Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Moral Argument for God » Moral Argument for God

Moral Argument for God

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Last

Moral Argument for God

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 07/31/07 - 08:58 AM:	#226
Hey TMB, good post. I just had this to offer: TMB wrote: "How do you know people don’t torture children for fun?" He doesn't. From his definition/assumption he would have to believe personal responsibility isn't at work here, but the absense of their connection with God. God is thus absolutely necessary for objective morals to work. wrote: "What is the connection between authority and morality?" Since morality (assumed as objective) applies everywhen and everywhere, must entail an intelligent being as upholder of the moral code throughout time and place. Human minds are limited and finite. Thus, there must be an intelligent moral promulgator. This would be true if humans were unable to follow moral codes for themselves.
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 07/31/07 - 04:13 PM:	#227
I'll cut straight to the meat, since for most of the post you seem to criticize positions I do not adhere to. hipskipdip wrote: "Unity may indeed be something to achieve for, but then suppose I think we should follow the opposite forms: disunity and anarchy. Who or what says I'm wrong? If my behavior destroys balance, what fundamental reality says I ought not to behave this way? This is an important and seemingly unanswered question. Because if there is literally nothing in reality that says we should follow one form over another, "forms" as the metaphysical basis for objective morality collapses on itself." "We're not debating here if objective morality exists." If objective morality is apprehended, then it is apparent that all things opposed to the perfect good are degrees less than the perfect good. Great, but that doesn't come anywhere near to answering my questions. It's true we're not debating if objective morality exists. However, not all metaethical theories can provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality. The "perfect forms" explanation is at best incomplete. Consider these opposing forms: unity and peace versus disunity and anarchy. Who or what decides which "forms" we ought to follow? I'm saying that the authority is received directly by people's intuitive sense of the perfect good But if the authority is based on people's intuitions, this would not be moral objectivism. Moral objectivism says that ethical truths are independent of human opinions, feelings, and beliefs. Additionally, suppose a culture's intuitions are violently anti-Semitic. Does this become "the perfect good"? Or perhaps you mean there is a "perfect good" that exists independently of people's intuitions, i.e. "perfect forms." But then we get to the questions I asked earlier, e.g. who or what says what forms we ought to pursue?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 07/31/07 - 04:33 PM:	#228
For brevity's sake, I'll cut to what seem to be the main points. TMB wrote: You have returned to the original assumption of objective morality to prove your case This thread is not about whether objective moral values exist, I am arguing that if they do they are evidence for the existence of God. Why are you not here to argue a case for the assumption of objective morality you have made? Because whether objective morality exists is for another thread (namely, ethics). And I am here to see what people think about the deductive validity of my argument and see if they have any good counter-points (I found one good one so far and had to modify my argument). Incidentally, do you believe my argument is deductively valid, i.e. that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God? I think the authority for objective morality needs to be transcendent if it is to exist. First, objective morality commands our behavior (e.g. "don't torture people for fun") How do you know people don’t torture children for fun? I never said they didn't. I was just providing an example of a sort of command that objective morality might make (and since this particular aspect is not controversial among moral objectivists, it seemed like a good one). and authority by definition is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." The authority of morality (however it exists) seems supreme; it transcends what anyone (e.g. Hitler) thinks about how people ought to behave. What is the connection between authority and morality? As I explained earlier, objective morality commands our behavior, and authority by definition is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." Hence objective morality (however it exists) by definition has authority behind it. And if morality is objective, it has supreme authority. In what way is it supreme, that people all over the world have power based hierarchies and they try and tell other people what they ought and ought not to do? The commands of objective morality supersede those of any human leader, because moral objectivism by definition says that ethical truths are independent of of human opinions, feelings, and beliefs. Regarding my justification of ethical objectivism (granted this was a bit off topic). [...and the alternatives seem either incoherent or just plain nuts.] Cultural relativism says that being violently anti-Semitic is morally right if that's what the culture believes. Ethical subjectivism says trying to wipe out Jewish people is morally right as long as that's what you believe. Ethical noncognitivism says there's nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust. I suggest we lose the buzzwords and just talk about what is supported by evidence and logic. Have you heard of reductio ad absurdum? That's the style of rationality I was using here. If you're willing to believe, for instance, that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust (whereas I consider such a belief to be absurd), we just might have to agree to disagree and move on. EN appears to recognise that there is nothing innately moral about actions. This makes sense if you argue that morality is a social construct placed upon actions depending upon the objectives of society. However EN does appear to try and find some link between the action and morality Quite the opposite actually. Ethical noncognitivism says there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I cannot see how objectivity is possible without having something transcendent. If nothing is transcendent then views are subjective. Finally, something we can agree on.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 07/31/07 - 06:58 PM:	#229
Tisthammerw wrote: "provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality." Alright, but I don't really have to. That's assumed already in the fact that objective morals exist. The only problem facing us is the transference of this information to the moral agents. Being that the're moral agents, it is possible for them to obtain what is morally feasible. What is morally feasable is the perfect good which stems from the perfect form. wrote: "Who or what decides which "forms" we ought to follow?" What?! This is not an axiom of the objective morals definition. That question doesn't apply. The question is how is what is already there transfered to the moral agents. wrote: "perhaps you mean there is a "perfect good" that exists independently of people's intuitions, i.e. "perfect forms." But then we get to the questions I asked earlier, e.g. who or what says what forms we ought to pursue?" Let me flip this around. How would your imaginary being handle this situation? How does he get the information (independent of anything human) to the finite moral agents? Edited by hipskipdip on 07/31/07 - 07:32 PM
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 704

Posted 08/01/07 - 11:36 AM:	#230
Tisthammerw wrote: As I explained earlier, objective morality commands our behavior, and authority by definition is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." Hence objective morality (however it exists) by definition has authority behind it. And if morality is objective, it has supreme authority. Here is a simple deductive fault in your argument. This logic is wrong. You appear to be claiming X commands our behaviour. Y commands our behaviour. Therefore X is a Y. The dictionary doesn't tell you that all things that influence or command thought, opinion, or behaviour are authorities, it says that authorities have that influence or command. Let me give an example. Emotions command our behaviour, that does not make them authority based. Also, what does "supreme authority" mean? Does it mean that it supremely commands our behaviour? If so, how could one go against that influence or command? Since we clearly do go against moral standards, is that not proof that the source is anything but supreme?

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/01/07 - 05:11 PM:	#231
hipskipdip wrote: "provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality." Alright, but I don't really have to. If your "perfect forms" explanation is to be a possible alternative to my explanation, it does have to provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality. Otherwise, it's not an alternative explanation for the metaphysical basis of objective morality. Incidentally, you may have taken what I said a bit out of context. The full text is "However, not all metaethical theories can provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality." This is a crucial point we need to keep in mind. I'm becoming less convinced that your "forms" explanation actually does this considering how you've dodged my questions. The only problem facing us is the transference of this information to the moral agents. That's not the only problem. Another problem--in fact the most crucial one of this whole thread--is what possible explanations are there for the existence of objective moral values. Premise: objective moral values exists. Question: what is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values? Caveat: not every explanation will work (and it seems that most alternatives proposed in this thread do not). "Who or what decides which "forms" we ought to follow?" What?! This is not an axiom of the objective morals definition. That question doesn't apply. It very much applies, and here's why. Peace and unity may indeed be something to achieve for, but then suppose I think we should follow opposite forms: disunity and anarchy. Who or what says I'm wrong? If my behavior destroys balance, what fundamental reality says I ought not to behave this way? This is an important and seemingly unanswered question. Because if there is literally nothing in reality that says we should follow one form over another, "forms" as the metaphysical basis for objective morality collapses. In other words, this alternate explanation would fail to provide a metaphysical basis for objective moral values. "perhaps you mean there is a "perfect good" that exists independently of people's intuitions, i.e. "perfect forms." But then we get to the questions I asked earlier, e.g. who or what says what forms we ought to pursue?" Let me flip this around. I'll gladly flip my question back to me (regarding information transfer, that is another matter; the focus is on what explanations provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality). I've already explained before why God explains the existence of objective moral values, but for now I don't mind repeating it. My explanation: morality’s transcendent source of authority is the heart of God. By definition, God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else. So if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would reside in a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe. On this view, it is within God (e.g. his nature and essence of what he is) where objective morality commands our behavior and is how morality has its transcendent authority. The best non-theist alternative (indeed, it is apparently the only plausible alternative) seems to be the brute fact "Reality says what ought to be." But then we would have to deal with the problems I explained in post #121.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/01/07 - 05:26 PM:	#232
mric wrote: As I explained earlier, objective morality commands our behavior, and authority by definition is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." Hence objective morality (however it exists) by definition has authority behind it. And if morality is objective, it has supreme authority. Here is a simple deductive fault in your argument. This logic is wrong. You appear to be claiming X commands our behaviour. Y commands our behaviour. Therefore X is a Y. That's not quite what my claim is. You have to keep in mind that morality itself is an abstract concept of what ought to be. What says X is what ought to be? Morality. But saying "morality" says what ought to be is like saying "what ought to be says what ought to be." It's a true statement, but one without any real foundation. Hence the question: who or what says what ought to be? The dictionary doesn't tell you that all things that influence or command thought, opinion, or behaviour are authorities, it says that authorities have that influence or command. Actually, it says that authority (in the more abstract sense and not plural) is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." (Merriam-Webster, definition 2a.) That is, if X has power to command thought, opinion, or behavior, X has authority. Why? Because that's the definition of authority. Also, what does "supreme authority" mean? It means the commands of that authority supersede all else. If a political leader commands something unethical (e.g. violent Antisemitism), the commands of ethics supersede that of the political leader. Since we clearly do go against moral standards, is that not proof that the source is anything but supreme? No it is not. Objective morality may have supreme authority behind it, but simply because one ought to do something doesn't mean one will.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 08/01/07 - 11:11 PM:	#233
Tisthammerw wrote: "simply because one ought to do something doesn't mean one will." Whoa, I had no idea that your authority figure was holding a gun to everyone's head. That's wonderful... damn it, why didn't I think of that?! wrote: "Who or what says I'm wrong?" We're obviously not buying your argument... wrote: "Premise: objective moral values exists." In other words, there's a measurable obtainable phenomena that we've unmistakently determined to be objective morals. wrote: "Question: what is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values?" Wait, shit, we know about objective morals but can't explain or know what the phenomena is or if it really is what we think it is? wrote: "What possible explanations are there for the existence of objective moral values." Oh no, my theory is done for... now I have to prove there are objective morals. Let me see... Basically, objective morals don't exist unless... wrote: "God explains the existence of objective moral values..." "IF God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else." AND "IF objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God" THEN "they would reside in a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe." THEREFORE: "It is within God (e.g. his nature and essence of what he is) where objective morality commands our behavior and is how morality has its transcendent authority." SO, how do objective morals prove God again and not the other way around?
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/02/07 - 06:55 PM:	#234
hipskipdip wrote: "Who or what says I'm wrong?" We're obviously not buying your argument... That doesn't answer my question or address the apparent problems of your "perfect forms" alternate explanation. My argument, of course, is that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. You presented an alternate explanation: "perfect forms" (as of "unity") but seems to face difficulties as I explained earlier (through my unanswered questions). Do you now concede that the "perfect forms" explanation fails to provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality? Oh no, my theory is done for... Yes, it would appear so. "God explains the existence of objective moral values..." "IF God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else." AND "IF objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God" THEN "they would reside in a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe." THEREFORE: "It is within God (e.g. his nature and essence of what he is) where objective morality commands our behavior and is how morality has its transcendent authority." SO, how do objective morals prove God again and not the other way around? Considering I have explained this to you repeatedly and you have often avoided the reasoning I've proffered, I can roll my eyes to. For one thing, why can't it be both? That is, why can't both objective morality and God point to each other? (Note: one technically does not need to believe in God to believe in objective morality; indeed there are number of atheists who believe in objective morality; but objective moral values can still provide evidence for the existence of God.) Yes, if God exists objective morality exists. On the other hand, if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. Do you deny this? If so, how about you address the actual reasoning of my argument? You attempted an alternate explanation with the "perfect forms" position, but instead of responding to my rebuttals against this (and answering my questions thereof) you have responded with sarcasm and cursing. This did not help justify your position.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 08/03/07 - 10:22 AM:	#235
Tisthammerw wrote: "Do you now concede that the "perfect forms" explanation fails to provide a metaphysical basis for objective morality?" I'm really not of the thought to posit a metaphysical reality. So a metaphysical justification is rather lost on me. I think this is where our arguments have been missing each other. I do not feel that I must give a metaphysical explanation of my existence any more than for objective morals (mind you, I do not believe in objective morals). My argument is that nothing leads to god other than what you can imagine and believe. wrote: "Why can't it be both? That is, why can't both objective morality and God point to each other?" You know what. I can be both. God can be your explanatory power of the supernatural existence of objective morals all you want. You can make him be anything you want him to be, and I won't have a problem with it. But what we're talking about is whether objective morals support or give evidence of a supreme supernatural metaphysical phantasm of one's imagination... and I'm saying no. I'm saying no because objective morals must have a content, and that content alone does not point to god any more than would a number. So my point with perfect forms was that morality was simply a conceptual representation of the objective moral phenomena. Humans are capable of understanding concepts and are moral agents, therefore (if there's) objective morals, then humans can perceive it. The content of objective morality (assumed to exist) must exist in reality. If the objective moral content exists supernaturally, then certainly, you will need a supernatural explanation. Your argument, as I've understood it, has been that objective morality exists supernaturally, therefore must have a metaphysical reality, and thus a supernatural metaphysical explanation. I, on the other hand, deny this outright as unfounded: 1) God: positing god or any supernatural agent which interacts with the physical reality falls short of anything explanatory. God in this case does not explain objective morals. Either god is reason to believe there are objective morals or simply an appendage hypothesis to objective morals. If objective morals can exist in reality, then positing a metaphysical reality as an explanation is really going to need some explanation. If objective morals can exist in reality, but only through a meta-reality/physical transgressor (i.e. god) then we're left with the supernatural. 2) Supernatural: being that it is supernatural it does not apply to the natural, it supercedes it. Establishing a reliable method of verification or examination is almost impossible and therefore all claims to it are purely guess work, making it far from being a suitable medium for objective content. We have very little to no (reliable) interaction with the supernatural, and so for the most part it does not even concern us. Sources: Where are our sources of objective morality? The heart of god simply removes it from rational discussion and I've got to question why you're arguing with me. Take your beliefs and go somewhere else... nobody should care, other than thinking it's poetic of you. Heart of God... eh? I don't know. I know what a heart is, but god... sound ambiguous to me. Should I assume that god's heart is anything like my own heart... my own empathic nature? Where else am I to get a sense for this spring of eternal metaphysical basis? Unless you're talking about real content... I don't know what to tell you. It's a belief. Good for you. I know what empathy is, I know how it develops and what makes people behave kindly to each other... physically. You're talking about metaphysics and god as if there's any real application. Spirit! Heal the spirit and you'll heal the person. Ask me what the spirit is, and we'll have an entirely different discussion. At some point you've gotta touch ground...
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/03/07 - 07:20 PM:	#236
hipskipdip wrote: I do not feel that I must give a metaphysical explanation of my existence any more than for objective morals We're talking about how it's possible for something to exist. For instance, I suspect you believe you are a physical being. But if it is not possible for X to exist either physically or nonphysically, I think it's safe to say that X does not exist. Given the premise of objective moral values existing, how can they exist? What is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values? What is the metaphysical basis for objective morality, e.g. who or what says how people ought to behave? But what we're talking about is whether objective morals support or give evidence of a supreme supernatural metaphysical phantasm of one's imagination... and I'm saying no. If you believe that objective moral values cannot be evidence for the existence of God, please address the reasoning of my argument. Suppose for instance God is not the metaphysical basis for objective morality. Can you provide an alternative? Your argument, as I've understood it, has been that objective morality exists supernaturally, therefore must have a metaphysical reality, and thus a supernatural metaphysical explanation. No, that is not what my argument is. You may wish to reread it (e.g. here) and maybe then you can form a coherent attack on its reasoning; or at least form an attack based on what the argument actually says. A more accurate approach in describing my argument is that it's about finding morality's transcendent source of authority. Objective morality, if it exists, has authority behind it when it commands people's behavior. But who or what says how we ought to behave? Either god is reason to believe there are objective morals or simply an appendage hypothesis to objective morals. The first part is not entirely true, in that one does not have to believe in God to believe in objective morals (some atheists believe in objective morality). What about God being an appendage hypothesis? If that is true, please find a plausible alternate metaphysical basis for objective morals. You haven't quite done that (the "perfect forms" hypothesis seems collapse under its own weight). Sources: Where are our sources of objective morality? The heart of god simply removes it from rational discussion and I've got to question why you're arguing with me. Here's the reason why: to see if you can find a flaw in the reasoning I've used. You said my proposed metaphysical basis "removes it [the source] from rational discussion." But if that is true, and if my argument is not rational, please explain why. Simply repeating "this belief is not rational" while consistently ignoring the belief's supporting evidence is not, I think, a good approach. It would seldom work for a defense attorney in a court of law when the D.A. links the murder weapon and DNA evidence to the defendant, for instance. Perhaps you think my evidence is flawed; that the argument does not work. But if so, please address its reasoning. Please explain clearly and specifically where the reasoning breaks down. Otherwise I seem to have every reason to believe it is rational.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 08/04/07 - 09:48 AM:	#237
Tisthammerw wrote: "What about God being an appendage hypothesis? If that is true, please find a plausible alternate metaphysical basis for objective morals." God is the source of morality: This is a circular arugument since objective morality is god. God is morality and we're still trying to figure out what the foundation or basis is for god (if he even exists). wrote: "Suppose for instance God is not the metaphysical basis for objective morality. Can you provide an alternative?" What is the metaphysical basis of god? You're in an infinite regress because you failed to explain the origin of objective morals without appealing to another unexplained. wrote: "By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism." We simply need to remove authority. We can do this by acknowledging that no phenomena needs metaphysical explanation (since it's an infinite regress of unknowns). Pantheism doesn't even have to be included. Authority is NOT NECESSARY. mric wrote: "This logic is wrong. You appear to be claiming X commands our behaviour. Y commands our behaviour. Therefore X is a Y. " mric wrote: "Let me give an example. Emotions command our behaviour, that does not make them authority based." If we were to assume that nobody would follow the moral laws, then we might need some super-authority/policeman. Since the majority (assuming objective morals exist) of people are moral, then the people could simply follow them without a divine authority (policing themselves). Therefore we can say a Hitler could rise to power, fool people (since god isnt' there holding anyone's hand or holding a gun to their heads to do otherwise) into doing what's wrong and say that he's wrong. God is not needed for authority or policing. How can we know that? How can we know the origin or objective morals. Well, since they apply to humans or moral agents we might want to look there. What if objective morals exist within the laws of life? What if objective morals are abstract concepts created by moral agents to better understand these laws of life-value or whatever crap you wanna call it. I don't think objective morals are particularly important for rocks. They're particularly important for living moral agents (not the dead ones). We created the concepts, but the concepts are based in life. "please address its reasoning. " Blah blah... your reasoning has been addressed by all the other posters and myself... it's time you decide for yourself. I guess we just don't know how to get our ideas across to you or the otherway around. wrote: "It's about finding morality's transcendent source of authority." I get that, and that's fine. Occams Razor will just cut this argument away. Nice chatting with you. I'm sincerely sorry I couldn't be a better opponent.
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/05/07 - 05:44 PM:	#238
hipskipdip wrote: God is the source of morality: This is a circular arugument since objective morality is god. Huh? How do you figure that? God may be the metaphysical basis for morality but I never claimed they were the same thing. How did you come to this conclusion? "Suppose for instance God is not the metaphysical basis for objective morality. Can you provide an alternative?" What is the metaphysical basis of god? You're in an infinite regress because you failed to explain the origin of objective morals without appealing to another unexplained. God is the omnipresent, eternal and supreme metaphysical reality who did not begin to exist and thus does not really have an origin. "By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism." We simply need to remove authority. I don't think you can do that here, since objective morality by definition carries with some kind of authority. Objective morality (however it exists) commands people's behavior; it says what we ought to do. We can do this by acknowledging that no phenomena needs metaphysical explanation Objective morality does; namely, who or what says how we ought to behave? The only plausible alternative thus far appears to be the brute fact "reality says what ought to be," which upon further examination still seems to point to God's existence. Since the majority (assuming objective morals exist) of people are moral, then the people could simply follow them without a divine authority (policing themselves). Problem is, if objective morality exists, who or what says how we ought to behave? It obviously isn't people, because objective morality by definition is independent of human thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Regardless of who enforces moral law, we still require some transcendent source of authority for morality to exist. So what is it? Again, the only plausible alternative thus far appears to be the brute fact "reality says what ought to be" explanation. What if objective morals exist within the laws of life? Then please find them for me and present them in the post, but I'm not sure how that would work. Would we find an encoded message hidden in the physical constants of the universe? Would we find it printed on a toad's back? "please address its reasoning. " Blah blah... your reasoning has been addressed by all the other posters and myself Really? Please point to the last time you did so (apart from your last post, which said "We simply need to remove authority" and completely ignored my reasoning behind explaining why authority was necessary). The actual reasoning of my argument has been seldom addressed, and even when it has been nearly all points are easily refuted (e.g. the challenger inadvertently misconstruing my real position; or pointing out that one criticism fails to address the justification previously made to counter it). I challenge you to point to even one specific example of a post that does not fit this category. (I doubt you will do so, because no such post exists.)
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/05/07 - 06:08 PM:	#239
lovelikepi wrote: If God IS the universal moral law, and god is all-powerful, then it stands to reason that it would be impossible to break God's moral law. I don't see how that logically follows. What if, for instance, God choose to create creatures with free will, the power to choose between good and evil? I personally don't think that either God or a universal moral standard exists, but I KNOW that they cannot logically BOTH exist. If you honestly think that, I invite you to please attempt to refute the reasoning of my argument. I'll recap it here: Ethics is an example of something that says what ought to be. Specifically, it makes certain commands and statements of how people ought to behave. In doing so, objective morality somehow possesses authority behind its statements. Authority is “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.” (Merriam-Webster's dictionary, definition 2a.) Objective ethical statements such as “We should not torture people for fun” do indeed command our behavior. Additionally, the authority of morality (however it exists) seems supreme; it transcends what anyone (e.g. Hitler) thinks about how people ought to behave. All of this raises some questions on morality’s source and metaphysical basis. Given that there are certain commands (ethical ones) that have an authority transcending what humanity says, thinks, and feels; how is this possible? What is morality's transcendent source of authority? If morality is not dependent on what people think, then what fundamental reality says how we ought to behave? Or perhaps it is better to combine the last two questions. If morality is not dependent on what people think, what transcendent source of authority says how we ought to behave? How can morality contain this supreme authority behind its statements? Theism provides an explanation for all this. Morality’s transcendent source of authority is the heart of God. By definition, God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else. So if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would reside in a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe. On this view, it is within God (e.g. his nature and essence of what he is) where objective morality commands our behavior and is how morality has its transcendent authority. In contrast, atheism provides no source for morality and no explanation for its existence. Whereas the existence of God explains why moral values transcend humanity. It also explains why some should-statements are matters of personal taste and why others are not. It may be then that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values. Probably the best objection to this argument is that objective morality is a "brute fact" not requiring any further explanation for its existence. Objective morality has no source or metaphysical basis; it just is. But this has potential problems. Consider this argument. If objective morality has literally no source and no basis, then there is literally nothing that says Hitler was wrong when he believed he should slaughter millions of Jews. Here some might object, saying that is not what they mean by objective morality being a brute fact. It is reality that says Hitler’s actions are wrong. Reality—unlike fallible humans—cannot be mistaken about what is right, and it is reality in some general sense that says what ought to be. It’s just that there isn’t any specific component of the universe (as a person or culture) that says it’s wrong, but rather the universe itself. By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism). Pantheism may seem like a relatively harmless implication, but even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). Since a pantheistic God is equated with the universe/reality/existence, this supreme metaphysical reality is omnipresent and eternal. This is perhaps to be expected however, given that objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal. Yet a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person—a moral God that says what everyone ought to do and a God that everyone ought to obey. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

lovelikepi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 02, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 08/05/07 - 08:03 PM:	#240
I must agree with you that I was incorrect to assert that if God was moral, and God is omnipotent, then it is necessary that an immoral action be impossible. If God is moral, then anything that God chooses to do or command is moral. God cannot perform an immoral action, because everything that He does is moral. The will of God is moral, and what is moral is the will of God. I screwed up when I thought that it would be necessary for God to enforce His will, and when I assumed that an action couldn't simply be moral because God willed it to be. My entire argument hinged on a semantic error in saying that a moral code was universal, because a universal moral code which applied to God would make God not omnipotent. A moral law beneath God would not be universal in the same sense as before, but it could apply to all human actions, as much or as little as God wanted. Your argument is correct that an objective moral law for humans implies an objective moral law-giver, and that the only being capable of objective value judgments would be an omniscient being, and the only being capable of dealing complete justice would be an omnipotent. I was putting forth a half-baked hypothesis blending the "rock that God couldn't lift" and a trivial semantic argument of an objective moral law being universal, and I find that you are correct in asserting that an objective moral law and God are mutually compatible, as long as the moral law is beneath the power of God. With that said, and with my credibility severely shot (I admit), I will address your other argument, that an objective moral law exists. What do you mean, exactly when you say that something is wrong? To say that something is wrong is a value judgment, I think, an assumption, made on a personal basis. Different people give different things different values of right and wrong. These things may not have any value by nature, and in fact they just are. Think of a dollar bill. It has no value by nature, only the value that people give it. It has considerable value in many places, but not everywhere, and it has no value where there are not people. And just because a vast majority of the world's population values a dollar, does not change it in any physical or objective way whatsoever, only its value in relation to the views of people. The Holocaust has no essence, no objective value. A vast majority of humans happen to hate it and fear it, myself included. But that says something about the property of humans, the valuers, not the Holocaust itself. Humans tend very strongly not to like the suffering and death of other humans; this can be explained as an evolutionary mechanism, and a basic assumption acquired in life through society or even by conscious choice. But that the Holocaust is widely hated by people doesn't imply any kind of objective value. That something should have an objective value, (in strong contradiction to my previous argument, which I have completely abandoned) requires an objective valuer, and for a valuer to be objective, the valuer would have to be God. To say that there is an objective value system necessitates saying that there is God. I don't know of any objective morality (indeed, my futile quest for an objective morality has caused me to have little faith in any religion), and I do not know if God exists, and certainly I don't think that I know Him personally or His nature, whatever that might be. Perhaps believing in an objective right and wrong takes the same kind of faith that it takes to believe in God, and an objective right and wrong is just as resistant to proof or disproof, perhaps more so.

hipskipdip
||||||||||||||||||

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 533

Posted 08/06/07 - 11:15 PM:	#241
Tisthammerw wrote: hipskipdip wrote: What if objective morals exist within the laws of life? "Then please find them for me and present them in the post, but I'm not sure how that would work. Would we find an encoded message hidden in the physical constants of the universe? Would we find it printed on a toad's back?" What have you to offer? Should I find objective morals conveniently written down on some metaphysical paper somewhere? I said back in post# 229: wrote: hipskipdip, post# 229 wrote: "The only problem facing us is the transference of this information to the moral agents." That's not the only problem. Another problem--in fact the most crucial one of this whole thread--is what possible explanations are there for the existence of objective moral values. Premise: objective moral values exists. Question: what is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values? Caveat: not every explanation will work (and it seems that most alternatives proposed in this thread do not). To the best explanation, well, geez, how do we know if it's the best explanation?!!!!!!! The most important and prevelant is how these morals interact with moral agents. What's the content that we're explaining?! It better be by some pretty special meta-pixy dust or divine will, otherwise I'm likely to think moral phenomena is pretty damn well natural, therefore invoking a natural explanation. Why don't you offer something, since your claim is so... extra special. You and I don't share any one definition of Objective Morality, it can take any form we might imagine it to take (since it's completely objective, ha!) Why don't we bring it down to earth, to actually mean something to those poor deprived moral agents, of which would otherwise be completely lost if it weren't for such a glorious code. wrote: "reality says what ought to be," This guy goes to church, the other to the synagogue, another to the mosque: all claim to know a system of objective morality, founded in god. Perhaps they're all speaking of the same reality. Still, I question if there's any content of which needs explaining... Edited by hipskipdip on 08/06/07 - 11:25 PM
"What the world calls clever more often is vanity and narrowness." - Goethe, Faust. "I am God! How do I know? Everytime I pray to God I realize that I'm just talking to myself." - The Ruling Class "You may not agree with everything I say, but at the very least, you'll understand that your differing opinion is wrong." -Steven Colbert

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 275

Posted 08/08/07 - 09:52 PM:	#242
Hi tist, my belated reponse to your comments. You said, Because whether objective morality exists is for another thread (namely, ethics). And I am here to see what people think about the deductive validity of my argument and see if they have any good counter-points (I found one good one so far and had to modify my argument). I see more sense in any debate, especially one dedicated to establishing the reality of things, to stick to its guns. If the case from OM does not stand on its own merits, what else but power and manipulation justifies making the assumption (without due evidence) that OM is valid? Are you just debating for mental gymnastics or are you trying to fund the true nature of things? Incidentally, do you believe my argument is deductively valid, i.e. that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God? I do not have any validated position on this. Because I cannot see arguments that support OM, except the desire of many people for it to be this way, I have not worked through this approach. However since I made a comment earlier that objective values (or objective anythings) seem logically difficult where all humans might offer only subjective views, then it seems logical that OM requires something transcendent, and divinity is defined as transcendent. However absolute seems a better qualifier than objective wrt to morality. I would say that absolute implies objectivity, but the reverse does not seem to hold. I never said (people did not torture children for fun) they didn't. I was just providing an example of a sort of command that objective morality might make (and since this particular aspect is not controversial among moral objectivists, it seemed like a good one). Perhaps I misread your earlier comments. I had the impression that you considered this not be a pillar of OM, and that it was self evident that it was not mere human opinion. Even moral objectivits have opinions, and their opinions are likely to be as jaundiced as the next moralist. However, if you did not say that child torure was nowhere, nohow enjoyed then instead is it an example of what OM might produce as a command? If you are correct in saying this, then surely you must also agree that non-child-torture also qualifies for OM, and if you agree that OM is a possibility/probability/likelihood/certainty, then surely you do think that people do NOT get fun from child torture? You seem to say that OM validity is not relevant to this thread, yet the above paragraph seems to a case in favor of exactly this. As I explained earlier, objective morality commands our behavior, and authority by definition is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." Hence objective morality (however it exists) by definition has authority behind it. And if morality is objective, it has supreme authority. We are back with the assumption of objective morality. I agree with you that morality does have authority, although the reverse does not apply. That is, authority does not imply morality. I agree with your logic here, but am not comfortable with the underlying assumption of OM. At what point are you going to build the case with a better validation of OM? The commands of objective morality supersede those of any human leader, because moral objectivism by definition says that ethical truths are independent of of human opinions, feelings, and beliefs. If there is a case for OM, then this statement is useful. If there is not a case for OM, you have a logically valid conclsuion based upon the assumption; however, it has no use as a means to establish another objective position, that of reality. It becomes a political tool, something that is often at odds with reality. Have you heard of reductio ad absurdum? That's the style of rationality I was using here. If you're willing to believe, for instance, that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust (whereas I consider such a belief to be absurd), we just might have to agree to disagree and move on. I suggest that rather than reject this as being a matter of our own subjective opinions, a better approach might be to understand if logic and evidence support a moral position on the Holocaust. If your view of absurdity has some backing I might be more inclined to accept it, than if it is based upon your intuition or beliefsacquired from others. In order for a moral position to exist at all, either we have a subjective, socially constructed morality in which we collectively (at least as a majority with power/authority) agree that the holocaust (in hindsight at any rate) was morally wrong. If a socially constructed morality does seem to be valid, then I regard (as a product of that society and its constructs), then I agreee that the Holocaust is morally wrong. The other option is to prove the existence of either/or both OM or a transcendent being, and then establish (using their criteria) that the Holocaust is morally wrong in an objective/absolute sense. Since I do not see evidence or logic supporting this position, I do not belive that the Holocaust is wrong in an objective/absolute sense. This does not mean we need to treat events like this any differently in terms of consequences. It just means we do not use morality to justify them. If we were able to establish OM or a transcendent being, we have the next tricky problem. How do we establish the criteria (objectively) of either OM or God? Quite the opposite actually. Ethical noncognitivism says there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I have no knowledge of this system, and do not support approachs to the truth by arguing around the merits (or not) of various systems, but rather work on the subject matter itself. In this case, if EC states that neither subjective/relative nor objective/absolute morality exists then I cannot see a practical use for their approach. However, if they are simply arguing that any morality that exists is subjective, I agree that evidence supports this view. I have seen arguments around the standard 'Dostoevsky in Brothers Karazmov' view that "if there is no God, then everything is permissible". I do not understand why this should be so. Not everything in my house is permissible for my children, regardless of any moral content, and it needs no reference to God. It is not permissible because I am in a position to impose and enforce (to some extent) what I want my children to do or not do. I might choose to call it morals, or Dads ways, but it is still my authority to influence, etc. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 08/10/07 - 04:05 PM. Reason: capitalization, punctuation, unacceptable word abbreviations

Calcutechnician
Existential Warrior

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Hull
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/09/07 - 12:45 AM:	#243
Everything IS permitted, people just don't like the idea.
My world is in the universe of all worlds.

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 275

Posted 08/09/07 - 02:43 AM:	#244
Cal, you say, Everything IS permitted, people just don't like the idea. I think this is where some of the semantic and principled issues arise. Its only if we assume that an absolute, transcendent morality is capable of granting permission, that this sentence holds. However, under human systems of relative morality, permission is decided by power. If the death sentence is considered 'right' for those who have the power to enforce or persuade, then it will be 'permitted' for that society, regardless of any possible absolute standard. If you observe what has happened in human society, despite some standards being ubiquitous, they are still relative in some way. Killing/murder is a good example. For most societies, there always seems to be issues with death. However, this varies with the social structure. The central origin of death is around the individual. Since we have survived over thousands of generations and milloins of years as humans, pre-humans, all the way back to early life, we only survive if we are good at it. At least relative to others we compete with. This means that suicide is uncommon in living things, except as an exception. Once we formed family or clan units this value of survival extended to that unit. For those that did not observe this behavior did not survive as well as those units that respected the life of the group members, but it was OK to kill (or otherwise compete/exploit) other groups (of animals or humans). As our social groups have expanded so has the need for the survival of that group. Once again this is a self-fulfilling mechanism. If you start killing people within the group to the extent that the groups holitics survival is compromised, this trait gets outselected by other groups that respect the life of its members. We have come a long way from the human family/clan units, now we regard the in group as the human race, although there are still issues with competing religions as groups. This means we strive toward universal human rights, but religious fervor, national and individual selfishness means we are less than perfect. So we have war, murder, suicide in violation of a universal natural law of life - and that is to live. To enforce behavior that respects the integrity of the group, whether family, team, business, nation, religion some form of power is required to hold selfish individuals together. The obvious benefit of specialisation benefits individuals, but they need to obey rules. Traditions, institutions, rituals are created to make 'permitted' behavior. This becomes the morality of the group, and history shows us that it changes in such ways that it appears impossible that it is transcendent. In my view morality is an extension of our will to survive, the complications of morality arise because of selfish individual desires in opposition to selfish social desires. People in China get shot for fraud. The value of their lives and the effect on society tolrates this without major issues. In the US exceution is a major issue because of the value we attach to the death from how the society inflicts death and punishment. 100 years ago in the US this was less of an issue, Its likely that human rights will change in China similarly to western standards. Barring unforseen jihad type genocides/wars etc. that could reverse the current trend. Its not an exercise of value, just one of emergence and evolution, and the inevitable progress of cause and effect. Because this operates in this way is not evidence that a God does NOT exist, it is just evidence that humans are relative and subjective, not absolute. If we use our brand of morality as evidence for a God, I suggest we will need to really lift our game.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 704

Posted 08/10/07 - 11:38 AM:	#245
I have been away for a bit. Here is a thought.... One of the problems with the argument from the OP is the concept of our behaviour being commanded by the God-based authority of morality. There are a few discussions that spring from that idea that might question whether this command theory makes sense. For something to be commanded, it must be known by/communicated to the agents under that command. A logical consequence of of this is that if something is not known/communicated, it can't be commanded - therefore can't be an objective moral law. Simple deduction. Now, the OP claims that certain things are known - e.g. torturing people for fun is wrong. Let's consider any other moral claims that are in the slightest contentious. As soon as one admits that any moral question does not have a mechanism to identify its answer, one admits that it is not, in fact, a moral question. Is incest right or wrong? By the argument of the OP, that isn't a moral question, because there is no mechanism provided to answer it. That moral positions are communicated by society does the OP argument no good - since we have placed the definition of objective morality outside human influence. Oh dear, we seem to have a very limited moral handbook left. A few basic hunches almost all of us share, and don't seem worth arguing about, after which nothing appears to fall into the remit of morality. So, unless one gives a full set of ethical yardsticks to identify moral truths (and few religions even claim that), objective moral command theory leaves you with the comfort that morality has an objective base, but the discomfort that the majority (or all) moral opinions can't be objective, as they don't meet the criterion of knowability that has to be met for something to be commanded.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/11/07 - 07:38 AM:	#246
hipskipdip wrote: ....Another problem--in fact the most crucial one of this whole thread--is what possible explanations are there for the existence of objective moral values. Premise: objective moral values exists. Question: what is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values? Caveat: not every explanation will work (and it seems that most alternatives proposed in this thread do not). To the best explanation, well, geez, how do we know if it's the best explanation?!!!!!!! Because the only plausible alternative (the brute fact “reality says what ought to be) explanation ends up pointing to God anyway. I’ve explained why objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God, and I’m giving you an opportunity to provide a better explanation. So far you haven’t done that, and haven’t done much lately to address the reasoning of my argument. Please do so if you think my argument is invalid. You and I don't share any one definition of Objective Morality My definition of moral objectivism is actually pretty standard. How do you define it?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 643

Posted 08/11/07 - 09:53 AM:	#247
Tisthammerw hey, I thought id put together a few questions to do with objective morality; Tisthammerw wrote: I’ve explained why objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God,... If by objective, you mean something along the line of "not fixed to any particular perspective" or "independent of any observer" then you have a few problems: 1a)How it is possible for anyone to know what anything is like objectively? This is a sincere question, as our concept of perception seems to require a perceiver as a necessary component of the meaning of the word. If there is an entity which can perceive moral values objectively as described, then they are not objective, but rather covered by the objective of the all knowing perceiver. 1b)You may (and seem to) object that this is indeed the case, and there is an all knowing perceiver who’s perspective is what we refer to when we use the term objective. Your problem then becomes the problem of the human mind gaining knowledge of such a perspective. As this gods eye view is separate from mankind’s view by definition, we may only gain knowledge of it through three methods: i) By sensory based empirical observation, ii) By reasoning about the subject, disregarding assumptions which prove to be contradictory and therefore meaningless (and hope that language can describe the nature of the world). iii) By direct learning/mental intervention from the mind of the objective perspective to our own. It does not seem to be possible to know anything about a universal perspective by sensory observation, or by reasoning. Direct mental intervention may in theory be possible, but it must be experienced in order to be believed. (note I am not saying there is no perspective, merely that we cannot know anything about it) 1c) You may object that revelation forms the best approach for obtaining knowledge of an all knowing perspective. Your problem first becomes one of human communication and social behaviour. Human kind exaggerate things, we have such thing as myth, and we have such thing as ledged. To assess if someone/some text is telling you the truth about a thing, you might consider as relevant: i)Is it in their interests/the interest of the author to lie to me in any way? ii)Can this person be sure of their facts according to the description given and knowledge of the text? iii)Does the reliability of the person/text, and the lack of interest of the person in misrepresenting, outweigh the deviance from normality described by the person/text? It is unreasonable to make the claim that any testimony with any of the preceding failings has the status of unquestioned truth, and without this status it is still doubtful that any particular person or text expresses this true perspective 2)If we have not had a direct mental interaction with an objective perspective, and yet believe such a perspective exists, we must choose from available interpretations as to what such a perspective would be. How can we chose between competing explanations? Is there any possible criteria for making the choice? After all, because the correct choice is only available from the objective perspective, It seems we need to posses knowledge of this perspective in order to know we possess knowledge of the correct one. This is acutely circular, and would conflict with logic at the point it is used as an argument to persuade another of this perspectives existence. One could attempt to deny this by denying that no argument is needed for support of such a persuasion; however we have already ruled out sensory observation as a means of gaining such knowledge, and also [I]a priori[I] reasoning; this leaves us only with either direct intervention or reasoning as a means . Because we are trying at this point to use argument to persuade an individual who has not had any kind of direct intervention, expressing an argument that argument is not valid in this contect, does not help ones cause, and is itself invalid and circular.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 704

Posted 08/11/07 - 10:36 AM:	#248
Tisthammerw wrote: Because the only plausible alternative (the brute fact “reality says what ought to be) explanation ends up pointing to God anyway. I’ve explained why objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God, and I’m giving you an opportunity to provide a better explanation. So far you haven’t done that, and haven’t done much lately to address the reasoning of my argument. Please do so if you think my argument is invalid. My definition of moral objectivism is actually pretty standard. How do you define it? I define moral objectivism as the point of view that morality is not the domain of individual choice, i.e. the opposite of moral subjectivism. How do you define moral subjectivity?

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 748

Posted 08/11/07 - 12:08 PM:	#249
TMB wrote: Because whether objective morality exists is for another thread (namely, ethics). And I am here to see what people think about the deductive validity of my argument and see if they have any good counter-points (I found one good one so far and had to modify my argument). I see more sense in any debate, especially one dedicated to establishing the reality of things, to stick to its guns. If the case from OM does not stand on its own merits, what else but power and manipulation justifies making the assumption (without due evidence) that OM is valid? I'm assuming OM refers to Objective Morality. The purpose of my participation was primarily to test the deductive validity of the argument I presented. As for justifying OM, confer my reductio ad absurdum approach (more later). Are you just debating for mental gymnastics or are you trying to fund the true nature of things? Both. Objective morality is a given for me, what's somewhat less certain is the validity of the argument. Given what I've seen thus far though, it seems valid. Incidentally, do you believe my argument is deductively valid, i.e. that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God? I do not have any validated position on this. Well, if you find a flaw in the validity of my argument please let me know. However, if you did not say that child torure was nowhere, nohow enjoyed then instead is it an example of what OM might produce as a command? Precisely (if I am understanding you correctly). The prohibition against torturing children for fun is an example of what OM might produce as a command? If you are correct in saying this, then surely you must also agree that non-child-torture also qualifies for OM, and if you agree that OM is a possibility/probability/likelihood/certainty, then surely you do think that people do NOT get fun from child torture? Objective morality has nothing to do with whether people gain pleasure from doing a certain deed. A sadist could conceivably gain pleasure from something unethical but it would still be wrong. At what point are you going to build the case with a better validation of OM? A thread in the ethics section perhaps? Have you heard of reductio ad absurdum? That's the style of rationality I was using here. If you're willing to believe, for instance, that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust (whereas I consider such a belief to be absurd), we just might have to agree to disagree and move on. I suggest that rather than reject this as being a matter of our own subjective opinions, a better approach might be to understand if logic and evidence support a moral position on the Holocaust. If your view of absurdity has some backing I might be more inclined to accept it, than if it is based upon your intuition or beliefsacquired from others. We could take a similar stance as to whether the Holocaust happened. How do you know the Holocaust happened? Because of testimony and physical evidence. How do we know that the people and places and things even exist? Because of our senses. How do we know our sensory perceptions are ever reliable? It's something we intuitively recognize. So we're again back at intuition. It could be the Holocaust never happened; from one viewpoint we have no evidence that it did and the belief relies on intuition (it all depends on things like memory and sensory perceptions being reliable). But sometimes rejecting intuition (as in this case) is absurd. If you're willing to believe, for instance, that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust (whereas I consider such a belief to be absurd), we just might have to agree to disagree and move on. In this case, if EC states that neither subjective/relative nor objective/absolute morality exists then I cannot see a practical use for their approach. Approach? It's just a belief on the way things are. However, if they are simply arguing that any morality that exists is subjective, I agree that evidence supports this view. It might depend on what you mean by that. Ethical subjectivism says that the moral obligation depends on what the person believes. If for instance a person thinks he should kill Jews, that deed becomes morally right for that person. Ethical noncognitivism says that allegedly moral statements are like "My stapler should be the color blue," mere opinions with no moral obligation. Perhaps the best known form of ethical noncognitivism is emotivism, which says that allegedly moral statements are simply expressions of feelings, attitudes, and emotions. For instance, when a person says "torturing children for fun is morally wrong" a person disapproves of it--but nonetheless there are no such thing as moral standards. I have seen arguments around the standard 'Dostoevsky in Brothers Karazmov' view that "if there is no God, then everything is permissible". I do not understand why this should be so. Then try to answer this question. Without God, what transcendent source of authority says how people ought to behave? I've appealed to this question a number of times in this thread because it is a crux of my argument. The existence of God provides a transcendent source of authority for objective morality to be possible. Of course, we can enforce behavior via punishment and rule of law, but this does not imply that acts such as stealing are not morally permissible.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 643

Posted 08/11/07 - 12:25 PM:	#250
Tisthammerw wrote: Without God, what transcendent source of authority says how people ought to behave? I've appealed to this question a number of times in this thread because it is a crux of my argument. The existence of God provides a transcendent source of authority for objective morality to be possible. ... As I have argued, we have no way of knowing what god thinks, short of direct intervention in to our own minds. Other ways of receiving such knowledge are unreliable, and stand as much chance of being that particular persons own opinion; more in fact, because people are quick to tell others how to live their lives.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.