Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:



Register | Forgot Password

Moral Argument for God

printPrint


Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Last

Moral Argument for God
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2510
Posted 09/01/07 - 01:58 PM:
quote post
#276
Tisthammerw wrote:
If you honestly think that, I invite you to please attempt to refute the reasoning of my argument. I'll recap it here:

It's probably a good idea to go over this reasoning.
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.

So we have:
1. Ethics determines norms.
2. The norms of ethics are norms of behaviour or activity.
3. In order to be a norm, a norm must have the ability to influence behaviour.
4. In order to be an ethical norm, a norm must have the ability to influence behaviour yet not be influenced by human behaviour.
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?

Nothing really there except a few questions.
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.

5. God is the thing that influences human behaviour and isn't influenced by human behaviour.
6. Without the idea of God, there is nothing that influences human behaviour and isn't influenced by human behaviour.
7. God makes a distinction between morality and personal taste.

Well, this is really the end of the argument, and 7 is just a bonus mistake, anyway.

So, If we assume 1-4, do we get to 5? Well, the arguer has really given us no reason to suppose 5 other than it happens to fit the requirements. One could suppose that 6 is a half-hearted attempt at an argument, but it seems rather shallow, since there are plenty of examples in the world of things that influence human behaviour but that human behaviour does not influence.

7 is just an odd addition, as there seems to be no reason offered to take some of the internal nature of God more seriously than the rest.
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.

Possible objection: 5'. Ethical rules exist without foundation.
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.

8. If there is no outside influence on ethical norms, then there is no norm against killing Jewish people.

8 seems to be a complete non sequitor.

I really can't bring myself to address the odd straw man fallacy that the arguer presents about pantheism. Suffice it to say that no person need argue that the universe as a whole influences ethical norms to hold that ethical norms are brute facts.
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.).

10. If the argument above is not sound, then it is certainly a good inductive argument.

This, too, is a non sequitor, though one perhaps fueled by the straw man argument. In this case, the God hypothesis is offered as something that meets certain criteria, but there is no reasons offered to derive this hypothesis.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein
mric
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 696
Posted 09/01/07 - 10:24 PM:
quote post
#277
Tisthammerw wrote:

There are some. Every or virtually every culture has at least some limitations on violence and theft. At least some general principles seem present (children should honor their parents, citizens should serve the overall good of society etc.), even if we fallible humans muck it up somehow. We can try to appeal to reason based on fundamental and usually-agreed-on principles, e.g. people should not be killed without just cause (though of course what constitutes "just cause" might be debatable).

LOL - an appeal to social observation to prove that there are moral absolutes unfounded on social causes.

Still, if some degree of moral consistency between cultures is evidence of transmitted objective morals (which it isn't, as there are much stronger explanations for that consistency from evolution/anthropology), then degrees of moral inconsistency are evidence of failures of transmission.

This leaves Tist in the uncomfortable position of saying "there are objective morals, and we have some clues as to what some of them are based on consistent accepted social norms, but the majority would appear to be veiled to our sight."

The topic of moral advance has come up before (Tist raised it). Given that there is no reason to believe that we are privy to a better moral revelation/intuition than our forbears, and there is no other way of divining these absolute moral truths, then I have no objective reason to think that our intuitions are better than our predecessors. Tist's world appears to have no scope for moral progress without divine intervention.

For example, perhaps sexual discrimination is right - most people in the world have thought so, and Tist has provided no mechanism beyond testing against societies' norms to provide an objective assessment (since the appeal to one's personal intuition is clearly a subjective assessment).

Of course, another explanation would be that many of the things that are not a matter of moral intuition aren't moral questions at all - Tist's world has no objective mechanism any richer than a social relativist's to work out whether a question is a moral question.

The reason for these points is to show that Tist's argument, whether deductively valid or not (which it isn't), has only a tiny audience to whom it could be remotely persuasive - people comfortable with both the idea that morality is objective in the way Tist has defined it, and also that morality is largely unknowable by humanity because of that very objectivity.


Edited by mric on 09/02/07 - 12:03 AM
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/02/07 - 03:29 PM:
quote post
#278
TMB wrote:

Some of your comments present with with difficulty. I have said that I consider the Holocaust to be morally wrong. You tell me that you doubt this and then proceed to run through a few systems of relative morality, assume that I must exactly fit one of these. And since you reject them all as invalid, does this mean there are no alternatives?


Please give me one coherent alternative. You have said that ethical truths are relative, but neither being relative to the individual or the culture permits you to say that person/culture X is wrong if person/culture X believes otherwise.



The reasoning breaks down because you are saying it is justified as an assumption because you have created a definition for it to be this way.


I'm not quite sure how this is an objection against my argument being deductively valid. Two plus two yield four by definition (mathematicians have created definitions for two and four to be this way). Does this mean it is unreasonable because it is true by definition? Does this mean that the conclusion doesn't logically follow?



This fails the reasonableness test because you are trying to overcome the fact that it is an assumption, by calling it a definition and then deciding it to be true and aplicable in real life scenarios.


Okay, sounds like its time to recap what I'm arguing. I have been arguing that if objective morality exists it is evidence for the existence of God. I demonstrated that OM (objective morality) pretty much by definition commands our behavior (if it exists). For the moment, we can suspend judgment as to whether OM exists. The fact seems to remain that if OM exists it commands our behavior. Saying that my justification is based on definitions doesn't change this.




Hard to say without knowing what assumptions you were referring to, and where you think I draw conclusions (which conclusions are you referring to?).


This should not have been difficult for you to follow, I have stated this as a principle and suggested that you are making an error of principle.


It is difficult for me to follow when you don't clearly explain what this principle is. I very specifically stated that if you were referring to the "assumption" that OM commands behavior, please address the justification.




What narrow confines? Objective morality and God were defined with pretty standard definitions.


The fact that you offered standard definitions does not mean they are not narrow. This mechanism for distracting the argument has a fancy name and is recognised as a fallacy.


Please tell me what this fallacy is (and how I am distracting the argument). As far as I know, using standard definitions and deriving a conclusion that logically follows from such definitions is not a fallacy.



The context of my comment was that you made connections between OM and God and the way you have constrcuted this means you are making sure the initial setup and assumptions will prove the conclusion. I have stated this comment a number of times in previous posts, sometimes more than once, and you still respond with this tack. Are you dancing the tangent with me deliberately?


No, it's just that the reasoning behind your objection here is a bit foggy. Why? It is true I have made definitions of objective morality, authority, and God (all of which are pretty standard) and used them to derive the conclusion that objective morality is evidence for the existence of God. However, it is vastly unclear why this should be cause for concern regarding deductive validity. Mathematicians do things like this all the time: start with definitions, and derive conclusions that logically follow from them. Do you disagree that if objective morality (as I defined it) exists, it is evidence for the existence of God? If you do, and if your only objection to its validity is that I used some standard definitions so that my conclusion would logically follow, I'm not really sure why you think this is a sound objection.




But it isn't. I believed in OM long before I believed it constituted evidence for God. Heck, even some atheists believe in OM.


Now you are really scaring me. Why do you imagine you are the central position in this discussion?


I never said nor implied that I was. Look at the quote in context please. You said, "However since the implicit existence of God is the very reason we cling to OM in the first place." I said this was false and gave examples to prove my point (and one of those examples was not me). There is nothing in the quote about me being "the central position in this discussion."




Hmm...so are you conceding that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God?


I cannot believe this is not a joke. Either that or you are way out of your depth in this discussion. What I am saying is that you are setting up your argument in such a way that it will always prove itself. What dont you understand about this? The idea that you assume OM exists, set up a few definitions to help you along the way, and bingo, you think you have proved Gods existence.


So is that a yes?

What I don't understand about this is (1) why you think your objection of the conclusion logically following from the definitions is a criticism and (2) why you have made statements like "I think this is not valid deductive logic" when you seem to then contradict yourself with statements like this.

I have very specifically said that deductively valid means the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Then you almost seem to act as if the conclusion logically following from the premises makes it invalid.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize. But do please try to explain yourself more clearly.

I will very specifically state this again: I am arguing that the argument is deductively valid, i.e. that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. You may say that the premise (of OM existing) is false, unsupported, unproven, etc. but that by itself doesn't address the matter at hand: is my argument deductively valid? And if not, where does the reasoning break down?



Like I said earlier debates like this seem to distract from the fact that the real issue is that no evidence exists either for OM or God.


I would say there is very good evidence for OM via reductio ad absurdum. For instance, the idea that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust is something I find ludicrous. Ethical relativism similarly leads to absurdities. If you wish, we could debate whether OM exists in another thread. Would you like to?



If you cherry pick this last post of mine, I will no longer take the time to fully respond to yours.


It is not my intention to "cherry pick." I am trying to cut to the heart of the matter in the quotes I choose, and I am only reducing the quoted words of yours for brevity's sake (I invite you to look back at post #275 and see how long that one was). If I have missed a specific point you would like me to address, by all means tell me.

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: 733
Posted 09/02/07 - 03:48 PM:
quote post
#279
Kwalish Kid wrote:

It's probably a good idea to go over this reasoning.

So we have:
1. Ethics determines norms.
2. The norms of ethics are norms of behaviour or activity.
3. In order to be a norm, a norm must have the ability to influence behaviour.
4. In order to be an ethical norm, a norm must have the ability to influence behaviour yet not be influenced by human behaviour.
5. God is the thing that influences human behaviour and isn't influenced by human behaviour.
6. Without the idea of God, there is nothing that influences human behaviour and isn't influenced by human behaviour.


Please be aware that the reasoning you outlined is not my own. I have very specifically stated that morality commands human behavior (which it does, e.g. "thou shalt not kill"). Of course, I think it does influence human behavior in some way, but that is not part of my argument.



So, If we assume 1-4, do we get to 5? Well, the arguer has really given us no reason to suppose 5 other than it happens to fit the requirements.


Remember, my argument is that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. How do we get to this?

A few things: (1) Theism provides an explanation for objective morality (2) Atheism, not so much; (3) The only plausible alternative to theism seems to point to God anyway (i.e. "reality says what ought to be).

I invite you to try to refute the third point.



Possible objection: 5'. Ethical rules exist without foundation.


Indeed, I deal with this objection in my web page.



8. If there is no outside influence on ethical norms, then there is no norm against killing Jewish people.

8 seems to be a complete non sequitor.


Perhaps so, fortunately I do not use 8--though I do use something similar. 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.

Yes, some people could say that Hitler is wrong, but since people are not the basis of morality (if morality has no basis) this is irrelevant. There is nothing that makes Hitler wrong if morality has literally no basis, no source, and no foundation. Otherwise, who or what says Hitler was wrong? The only plausible alternative seems to be reality says Hitler was wrong. But this, as I argued, seems to point to God anyway.


I really can't bring myself to address the odd straw man fallacy that the arguer presents about pantheism.


Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you think it is a straw man. It is not at all clear that it is a straw man (please keep in mind there are a number of varieties of pantheism, but equating God with the universe/existence/reality certainly is one of them).

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: 733
Posted 09/02/07 - 04:00 PM:
quote post
#280
mric wrote:
Tisthammerw wrote:

There are some. Every or virtually every culture has at least some limitations on violence and theft. At least some general principles seem present (children should honor their parents, citizens should serve the overall good of society etc.), even if we fallible humans muck it up somehow. We can try to appeal to reason based on fundamental and usually-agreed-on principles, e.g. people should not be killed without just cause (though of course what constitutes "just cause" might be debatable).


LOL - an appeal to social observation to prove that there are moral absolutes


That's not what I was doing at all. If you look at the quote in context, you'll see I was simply responding to the claim that "there are almost no universal moral intuitions" to which I replied "there are some." Even disagreements on moral values tend to be based agreed upon moral principles (e.g. benefiting society).



The reason for these points is to show that Tist's argument, whether deductively valid or not (which it isn't)


Then please explain where the reasoning breaks down. So far no one has done so.



has only a tiny audience to whom it could be remotely persuasive - people comfortable with both the idea that morality is objective in the way Tist has defined it, and also that morality is largely unknowable by humanity because of that very objectivity.


(1) My definition of objective morality is pretty standard (that ethical truths are valid and binding regardless of human thought, opinion, and belief) so it's unclear why this definition would limit the audience beyond those who are moral objectivists (2) my argument never claims nor implies that morality "is largely unknowable" to humanity.

Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2510
Posted 09/02/07 - 04:31 PM:
quote post
#281
Tisthammerw wrote:
Please be aware that the reasoning you outlined is not my own. I have very specifically stated that morality commands human behavior (which it does, e.g. "thou shalt not kill"). Of course, I think it does influence human behavior in some way, but that is not part of my argument.

So all you are saying is that, in order to be an ethical norm, a norm must be a stated norm?
Remember, my argument is that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. How do we get to this?

A few things: (1) Theism provides an explanation for objective morality

Specific theistic doctrines provide explanations for specific objective moral systems, but as you yourself have demonstrated, not for the ethical systems that seem to be cross-cultural.
(2) Atheism, not so much; (3) The only plausible alternative to theism seems to point to God anyway (i.e. "reality says what ought to be).

I invite you to try to refute the third point.

Again, it is simply a straw man fallacy. You are claiming, for some mythical opponent, that the brute fact position claims that the basis for morality is either in physical objects or in the universe as a whole. Nobody who would hold the brute fact position would argue that.

One alternative to Divine Command is that the ethical norms are brute facts. {i]Yet another alternative[/i] is that the universe as a whole has some kind of sentience of mental existence that is the origin of ethical norms. This is actually a separate claim from the brute fact position, which is the position that ethical norms are simply facts of the universe. Ethical norms need not be any more physical than the norm, "2+2=4".
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.

Yes, some people could say that Hitler is wrong, but since people are not the basis of morality (if morality has no basis) this is irrelevant. There is nothing that makes Hitler wrong if morality has literally no basis, no source, and no foundation. Otherwise, who or what says Hitler was wrong?

This is simply a repetition of the same, unfounded, claim.

If the brute fact position is correct, then it is simply wrong to commit genocide or wrong to commit murder. That's what brute fact means. It may be that you simply don't understand this.
The only plausible alternative seems to be reality says Hitler was wrong. But this, as I argued, seems to point to God anyway.

Again, the brute fact position is that ethical norms are simply brute facts, not that they have some basis in another part of reality.

I don't hold the brute fact position (though perhaps I hold what one might call a sophisticated version of that position). However, all one needs to do is show that the brute fact position explains objective morality just as well as the Divine position.

Indeed, the brute fact position explains objective morality better! This position explains why people of different faiths tend to agree on the basic moral principles and why religions that tend to deny certain moral principles tend to fail or change their religious doctrine. (See, for example, certain Christian doctrines in favour of slavery and genocide [ http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm ]. )

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 265
Posted 09/03/07 - 04:59 AM:
quote post
#282
OK Tist, I am now going to change my approach to try and resemble how yours appears to me. Forgive me if I use some licence to get my point across.


You have said that ethical truths are relative, but neither being relative to the individual or the culture permits you to say that person/culture X is wrong if person/culture X believes otherwise.


OK, but can you prove this position to be as you say it is?

Two plus two yield four by definition (mathematicians have created definitions for two and four to be this way).


Show me how this works in mathematics and why it is then applicable to yours.


Saying that my justification is based on definitions doesn't change this.


Why doesnt it? Please show me how this can work. Surely the idea around

It is difficult for me to follow when you don't clearly explain what this principle is. I very specifically stated that if you were referring to the "assumption" that OM commands behavior, please address the justification.


Please refer to my previous answer for this clarification.

As far as I know, using standard definitions and deriving a conclusion that logically follows from such definitions is not a fallacy.


But just how far do you know? What is meant by the term 'standard definition'. I thought this approach had been undermined by the Cameron school of philosophy and was not longer relevant. If you think it is, please show how Cameron is wrong.

the reasoning behind your objection here is a bit foggy.


I do not see what the weather has to do with this discussion. Please use words that are standard definitions. For further information on this please check with someone who knows what is going on.

It is true I have made definitions of objective morality, authority, and God (all of which are pretty standard) and used them to derive the conclusion that objective morality is evidence for the existence of God.


What is the idea behind mixing 'pretty' and 'standard'. The idea that standards are somehow attractive seems odd in a philosophical discussion. Is there a school of thought on this?

Mathematicians do things like this all the time: start with definitions, and derive conclusions that logically follow from them.


What is it with you and mathematicians? I learnt from school what a strange lot they are. Take it from me you can pretty much discount their views in philosophy, even the Greek dudes.

For instance, the idea that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust is something I find ludicrous.


Brilliant insight. Faultless logic. Overwhelming evidence. You sure get my vote.


I never said nor implied that I was.


What does this mean? You imagine that you hold some position on objectivity, and now that I am debating upon the same lines as you do, I guess I am starting to feel like you do. More power to the objective ones when it comes to morality..

There is nothing in the quote about me being "the central position in this discussion."


Exactly, so what is your problem now?

So is that a yes?


Maybe it is a yes, and yes its a maybe, perhaps its neither, perhaps its both. Words are such wunderbar things to play with. What was the question again?

What I don't understand about this is (1) why you think your objection of the conclusion logically following from the definitions is a criticism and (2) why you have made statements like "I think this is not valid deductive logic" when you seem to then contradict yourself with statements like this.

I have very specifically said that deductively valid means the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Then you almost seem to act as if the conclusion logically following from the premises makes it invalid.


This sounds like a very serious and important question. Should we be worrying about that right here and right now? I dont really want to get caught up in something like this just at the moment. Please go back to your normal dialectic, and drop this nonsense.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize. But do please try to explain yourself more clearly.


Do not be so hard upon yourself, now that I have crossed over to your side, I feel really empowered. The idea that a rational discussion might lead somewhere constructive is a communist plot, and we all know how bad they are.

I will very specifically state this again: I am arguing that the argument is deductively valid, i.e. that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. You may say that the premise (of OM existing) is false, unsupported, unproven, etc. but that by itself doesn't address the matter at hand: is my argument deductively valid? And if not, where does the reasoning break down?


Gosh, you are serious. Why do we need to have valid positions. Lets return to first principles and argue why anything needs to be valid. Then we can give it a Latin name validato bullshito reductio and people are sure to be impressed.

I would say there is very good evidence for OM via reductio ad absurdum. For instance, the idea that there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust is something I find ludicrous. Ethical relativism similarly leads to absurdities. If you wish, we could debate whether OM exists in another thread. Would you like to?


Wow, we are so connected, we both use Latin stuff. I think we can dispense directly with any debate about OM. Lets just vote that OM is bullshit, but we dont care. We will not let that distract us from living like its the Truth (with a great big capital T)

I am trying to cut to the heart of the matter in the quotes I choose, and I am only reducing the quoted words of yours for brevity's sake (I invite you to look back at post #275 and see how long that one was).


Bravo, a man of action. This is fighting talk. Lets get out there and smash these ethical cognitive moralistic relativistic absurdities. A pox on them all for trying to be reasonable. Forwardwe will march, secure in our objective opinions. You have really helped me here. This is a much easy way to post on forums, no need to think too much, or worry about where the evidence leads us. A priori rules. Bring it on!!


Edited by TMB on 09/03/07 - 05:24 AM
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/03/07 - 12:12 PM:
quote post
#283
Kwalish Kid wrote:

So all you are saying is that, in order to be an ethical norm, a norm must be a stated norm?


Yes and no. "Thou shalt not kill" is a command; though it need not be uttered by any human to be morally valid. Nonetheless, objective morality (however it exists) commands behavior i.e. it says how we ought to behave.



Specific theistic doctrines provide explanations for specific objective moral systems, but as you yourself have demonstrated, not for the ethical systems that seem to be cross-cultural.


I'm not talking about specific ethical systems; I'm talking about how it is possible for objective morality to exist at all. Grounding ethics in the heart of God explains why objective morality has its transcendent authority to command human behavior.



Again, it is simply a straw man fallacy. You are claiming, for some mythical opponent, that the brute fact position claims that the basis for morality is either in physical objects


I never said they did.



or in the universe as a whole.


To recap: pantheism equates God with the universe/reality/existence. At first I thought "brute fact" meant "literally no basis, source or foundation." But if that is how one defines brute fact, then that explanation doesn't quite work. It's better I think to say that reality says Hitler was wrong. Why? If there is literally nothing--not even reality--that says Hitler is wrong, then there is literally nothing that makes Hitler wrong.

The position that Hitler is wrong when (1) there is literally nothing that says Hitler is wrong; and (2) literally nothing that makes Hitler wrong; does not sound like a coherent position. Would it not be more coherent to say that reality says Hitler was wrong?

Perhaps this analogy would help. Two plus two equals four. Why? Because the relationship of the definitions says so. If on the other hand there was literally nothing that made two plus two equal four, then the equation is entirely arbitrary and there would be no rational reason to accept it. And if pressed further into the axioms of logic and mathematics, we could say that they are all grounded in reality--reality in some general sense. Reality says the law of noncontradiction is correct. If it did not, there would be no truth to that law (since it would not correspond to reality).

Normally in explanations, we find specific aspects of reality to ground truth in (e.g. empirical data or laws of logic) but if there is nothing else to appeal to, we could say that it is reality in some general sense that the truth is grounded in. This seems to be the most logical path to take.



One alternative to Divine Command is that the ethical norms are brute facts. {i]Yet another alternative[/i] is that the universe as a whole has some kind of sentience of mental existence that is the origin of ethical norms.


I never said that the universe as a whole as a mental existence. I have very specifically stated that a pantheistic God does not require consciousness (e.g. in post #239, where I most recently made the argument you are attacking). I should also point out that I am not arguing divine command theory (and have said very specifically that I was not in this thread).



This is actually a separate claim from the brute fact position, which is the position that ethical norms are simply facts of the universe. Ethical norms need not be any more physical than the norm, "2+2=4".


I never said ethical norms were physical. In fact, I very specifically said the opposite (again, in post #239).

Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 575
Posted 09/03/07 - 12:39 PM:
Subject: Spell it out for us.
quote post
#284
Tisthammerw, Perhaps you should type your argument our in propositional form. That way, it would be much more clear how your premises follow from your conclusions. otherwise I would stop talking, because your not getting your message across.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/03/07 - 01:10 PM:
quote post
#285
TMB wrote:


You have said that ethical truths are relative, but neither being relative to the individual or the culture permits you to say that person/culture X is wrong if person/culture X believes otherwise.


OK, but can you prove this position to be as you say it is?


Ethical subjectivism by definition says that what a person believes to be morally correct makes it correct for that person; and there is nothing (especially the beliefs of other people) that could change this. If this is true, then nothing you say or believe makes this truth otherwise. Cultural relativism says that what a culture believes is morally true makes it true for that culture; and there is nothing (especially the beliefs of other cultures and people) that could change this. If this is true, then nothing you believe will prevent a violently anti-Semitic culture from being wrong about its anti-Semitic values.

What about varieties of relativism that say Marley believes Bob is wrong to do X, Bob things he is right to do X, and they're both right? I tried to explain this in an earlier post by appealing to the law of noncontradiction. I believe this is why there are no widely held forms of ethical relativism that adhere to such a position.

Ethical subjectivism--for all its flaws--at least doesn't violate the law of noncontradiction. If Bob thinks X is right, than action X is right for that person to do. Marley may think X is wrong, but X is wrong only for Marley and not for Bob, regardless of what Marley may think. However, what you cannot do is have Bob and Marley disagree about whether X is right for Bob to do and have both people be correct. This would violate the law of noncontradiction. It cannot be that Bob has the moral obligation to do X and not to do X at the same time. Ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism avoid this problem by limiting the scope of authority to the individual/culture. In ethical subjectivism for instance, a person can form moral beliefs that she should follow but not for other people. This prevents contradictions from taking place.

Of course, you can disapprove of Hitler's actions without saying he's morally correct/incorrect. Enter ethical noncognitivism, which allows people to voice their approval or disapproval of certain deeds--at the price of recognizing that this is just an expression of feelings, emotions, and preferences rather than objective facts. Ethical noncognitivism says there are no such things as moral values at all; this too prevents the existence of contradictory moral obligations. You can say Hitler is "wrong" only in the sense that you don't like what he did--not in the sense that he violated some objective moral standard or any moral obligation.






Two plus two yield four by definition (mathematicians have created definitions for two and four to be this way).


Show me how this works in mathematics and why it is then applicable to yours.


Mathematics and logic are both based on definitions and their consequences. For simplicity's sake (and because its closer to how I'm arguing) I'll use logic. Hairless men have no hair. Why? Because by definition, to be hairless is to have no hair. Thus, it is logical that a hairless man would have no hair.

Objective morality by definition says how we ought to behave. Authority is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." Ergo, if X has the power to command behavior, then X has authority (by definition). Objective morality has the power to command our behavior (if it did not have the power to do so, it could not command behavior). So by definition, objective morality has authority. It has commands of behavior for every living human.

All of this is based on definitions of objective morality, authority, and the necessary logical consequences of such definitions.

To recap with some paraphrases:

Tisthammerw: The fact seems to remain that if OM exists it commands our behavior. Saying that my justification is based on definitions doesn't change this.

TMB: Why doesnt it?

Logic relies upon definitions and their necessary consequences. If we show that something is true by definition, then we have shown it to be true. Given the definition of OM, we can deduce (see the reasoning above) that if it exists it contains some kind of authority. OM after all does say how we ought to behave.

Tisthammerw: I believed in OM long before I believed it constituted evidence for God. Heck, even some atheists believe in OM.

TMB: Why do you imagine you are the central position in this discussion?

Tisthammerw: I never said nor implied that I was. (I was only trying to provide a counterexample that belief in moral objectivism does not imply implicit belief in God.)

TMB: What does this mean?

Pretty much what it sounds like. I never said nor implied that I was the central position in this discussion. The focus of this post is not myself, but whether objective moral values (if they exist) are evidence for the existence of God. In this case I was just trying to demonstrate that one doesn't need to believe that God is the basis of objective ethics to embrace moral objectivism.

Tisthammerw: There is nothing in the quote about me being "the central position in this discussion."

TMB: Exactly, so what is your problem now?

I have no problem as long as you make no further remarks that say I believe I am "the central position in this discussion."




So is that a yes?


Maybe it is a yes, and yes its a maybe, perhaps its neither, perhaps its both. Words are such wunderbar things to play with. What was the question again?


Whether you believe my argument is deductively valid. Again, deductively valid just means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true.

When I ask if the argument is deductively valid, I am asking if you agree with this statement: that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God.




What I don't understand about this is (1) why you think your objection of the conclusion logically following from the definitions is a criticism and (2) why you have made statements like "I think this is not valid deductive logic" when you seem to then contradict yourself with statements like this.

I have very specifically said that deductively valid means the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Then you almost seem to act as if the conclusion logically following from the premises makes it invalid.



This sounds like a very serious and important question. Should we be worrying about that right here and right now?


I think so, considering this is the heart of the matter. Do you think my argument is deductively valid? If not, why not? The objection you gave doesn't seem at all logical (as I explained in the quote). Can you explain yourself here?

Given the evasion of questions and sarcasm I saw in your post, it would appear not.

Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2510
Posted 09/03/07 - 01:35 PM:
quote post
#286
Tisthammerw wrote:
Yes and no. "Thou shalt not kill" is a command; though it need not be uttered by any human to be morally valid. Nonetheless, objective morality (however it exists) commands behavior i.e. it says how we ought to behave.

But it doesn't directly influence how we actually behave, right? I'm not sure what your definition of "authority" is in the case of ethical norms.
I'm not talking about specific ethical systems; I'm talking about how it is possible for objective morality to exist at all. Grounding ethics in the heart of God explains why objective morality has its transcendent authority to command human behavior.

Sure, but as you pointed out, the actual inter-subjective norms of different cultures are not captured by this sort of divine command.
I never said they did.

Actually, you said that was one alternative.
To recap: pantheism equates God with the universe/reality/existence.

Exactly. You claimed that someone who believes in brute fact actually believes in pantheism, which is obviously false. Those who believe in brute fact believe in brute fact, regardless of their position on religion.
At first I thought "brute fact" meant "literally no basis, source or foundation."

And then you decided to think incorrectly and illogically?
But if that is how one defines brute fact, then that explanation doesn't quite work. It's better I think to say that reality says Hitler was wrong. Why? If there is literally nothing--not even reality--that says Hitler is wrong, then there is literally nothing that makes Hitler wrong.

I guess you did. If there is some brute fact making Hitler wrong, then Hitler is wrong. If it is an axiom that every whole number has a successor, then every whole number has a successor.
The position that Hitler is wrong when (1) there is literally nothing that says Hitler is wrong; and (2) literally nothing that makes Hitler wrong; does not sound like a coherent position. Would it not be more coherent to say that reality says Hitler was wrong?

This is simply a misunderstanding of the brute fact position, which could be: (1) genocide is wrong; (2) Hitler committed genocide, (3) Therefore Hitler is wrong. But that is nothing like you describe.
Perhaps this analogy would help. Two plus two equals four. Why? Because the relationship of the definitions says so. If on the other hand there was literally nothing that made two plus two equal four, then the equation is entirely arbitrary and there would be no rational reason to accept it. And if pressed further into the axioms of logic and mathematics, we could say that they are all grounded in reality--reality in some general sense. Reality says the law of noncontradiction is correct. If it did not, there would be no truth to that law (since it would not correspond to reality).

Have you a source for a single person who says that axioms are grounded in reality in a general sense? Do you have any argument that claims that, if axioms are grounded in reality in a general sense, that this is an argument for pantheism? If not, then your argument for pantheism in the brute fact case is equally specious.
Normally in explanations, we find specific aspects of reality to ground truth in (e.g. empirical data or laws of logic) but if there is nothing else to appeal to, we could say that it is reality in some general sense that the truth is grounded in. This seems to be the most logical path to take.

There is probably nobody but you who makes this claim of grounding things in reality in general. Can you find someone who agrees with you? To me, it seems like a non sequitor.
I never said that the universe as a whole as a mental existence. I have very specifically stated that a pantheistic God does not require consciousness (e.g. in post #239, where I most recently made the argument you are attacking). I should also point out that I am not arguing divine command theory (and have said very specifically that I was not in this thread).

You are actually arguing divine command theory whether or not that is what you are calling it.
I never said ethical norms were physical. In fact, I very specifically said the opposite (again, in post #239).

No, you gave that as one option for those who did not believe in God. That is simply a straw man argument, since few, if any, atheists hold that position.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/03/07 - 01:36 PM:
quote post
#287
Makarismos wrote:
Tisthammerw, Perhaps you should type your argument our in propositional form. That way, it would be much more clear how your premises follow from your conclusions. otherwise I would stop talking, because your not getting your message across.


I'm not sure it would be much better; it would primarily be a lot of conditionals strung together and I suspect some people (e.g. TMB) would not be able to read symbolic logic without a little research. That, and I would have to justify the premises with regular English anyways. But perhaps it will help somewhat. Thank you for your advice.

Below are the defined variables.

O: Objective morality exists. By morals being objective it is meant that moral statements are binding and valid regardless of what people think.

C: Objective morality commands our behavior; it says how we ought to behave.

A: Objective morality carries with it some kind of authority.

S: Objective morality carries with it a supreme authority that transcends human beliefs, opinions, and thoughts.

G: God is the correct explanation for why objective moral values exist.

P: Reality (in some general sense) saying what ought to be is a plausible explanation for why objective moral values exist; and there are no other plausible alternatives (except perhaps for G).

E: Objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God.


  1. O
  2. O --> C
  3. C --> A
  4. (O & A) --> S
  5. S --> (G or P)
  6. (G or P) --> E
    =============
  7. C; 1,2 modus ponens
  8. A; 7,3 modus ponens
  9. O & A; 1,8 conjunction
  10. S; 9,4 modus ponens
  11. (G or P); 10, 5 modus ponens
  12. E; 11,6 modus ponens.


The sixth premise effectively says that "reality (in some general sense) says how we ought to behave" is the only plausible alternative to having objective morality grounded in God. As I explained in post #239 however, this seems to point to God anyway. Justification for premises two through six can be found in post #239 . Justification for the first premise is for another thread, but some reductio ad absurdums justifying that premise can be found near the end of post #221. It's not long so I'll just quote it here.


I start with objective morality because for many people (albeit not all) this is an agreed upon starting point. I think most people (albeit not all) believe in moral objectivism.

That, 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.


Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2510
Posted 09/03/07 - 05:49 PM:
quote post
#288
Well, there are obviously some serious problems with that argument. Key are 5 and 6.

Statement P is simply the old straw man argument again. That is, it is the claim that the only alternative to a Divine Command argument is some kind of pantheistic position. Nobody who believes that should be taken seriously.

There is no reason for us to believe claim 5 because no explanation is given as to why the transcendental authority of ethical norms needs to be grounded in anything, let alone God.

There is no reason to believe 6 because there is no logical support for P --> E. Unless, of course, one is wholeheartedly endorsing the enthymeme of the straw man that grounding ethical norms in reality is equivalent to pantheism.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 265
Posted 09/04/07 - 05:28 AM:
quote post
#289
Hi Tist

Does it make sense just to consider that IF (and only if) if Tist Objectivity (TO) exists, then it is proof that everything you say is right? And if by defnition we can say that TO commands our thoughts. This would pretty much wrap it all up and do away with the tedious process of logic and gathering evidence. Thanks for bringing this to us, we somehow feel that we are specially chosen in some way.


Ethical subjectivism by definition says that what a person believes to be morally correct makes it correct for that person; and there is nothing (especially the beliefs of other people) that could change this. If this is true, then nothing you say or believe makes this truth otherwise. Cultural relativism says that what a culture believes is morally true makes it true for that culture; and there is nothing (especially the beliefs of other cultures and people) that could change this. If this is true, then nothing you believe will prevent a violently anti-Semitic culture from being wrong about its anti-Semitic values.


This person you mention, is he the guy you call Bob or is it perhaps Marley, because I have a great idea how to resolve this. Call the first person 'Bob Marley' and send the second person to get some good weed. If he brings it back and they both smoke it, I have an inkling they will see their morality differently. If you like this idea you can have it.

Of course, you can disapprove of Hitler's actions without saying he's morally correct/incorrect. Enter ethical noncognitivism, which allows people to voice their approval or disapproval of certain deeds--at the price of recognizing that this is just an expression of feelings, emotions, and preferences rather than objective facts. Ethical noncognitivism says there are no such things as moral values at all; this too prevents the existence of contradictory moral obligations. You can say Hitler is "wrong" only in the sense that you don't like what he did--not in the sense that he violated some objective moral standard or any moral obligation.


Do you have something going with Hitler? Always I hear this Hitler thing with anti-Semitism. Do you protesteth too much?

Mathematics and logic are both based on definitions and their consequences. For simplicity's sake (and because its closer to how I'm arguing) I'll use logic. Hairless men have no hair. Why? Because by definition, to be hairless is to have no hair. Thus, it is logical that a hairless man would have no hair.


What if we gave them wigs? Does it make them relatively hairless, or does it just mean that noncognitivism will grow on you?

Objective morality by definition says how we ought to behave. Authority is "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." Ergo, if X has the power to command behavior, then X has authority (by definition). Objective morality has the power to command our behavior (if it did not have the power to do so, it could not command behavior). So by definition, objective morality has authority. It has commands of behavior for every living human.

All of this is based on definitions of objective morality, authority, and the necessary logical consequences of such definitions.


This is all very well, but will it respect you in the morning?


To recap with some paraphrases:
OM after all does say how we ought to behave.

The focus of this post is not myself, but whether objective moral values (if they exist) are evidence for the existence of God. In this case I was just trying to demonstrate that one doesn't need to believe that God is the basis of objective ethics to embrace moral objectivism.

I have no problem as long as you make no further remarks that say I believe I am "the central position in this discussion."


I dont see how this addresses the issue with the termites at the zoo. For a number of years now, all prey animals are euthanased prior to being fed to the predators, all except termites being fed to the ant-eaters. Is it just that they refuse to eat dead termites, or is there a something more sinister afoot?

When I ask if the argument is deductively valid, I am asking if you agree with this statement: that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God.


But can you define God?

What I don't understand about this is (1) why you think your objection of the conclusion logically following from the definitions is a criticism and (2) why you have made statements like "I think this is not valid deductive logic" when you seem to then contradict yourself with statements like this.

I have very specifically said that deductively valid means the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Then you almost seem to act as if the conclusion logically following from the premises makes it invalid.


I am getting the sense that you think contradiction is not a good thing. Perhaps its just had a bum rap, and fallen victim to the relativist nazis. Get it, thats like a joke? I said the 'nazis', and it just cracks me up. See, its a pun about people who are pedantic and draconian, and they are also the ones we are talking about on the moral stuff. It might be something like a double entendre or a dipthong thingie. Does it crack you up too?

I think so, considering this is the heart of the matter. Do you think my argument is deductively valid? If not, why not? The objection you gave doesn't seem at all logical (as I explained in the quote). Can you explain yourself here?


Actually I just made that up as it did'nt seem that important. Good thing you didnt put much thought into the response.

Given the evasion of questions and sarcasm I saw in your post, it would appear not.


Tist, I am strongly sensing that you and I have really clicked with the last few posts. Do you feel this too?
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/04/07 - 04:02 PM:
quote post
#290
Kwalish Kid wrote:
But it doesn't directly influence how we actually behave, right?


I didn't say that. Here's what I am saying: whether it does this or is not part of my argument.

To recap: pantheism equates God with the universe/reality/existence.
Exactly. You claimed that someone who believes in brute fact actually believes in pantheism


Technically I didn't. I did argue however that interpreting "brute fact" as "reality says how we ought to behave" is the only plausible way to argue it being a brute fact.

This is simply a misunderstanding of the brute fact position, which could be: (1) genocide is wrong; (2) Hitler committed genocide, (3) Therefore Hitler is wrong.


There are at least two possible interpretations of the brute fact position: (1) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing"; or (2) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "reality."

I'll try to argue against (1) again, taking it a bit more slowly this time. Suppose the "brute fact" explanation is that there is literally no basis and no source for objective morality; that the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing." If however the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing," then there is nothing that says how we ought to behave (do you dispute this?). But if this is true; then there is literally nothing that says Hitler ought to have behaved differently when he decided to slaughter millions of Jews. Perhaps a better interpretation of the "brute fact" position is to say that reality (in some general sense) says how we ought to behave. Otherwise, nothing says how we ought to behave and nothing makes Hitler wrong. After all, if a fact were not grounded in reality, it would not be true. Correct?


Have you a source for a single person who says that axioms are grounded in reality in a general sense?


Me. I admit this is a somewhat unique (as far as I know) way to think of a brute fact, but it doesn't change the logic of my argument. Would you care to address it?


Do you have any argument that claims that, if axioms are grounded in reality in a general sense, that this is an argument for pantheism?


Yes, at least when it comes to objective morality. Would you care to address it?

It's actually pretty concise. We're ascribing the universe/reality/existence with supreme metaphysical authority over moral right and wrong above us mortals. Therefore, it is pantheism (equating the supreme metaphysical reality with the universe/reality/existence).


You are actually arguing divine command theory


I have very specifically said I was not. Would you care to justify your claim?

Perhaps we are using definitions. I define divine command theory as the basis of objective morality being whatever God commands. I do not adhere to this theory. Rather, I think the connection between God and morality is more elemental than that; that objective morality is an inseparable part of who and what God is. Do you call this divine command theory? If so on what grounds?


There is probably nobody but you who makes this claim of grounding things in reality in general. Can you find someone who agrees with you? To me, it seems like a non sequitor.


We often justify assertions by using specific aspects of reality (e.g. laws of logic) but we could say that the "brute fact" basics are all grounded in reality--reality in some general sense. Reality says the law of noncontradiction is correct. If it did not, there would be no truth to that law (since it would not correspond to reality). Correct?


No, you gave that as one option for those who did not believe in God. That is simply a straw man argument, since few, if any, atheists hold that position.


A straw man? Never did I claim that anyone believed in the position you described. I simply implied that this option (being grounded in something physical) was not plausible, and therefore this pantheistic God (if he were the basis of ethics) must be incorporeal.


Kwalish Kid wrote:
Statement P is simply the old straw man argument again. That is, it is the claim that the only alternative to a Divine Command argument is some kind of pantheistic position.


(1) How it is a straw man? I have asked you this question before but you have declined to answer. (2) I am saying that "reality says what ought to be" is the only plausible alternative. Do you have another?


There is no reason for us to believe claim 5 because no explanation is given as to why the transcendental authority of ethical norms needs to be grounded in anything


I have provided an explanation. Perhaps you can at least address it before claiming it doesn't exist?


There is no reason to believe 6 because there is no logical support for P --> E.


I have provided reason to believe this premise. Perhaps you could at least address the justification I proffered before claiming there is no justification?

And perhaps you can justify your straw man accusation?

Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/04/07 - 05:07 PM. Reason: grammatical correction

Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2510
Posted 09/04/07 - 06:18 PM:
quote post
#291
Tisthammerw wrote:
There are at least two possible interpretations of the brute fact position: (1) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing"; or (2) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "reality."

Is straw man the only arguing technique you know? There is also the actual brute fact position, (3) nothing other than the brute fact itself.
I'll try to argue against (1) again, taking it a bit more slowly this time. Suppose the "brute fact" explanation is that there is literally no basis and no source for objective morality; that the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing." If however the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing," then there is nothing that says how we ought to behave (do you dispute this?).

Actually, yes. If something exists as a brute fact, then by the definition of brute fact it needs no source or origin. So, in this case, if the brute fact has no origin or source, it still is a brute fact.
It's actually pretty concise. We're ascribing the universe/reality/existence with supreme metaphysical authority over moral right and wrong above us mortals. Therefore, it is pantheism (equating the supreme metaphysical reality with the universe/reality/existence).

This, at least on its own, is what we call a non sequitor. Certainly we can attribute to reality as a whole principles that rule our physical existence without assuming pantheism. You have given us no reason to distinguish metaphysical claims from physical claims.
Perhaps we are using definitions. I define divine command theory as the basis of objective morality being whatever God commands. I do not adhere to this theory. Rather, I think the connection between God and morality is more elemental than that; that objective morality is an inseparable part of who and what God is. Do you call this divine command theory? If so on what grounds?

It is a divine command theory because what is moral is merely that which arises from the nature of the deity. You explicitly deny any source of moral rules from outside the nature of the deity. Thus, you are arguing a divine command theory.

If you were arguing that the deity just happened to have morality in its nature, though morality had its source somewhere else, then you would not be arguing divine command theory.

Indeed, you are explicitly denying any other basis for morality except that which arises from the nature of the deity.
We often justify assertions by using specific aspects of reality (e.g. laws of logic) but we could say that the "brute fact" basics are all grounded in reality--reality in some general sense. Reality says the law of noncontradiction is correct. If it did not, there would be no truth to that law (since it would not correspond to reality). Correct?

We might say that the law of non-contradiction is part of reality, but we would not say that it was grounded in reality as a whole. Unless we ere saying that the law was merely contingently true, that is, that it happens to hold over the sum of the objects and relations in the universe. Few people hold this position.
A straw man? Never did I claim that anyone believed in the position you described. I simply implied that this option (being grounded in something physical) was not plausible, and therefore this pantheistic God (if he were the basis of ethics) must be incorporeal.

No, a straw man argument can also be attacking a laughably weak position rather than actually building a case for one's own position.
(1) How it is a straw man? I have asked you this question before but you have declined to answer. (2) I am saying that "reality says what ought to be" is the only plausible alternative. Do you have another?

I have answered. It is a weak position that nobody holds. Only you think that a brute fact believer would claim that the basis for moral rules is reality as a whole. You address this weak position rather than write a direct argument for your own position.
I have provided an explanation. Perhaps you can at least address it before claiming it doesn't exist?

You have written no argument. All you have said is that if there is no basis, then there is no fact. Yet this is merely to restate your conclusion.
I have provided reason to believe this premise. Perhaps you could at least address the justification I proffered before claiming there is no justification?

In the logical argument diagrammed, there is nothing to justify P --> E. As this is the weakest part of your argument, indeed it is a part that requires argument, it is not surprising that you fail to justify it in the diagram.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/06/07 - 04:25 PM:
quote post
#292
Kwalish Kid wrote:


There are at least two possible interpretations of the brute fact position: (1) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing"; or (2) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "reality."


Is straw man the only arguing technique you know? There is also the actual brute fact position


But what does it actually mean for something to be a brute fact? That's what I was getting at. And may I ask you what straw man you are referring to? I was just outlining possibilities for what it means to be a brute fact; I wasn't distorting anyone's position. Here are at least two possible interpretations of the brute fact position: (1) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing"; or (2) the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "reality."

Let's take a look at your answer to the question: "(3) nothing other than the brute fact itself."

This third alternative might need some explaining. "Who or what says what ought to be?" "The brute fact!" What brute fact? Well, perhaps you are referring to morality. Morality says how we ought to behave. But what is morality? How we ought to behave. So how we ought to behave says how we ought to behave. True, but circular and provides no real answer to the question. If this response doesn't carry the same meaning as "nothing" it's not much better (if indeed it is better; the response "nothing" is at least non-circular).

Unless perhaps you can explain yourself? It that wasn't what you meant I'm honestly not sure what you do mean by your proposed third alternative.




If however the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing," then there is nothing that says how we ought to behave (do you dispute this?).


Actually, yes. If something exists as a brute fact, then by the definition of brute fact it needs no source or origin. So, in this case, if the brute fact has no origin or source, it still is a brute fact.


Claiming a brute fact requires no source does not change the logic of what I said. If the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "nothing," then there is nothing that says how we ought to behave. This is tautological. One might as well dispute the statement that hairless men have no hair. So on what grounds do you dispute my claim here?




We're ascribing the universe/reality/existence with supreme metaphysical authority over moral right and wrong above us mortals. Therefore, it is pantheism (equating the supreme metaphysical reality with the universe/reality/existence).


This, at least on its own, is what we call a non sequitor.


I'm not sure why you think this. We're ascribing the universe/reality/existence with supreme metaphysical authority telling everyone how to behave, so why exactly doesn't this imply that universe/reality/existence is the supreme metaphysical reality? If that doesn't, what does?



It is a divine command theory because what is moral is merely that which arises from the nature of the deity.


Then we are indeed using different definitions. I (and my philosophy textbooks) define divine command theory as morality arising from the commands of the deity. Grounding morality in God's nature is different, and I can think of at least one prominent philosopher on the top of my head who would think so.




We often justify assertions by using specific aspects of reality (e.g. laws of logic) but we could say that the "brute fact" basics are all grounded in reality--reality in some general sense. Reality says the law of noncontradiction is correct. If it did not, there would be no truth to that law (since it would not correspond to reality). Correct?


We might say that the law of non-contradiction is part of reality, but we would not say that it was grounded in reality as a whole. Unless we ere saying that the law was merely contingently true, that is, that it happens to hold over the sum of the objects and relations in the universe.


Just because something is based in reality does not mean it is contingently true. All real facts have some basis in reality, else they wouldn't be true.

What part of reality is the law of noncontradiction grounded in? Mount Rushmore? Would it not make sense to say that the law has its basis in reality in some general sense?



No, a straw man argument can also be attacking a laughably weak position rather than actually building a case for one's own position.


Methinks you put forth the straw man accusation a bit too quickly. I was building a case for my position by (in part) eliminating other possibilities. Many arguments attack weak positions on their way to the conclusion, e.g. proof by contradiction (a self-contradictory statement is a very weak position). Are these straw man as well?

It's not clear that stating A or ~A, and then using an argument from implausibility to argue ~A is false to get A is a straw man. If ethics has its basis in pantheism, this basis is either corporeal or incorporeal. It seems implausible that morality has its basis in the physical world, therefore its basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must be incorporeal. This argument is not a straw man merely because it eliminates a weak position to get to the desired conclusion. Otherwise many rational arguments are straw men.




I have provided an explanation. Perhaps you can at least address it before claiming it doesn't exist?



You have written no argument.


But I have. I argued that the only plausible interpretation of morality being a "brute fact" is that the answer to the question of "who or what says how we ought to behave?" is reality. The alternative answer "nothing" (for reasons I argued earlier) doesn't seem to work.

Your response to the question "brute fact" doesn't seem to work either, at least not without some further explanation.




I have provided reason to believe this premise. Perhaps you could at least address the justification I proffered before claiming there is no justification?


In the logical argument diagrammed, there is nothing to justify P --> E.


I have provided justification a number of times. You may think it is poor justification, but please don't pretend that it doesn't exist. This is potentially misleading.

But perhaps its best to take things one at a time; let's start with what it means for something to be a "brute fact." What does your answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" mean exactly? Does it mean anything non-circular? If so what?

Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2510
Posted 09/06/07 - 06:12 PM:
quote post
#293
Sigh.

If there are ethical rules that are brute facts, then there is no thing that is responsible for stating these facts. The facts are simply a (non-physical) part of the universe. They have authority by virtue of being ethical norms, that is, authority is part of their nature, not their origin.

At the same time, it is mistaken to identify reality as the origin of a particular moral rule. Rather, it is the ethical norm that one should appeal to. The ethical norm is simply a fact, one constituent of the universe, taken broadly and metaphysically.

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 265
Posted 09/08/07 - 04:15 AM:
quote post
#294
I'm not sure it would be much better; it would primarily be a lot of conditionals strung together and I suspect some people (e.g. TMB) would not be able to read symbolic logic without a little research. That, and I would have to justify the premises with regular English anyways. But perhaps it will help somewhat. Thank you for your advice.
This is presumptive arrogance, and pretty rich coming from you. For example you consistently roll out this comment as a justification for OM. I do see how your opinion of incoherence or plain nuts represents a rational position. To argue that most people think OM is an agreed starting point, does not mean this is true, or even if so, that we should accept that majority opinion implies rational behavior.

I start with objective morality because for many people (albeit not all) this is an agreed upon starting point. I think most people (albeit not all) believe in moral objectivism.

That, 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.
If you think this is a rational, evidence based argument worth repeating, you need to review your standards.

Below are the defined variables.

O: Objective morality exists. By morals being objective it is meant that moral statements are binding and valid regardless of what people think.
I disagree with one aspect of this only. I accept the assumption that one can define aspects of this, but to consider OM to be binding makes no sense when you observe on a daily basis that morality of any kind does not bind people. The idea of OM is that it is immutable does not mean people have no option but to behave according to this, but that they can be judged on this basis. Trying to force fit this into your assumption at this point muddies the concept that OM is immutable and independent of human perspective.

Based upon Boolean logic, you are offering a compound proposition, without any attempt to reduce this to simple propositions. ie. there is such a thing as morality that places value on human behavior and secondly objectivity is a system external to relative factors, and as such, immutable and immortal. You then continue with this compound proposition with:

C: Objective morality commands our behavior; it says how we ought to behave.
Once again, I think you are mixing concepts here. I agree that OM defines how we ought to be behave, but this is the not the same as commanding behavior. It attempts to command, but it does not and might not succeed. If you refer to your definition of authority the implication is that people do follow the dictates of morality, when clearly many do not, and even among those that do, definitions of moral behavior varies.

Regarding Boolean validity, you have taken the compound proposition of OM, and defined it as having additional traits. The further complicates the proposition, however you are not using operators to achieve this, and have no truth vaildation at each expansion of the proposition.

A: Objective morality carries with it some kind of authority.
I disagree with the basis for this assumption. Surely the intention of OM is that it is independent of humanity. I do not see quite how this independence imbues it with any authority. This assumption appears to be intent on leading to the conclusion of a divinity. However, let's leave this one and see where it goes. I also think that given the next statement, this one is unnecessary.

From a Boolean perspective you are taking the original proposition and creating another compound proposition, once again without using an operator to achieve this. This leaves you with an increasingly complex proposition without any validation of the reducible components.

S: Objective morality carries with it a supreme authority that transcends human beliefs, opinions, and thoughts.
Yet again you are mixing concepts. On the one hand you are describing the independence from human standards of any kinds and then throwing in its capacity for authority. Because these are assumptions, it is possible to put in as many caveats as you wish, but you are also attemption a reasoned approach to this, so I suggest you apply yourself better to this end.

Your Boolean position continues on the initial path. More complication of the proposition, no clear definition of the operator used (if any).

G: God is the correct explanation for why objective moral values exist.
I accept this is part of the assumptive preamble, but rational process is better served by phrasing this as 'God is one possible explanation for why OM values exists' - ie. this leaves you with a logical and evidence based challenge to see if this can be proven.

John Boole would be turning in his grave. You introduce a hitherto unknown entity as part of another compound proposition. Once again no operators are used to establish how you have moved from the previous compound proposition to this one, i.e. no form of assertion as to the logical or causal relationship. For example, since OM exists and God is both moral, and objective, then God is one possible source of OM (a logical relationship). Further validation might then be required to establish other possible sources of OM, and further logical and causal relationships with God as the source. However you are not using the existence of OM to prove God. You are taking a position of God being in existence, building it upon your assumption of OM, then offering it as proof of God.

P: Reality (in some general sense) saying what ought to be is a plausible explanation for why objective moral values exist; and there are no other plausible alternatives (except perhaps for G).
This appears to be part of the evidence based process. Are you saying that because we have a view of what 'ought to be' (based upon what standard though?) is a plausible explanation that OM values exist? You are offering this as a deductive process, however it does not follow that OM is the only (or even the most plausible) option for there being an 'ought to be'. However, let's move to the next stage.

From a Boolean perspective, you have switched tacks totally, and introduced an argument for OM, itself a compound proposition that you assumed existed in the first place. You appear to offer this 'If something says 'what ought to be', then this is evidence for OM', without considering any other causal or logical relationships that might achieve the same. For example, reality demands everything to be objective, and reality includes a demand for moral codes, therefore these must be objective morals (logical relationship). It is difficult to see how a causal relationship that the truth value could easily be established for, e.g. 'because we need OM, it must exist'. Or since we observe ceratin moral behaviors to be immutable and timeless, we will define these to be objective.

E: Objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God.
Based upon the path you have followed above you then reach your conclusion, but since the God you have introduced has no defined meaning, even based upon what invalid propositions were derived from the process you offered, its hard to consider that anything at all has been logically established.

O
Let's assume that moral standards exist, independently of human perspective, and these are binding.

O --> C
Given these moral standards, they tell how we ought to behave and we are commanded by these (meaning we have no choice?)

C --> A
C is ambiguous (as shown above). If you stated only that OM commands behavior, then it does indeed have authority by definition. The problem with this is that they are the same proposition. There is no operator used to validate a compound proposition, so nothing additional has been added to this proposition. It's further complicated by the unrelated relationship to that morals are about how we 'ought to behave'.

(O & A) --> S
Based upon your assumption that OM does exist and is defined as having authority, you then conclude that OM must have a supreme authority that transcends human subjectivity. This is further duplication. If it is defined as existing, this also defines it as transcending human relativity.

S --> (G or P)
OM carries supreme authority and transcends human relativity, opinions, thoughts etc MIGHT lead to God, but its not a definite unless you have explored other options like as you say P. OM carrying supreme, objective authority leads to the reality that saying how we ought to behave means it must be objective. No Boolean logic here.

(G or P) --> E
Existence of God, itself carried through this muddy, illogical process, leads you draw the conclusion that OM is evidence for the existence of God. Your process shows no logical relationship and certainly does not show any causal relationship. If you defined that OM does exist as a definition, and it can only be effected by the existence of a divinity, and God is the only one such divinity, you will succeed in displaying a logical relationship. But this is not a difficult exercise. The hard part is finding a causal relationship, especially if you are required to validate starting assumptions.

If the only thing you need is the comfort of an exercise to establish a logical relationship between OM and God then that can be done easily, but it does not mean it is an accurate reflection of the way things are. This requires more than simple logic.

=============

C; 1,2 modus ponens

A; 7,3 modus ponens

O & A; 1,8 conjunction

S; 9,4 modus ponens

(G or P); 10, 5 modus ponens

E; 11,6 modus ponens.


Some very impressive notation used here. Perhaps this is evidence for our ability to use words and fancy labels to avoid staring reality in the face. Overall, Tist, this has not been an effective exercise in logic on your part. Your suggestion about me needing some research on the symbolic notation in logic was a valid point and I went looking. On the other hand, you might not be helped by this information, as the a priori approach you take requires no logic, just a superfical appearance of reason and some big words.

Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 09/21/07 - 08:03 AM. Reason: capitalization
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 733
Posted 09/08/07 - 07:22 AM:
quote post
#295
Kwalish Kid wrote:
Sigh.
If there are ethical rules that are brute facts, then there is no thing that is responsible for stating these facts.


But if this is literally true, then not even reality says these facts exist, and these facts would have no basis in reality.

Part of our disagreement seems to be semantical. Both of us agree (I think) that if morality exists it must have some basis in reality. A "brute fact" cannot be justified by referring to specific components of existence, it simply exists and the basis for its existence is existence itself.

Note that when I say something's basis is "reality in some general sense" I am not saying that every component of reality makes it true. For instance, if we got rid of Mount Rushmore morality would still exist. However, the basis behind morality's existence--if it is a brute fact--cannot be reduced to further components of existence, and thus the metaphysical basis for morality is simply existence itself (remember, if morality were not based in existence, it would not exist).



The facts are simply a (non-physical) part of the universe.


Perhaps so, but all facts have some basis in the universe/reality/existence, else they wouldn't exist. If we cannot reduce X's basis to further components of reality (as we can with e.g. we can justify the existence of a storm by appealing to weather patterns) then one could say that the basis of X is simply reality itself.



[ I ]t is mistaken to identify reality as the origin of a particular moral rule.


Reality is the basis of morality. All real facts have some basis in reality, else they would not be true. Regardless of what morality's basis is, reality will say what ought to be (in some sense). If there is no specific component of the universe/reality/existence, one could say that the basis of morality's existence is existence itself.

You haven't given a straight answer to what you're third alternative means (and if I was right about it meaning "morality supports itself"), but this seems close to answer in the affirmative (if I have misunderstood you, please correct me and provide a straight answer to my question).



[ I ]t is mistaken to identify reality as the origin of a particular moral rule. Rather, it is the ethical norm that one should appeal to.


Its a rule of thumb in rationality to frown upon circular reasoning. One could say that morality is an exception to this rule, so perhaps its best to provide some justification why circular reasoning is not acceptable here.

What is morality? Morality is a certain set of values, norms and principles of what people ought and ought not to do. Let morality equal set S, where S is such a collection of all principles and statements of what we ought to do. Anything immoral violates something in set S. An example of a moral value set S might contain is one should not torture infants for fun. Let set O be the opposite of all statements in set S. An example of a norm in set O might be one should torture infants for fun. Who or what says we should follow set S over set O? One could cite set S; it supports itself. But the antithesis set O supports itself equally as well, and so circular arguments get us nowhere.

We could of course say that set S is different because set S is by definition the "correct" one (if moral values exist); i.e. it's the one that's real, whose values actually exist and has basis in reality. But if this is the crucially distinguishing feature, then this is just the same thing as saying that the basis for moral values existing is reality/existence itself; that it is reality in some general sense that says how we ought to behave (if there is no specific component of reality that does so).

Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/08/07 - 03:03 PM

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: 733
Posted 09/08/07 - 02:43 PM: