being that is not god yet by definition is perfectly good. But let's stick to Bieber. What exactly makes god different here? Neither of omnis god has count here. You may say, that god is omniscient but what would it change? Since there is no external standard to know god's omnisciente doesn't help him. You may say that god is omnipotent but it doesn't change anything as well. Even if Bieber wanted to change something but couldn't because of external reasons his decision would still be good simply because he is perfectly good by definition. The same goes for omniscient, that is even if Bieber didn't know how to do something, what he actually did or didn't would be good, because he defined him as perfectly good being, and perfectly good being can't make anything evil. And again if you don't like this example I can easily think of various metaphysical beings with different range of power, who are not gods, but are simply defined as perfectly good. The only difference that comes to my mind that could count here is that god created everything. But seriously, it would be literal admission that, yeah, god indeed is the boss here, you either obey or you burn. Certainly you're not going to argue this valley.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 07:33:35 am by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

9

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2016, 07:38:17 pm »
Quote
1. Person A thinks Justin Biebers music is awful. Person B thinks its good. Who is right/wrong? Well, neither because there is no independent arbiter to confirm if its good or awful.

How do you know there is no objective music standard? Let's say I can't help feeling there is such thing. Does it mean I can take it as my properly based belief and start looking for perfect composer? Your analogy intended to disprove objective music standard may very well be used to disprove objective moral standards. I'm not sure whether you ever used moral argument for god, the fact you try to smuggle it as properly based belief suggests such a practice took place. So if you're just saying that "without god there isn't objective morality" then what I wrote isn't really an objection, but if what you're saying is "withoug god there isn;t objective morality, BUT there is objective morality so there is god" then I'd completely disagree on this premise.

So, if i tell you i like and enjoy a particular song that you dont. Will you tell me i am wrong in liking and enjoying that particular song? Of course not. That is an incoherent notion. Wrong according to what? You see, there is no objective standard to compare it against.

Now, if i tell you i have been raping and torturing a young girl for fun, you will immediately tell me that what i am doing is wrong, wouldnt you? Why is that?


Quote
Because the definition of God is perfectly good. How do i know? Well, we get the insight of God through Christ.

You didn't answer anything like "Yes, I agree" or "No, I do't agree" and I still wish you do it just for clarification. I think it's at least one certain thing, namely you can either agree ordisagree with what I say.

Also I have another question. Do you agree that perfectly evil god would warrant objective moral standard as well? The only difference would be that the further from god we get, the more morally supreme we are, that is contrary to standard model.

But thats not what God is. God is a MGB, an MGB has maximal excellence and one of those characteristics moral perfection. Evil is incompatible with moral prefection.

And what's the difference whether you say such thing about god, or about say Justin Bieber? Or if you don't like real beings I can switch to Harry Potter. Or if you don't like any entity with any physical form I can switch to say Casper the Friendly Ghost or I can define new being that is not god yet by definition is perfectly good. But let's stick to Bieber. What exactly makes god different here? Neither of omnis god has count here. You may say, that god is omniscient but what would it change? Since there is no external standard to know god's omnisciente doesn't help him. You may say that god is omnipotent but it doesn't change anything as well. Even if Bieber wanted to change something but couldn't because of external reasons his decision would still be good simply because he is perfectly good by definition. The same goes for omniscient, that is even if Bieber didn't know how to do something, what he actually did or didn't would be good, because he defined him as perfectly good being, and perfectly good being can't make anything evil. And again if you don't like this example I can easily think of various metaphysical beings with different range of power, who are not gods, but are simply defined as perfectly good. The only difference that comes to my mind that could count here is that god created everything. But seriously, it would be literal admission that, yeah, god indeed is the boss here, you either obey or you burn. Certainly you're not going to argue this valley.

I really dont know what you are saying here.
"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
Re: Thoughts On Morals / Ethics
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2016, 03:41:21 pm »
Quote
So, if i tell you i like and enjoy a particular song that you dont. Will you tell me i am wrong in liking and enjoying that particular song? Of course not. That is an incoherent notion. Wrong according to what? You see, there is no objective standard to compare it against.

Now, if i tell you i have been raping and torturing a young girl for fun, you will immediately tell me that what i am doing is wrong, wouldnt you? Why is that?

No, no, one can hold very strong belief that music he or she listens is objectively good and everybody should agree on that or concede their music tastes are poor.

Quote
But thats not what God is. God is a MGB, an MGB has maximal excellence and one of those characteristics moral perfection. Evil is incompatible with moral prefection
.

It's not MGB by your definition... So what?

It's second time you didn't answer my question, it forces me to do the same thing your previous interlocutors did.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.