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:

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.

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.).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

mric wrote:


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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

the reasoning behind your objection here is a bit foggy.

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.

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

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

I never said nor implied that I was.

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

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?

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?

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).

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.

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.

I never said they did.

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.

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).

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

Kwalish Kid wrote:
But it doesn't directly influence how we actually behave, right?

Exactly. You claimed that someone who believes in brute fact actually believes in pantheism

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.

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?

You are actually arguing divine command theory

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Kwalish Kid wrote:



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

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.

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

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

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.

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

You have written no argument.

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

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.

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.

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.

O

O --> C

C --> A

(O & A) --> S

S --> (G or P)

(G or P) --> E

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

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.