Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

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

Moral Argument for God

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Last

Moral Argument for God

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 708

Posted 09/09/07 - 04:44 PM:	#301
Kwalish Kid wrote: 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). Here you are denying that non-physical things can exist. That remark is a bit of a straw man. Of course I believe that non-physical things can exist. But that doesn't mean that brute facts of non-physical things don't have their basis in reality in some general sense (in the sense I explained earlier). Perhaps it's best if I outline my argument numerically. Suppose morality is a brute fact (conditional proof assumption) The basis of morality cannot be only itself, for that circular logic would not work (as I explained in my previous post; see also near the end of this post) The basis of morality cannot be literally nothing, for that would include it having no basis in reality. The basis of morality cannot be any specific component of reality, because it is a brute fact. Therefore, the basis morality is reality in some general sense if it is a brute fact. It has occurred to me that I have not done a sufficient job in explaining what I mean by being based in reality/existence "in some general sense." (Hence my previous statement that part of our disagreement seems to be semantical). First off, 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. All real facts are based in reality, and all existing things are based in existence. When I say X is based in existence in some general sense I mean that "It just exists; there is no specific component of reality/existence it is based on (e.g. for why it exists); it is simply the way things are." This would seem to accurately capture what it means for something to be a brute fact. All real facts have basis in reality, it's just that a brute fact has no further reason and no further basis for its existence other than that's the way things are. For premise 2, I'll deal with that next. 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. No, we should say that X is a brute fact and has no basis. Again though, if X has literally no basis, then this would include it having no basis in the universe’s existence and no basis in reality. But all real facts must have some basis in reality, else they wouldn’t be true; and anything that exists in the universe must have some basis in the universe’s existence, else it wouldn’t exist. If you think I am mistaken here, perhaps it would behoove you to address this logic here. IIRC, you haven't done much in the way of refuting it, but I'm not sure how you can argue against it. If for instance 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 a tautology and is trivially true. Of course, perhaps you do not mean literally nothing but think that the basis for morality is morality itself. But if this is true, this is circular logic that doesn't seem to work quite right. I'll deal with that next. It’s a rule of thumb in rationality to frown upon circular reasoning. One could say that morality is an exception to this rule, so perhaps it’s best to provide some justification why circular reasoning is not acceptable here. Other than your posts, there is no circular reasoning here. Then if I have misinterpreted your response, please give me a straight answer to my question as to what your third alternative means. You said that the answer to the question “Who or what says how we ought to behave?” is "nothing other than the brute fact itself." If you are not saying that the basis of morality is morality, what are you saying? Can you please explain your position more clearly? If moral rules are brute facts, then they are brute facts and wishing can't make them have an origin. As I very specifically said in my previous post, I am saying that reality is the basis of morality (under my interpretation of the brute fact position). This is not necessarily the same thing as an origin. According to the brute fact position, it would be a brute fact of reality that one should follow set S. I agree, but then would it be incorrect to say that the basis for set S is reality? By being based in reality in some general sense I mean that it has no basis other that this is simply the way things are (for that is what reality is). To recap: 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. And now for the remark on this matter. You are doing a fallacy of composition error. For any moral question, one appeals to members of the set S. But this doesn't solve the problem of circularity either. A member of set S may support itself, but any member of set O supports itself equally well. Again, circular arguments get us nowhere. And notice that I wasn't asking why we should follow any particular moral question, I was asking why we should follow morality at all (i.e. favor set S over set O). Appealing to set S, saying it supports itself is circular and does not seem like sufficient reason (for set O could make the same claim). The best reason seems to be that the moral values of set S actually exist and that set S has basis in reality. 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). No, the specific component of reality is the set itself, a non-physical existing thing. But as I have already explained, this circular logic doesn't seem to work. When answering the question of "Who or what says we should follow set S over set O?" It is true 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. Again, the best way out of this mess is to say that the existence of moral values have their basis in existence itself; that reality says what ought to be. That is, moral values of set S actually exist and set S is based in reality.
_____________________ 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: 708

Posted 09/09/07 - 04:53 PM:	#302
TMB wrote: Tist, I am impressed by your tenacity to stick with this your point regardless of how little you can support it logically. Then please tell me where my logic breaks down. Lately, the only real basis you had in disputing my logic (in the point regarding my previous post) was an apparent disharmony of the definitions we were using. We were using different definitions and so came to different conclusions. That by itself doesn't mean our reasoning based on those definitions wasn't logical.
_____________________ 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: 708

Posted 09/09/07 - 05:04 PM:	#303
lovelikepi wrote: Could someone please critique my logic here? This is how I see the moral argument for God, and I don't see how it might be refuted. I'll play devil's advocate here. (1) Morality is a set of facts about what is good and evil. (2) Good and evil are qualities of value. (3) Value requires one who values. (4) Only an objective being is capable of an objectively true value judgment. (5) Only an omniscient being can be objective. Therefore, an objective morality requires an omniscient (but not necessarily omnipotent being). If no such being exists, there can be no such morality. One could attack the third premise. Kwalish Kid for instance seems to take one of two positions (I say "seems to" and I'm not sure which one he adheres to, because he has often avoided my questions of clarification); morality could be a brute fact in that (1) that moral values have no basis and thus do not require one who values or (2) the basis for morality is morality itself, which also does not require one who values. Both have their problems I think. If (1) were literally true, if it had literally no basis then this would also include having no basis in reality (and therefore morality wouldn't exist). Alternative (2) avoids that problem, but seems circular and provides no real foundation. My alternative would be that morality has its basis in reality (or the universe, or existence) in some general sense. That is, it has no basis other that this is simply the way things are (for that is what reality is), and the metaphysical basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself. On this view, the answer to the question “Who or what says how we ought to behave?” is “reality.” It is reality that says Hitler should have behaved differently, not some conscious entity who values. (Well, a being may value the lives of those slaughtered but that being would not be the metaphysical basis of morality.) One could also attack premise (5), and say that "Only an omniscient being can be objective" is a non sequitur. Personally, I don't believe that either exists, but I don't think that you can be logically consistent in claiming that there is an objective morality and no objective being exists. Not that being logically consistent has any absolute value either. But I like to be logically consistent. Am I? I think "atheism" and "no objective moral values exist" is consistent, and someone trying to be both an atheist and an adherent of moral objectivism is not being consistent. Moral objectivism seems to require some type of God, some type of supreme metaphysical reality that says how we ought to behave. Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/09/07 - 05:10 PM
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2423

Posted 09/09/07 - 06:42 PM:	#304
Tisthammerw wrote: Perhaps it's best if I outline my argument numerically. Suppose morality is a brute fact (conditional proof assumption) The basis of morality cannot be only itself, for that circular logic would not work (as I explained in my previous post; see also near the end of this post) The basis of morality cannot be literally nothing, for that would include it having no basis in reality. The basis of morality cannot be any specific component of reality, because it is a brute fact. Therefore, the basis morality is reality in some general sense if it is a brute fact. When you get to point 2, then you have a contradiction with point one, so anything you prove from that point on is suspect. It is not circular logic for something to have no prior origin. You keep demanding that everything have some origin outside of itself, which is something that is not consistent with the brute fact position. You will have to provide an argument to the effect that every non-physical thing must have another non-physical or physical thing as its origin. It has occurred to me that I have not done a sufficient job in explaining what I mean by being based in reality/existence "in some general sense." (Hence my previous statement that part of our disagreement seems to be semantical). First off, 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. All real facts are based in reality, and all existing things are based in existence. When I say X is based in existence in some general sense I mean that "It just exists; there is no specific component of reality/existence it is based on (e.g. for why it exists); it is simply the way things are." This would seem to accurately capture what it means for something to be a brute fact. All real facts have basis in reality, it's just that a brute fact has no further reason and no further basis for its existence other than that's the way things are. If this is the case, the you have no argument for panpsychism. Again though, if X has literally no basis, then this would include it having no basis in the universe’s existence and no basis in reality. You are equivocating, as you essentially admitted above, on the term "basis". In one case, you use "has a basis in reality" to mean, "is true" or "is a fact", and in your argument for panpsychism, you use the phrase to mean, "is conceived by reality". These are not logically equivalent. This equivocation is your problem. Then if I have misinterpreted your response, please give me a straight answer to my question as to what your third alternative means. You said that the answer to the question “Who or what says how we ought to behave?” is "nothing other than the brute fact itself." If you are not saying that the basis of morality is morality, what are you saying? Can you please explain your position more clearly? The basis for a particular moral question is the brute fact. The brute fact simply exists and has no further basis. That's what it means to be a brute fact. That is what it has always meant to be a brute fact. There is nothing circular here. If you ask a moral question, you get pointed to the underlying ethical norm. If you ask for the basis of the ethical norm, you get the answer that the ethical norm is simply a brute fact. As I very specifically said in my previous post, I am saying that reality is the basis of morality (under my interpretation of the brute fact position). This is not necessarily the same thing as an origin. It is when you make you argument for panpsychism. But this doesn't solve the problem of circularity either. A member of set S may support itself, but any member of set O supports itself equally well. Again, circular arguments get us nowhere. It is not necessarily the case that the complement (if such a thing can be said to exist) of a set of moral rules is self-consistent. Even if it is consistent, the set S does not support itself. The set S supports moral decisions and moral answers. The set S merely exists. We say that someone is acting morally if they behave in accordance with set S and immorally if they do not. The self-consistency of any other set is irrelevant. And notice that I wasn't asking why we should follow any particular moral question, I was asking why we should follow morality at all (i.e. favor set S over set O). Appealing to set S, saying it supports itself is circular and does not seem like sufficient reason (for set O could make the same claim). The best reason seems to be that the moral values of set S actually exist and that set S has basis in reality. Your answer is fine, if you do not go one to equivocate the weak version of "basis in reality" that you use here with a different meaning. But as I have already explained, this circular logic doesn't seem to work. When answering the question of "Who or what says we should follow set S over set O?" It is true 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. This is your straw man argument again. Though perhaps you simply do not want to understand a real philosophical position, as TMB seems to have concluded. Nobody other than you would claim that S is the foundation of S or that the consistency of S is the foundation of S. I went to great lengths to indicate that I rejected this position. Yet still you repeat this lunacy. So, take the weak version of "based in reality" that you used above and try to make your argument work now.
_____________________ "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 "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2423

Posted 09/09/07 - 06:47 PM:	#305
lovelikepi wrote: Let a morality be defined as a judgment or judgments about what is good and what is evil. Judgments of good and evil are value judgments. Value judment would require valuers. An objective morality would require objective value judgments, and only an objective being is capable of objective value judgments. Therefore, an objective morality would require an objective valuer. To be an objective being, one would have to be omniscient. Therefore, an objective morality would require an omniscient being to exist. Ethical norms are is probably more about what value judgments are correct rather than being value judgments themselves. It seems to high a bar to demand that there could only be morality if there was a perfect moral being. We seem to accept that people can be moral, even though they are obviously not perfect. Also, we can still identify moral rules for agents without perfect knowledge.
_____________________ "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 "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

lovelikepi

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

Posted 09/09/07 - 07:29 PM:	#306
People make moral judgments based on their perceptions, a priori or a posteriori, and their perceptions are not always the same; they are subjective. Just as beauty is subjective, so the good is subjective. However, a judgment made from the point of view of an omniscient being is no longer subjective; it objective. Unless an objective being makes moral judgments, there can be no objective morality; there is only subjective morality. I don't think that the whole "morality as a set of brute facts" argument really works. It is possible and likely that there are a set of general cognitive facts imbued into the human mind that cause it to be moral, but these are not morals. What exactly is a brute fact? So ethical norms are more about what value judgments are correct than being value judgments. Is there a set of objectively correct value judgments about what is right and wrong? Who makes these objectively correct judgments? You, to the best of my own subjective knowledge, are not objective. Nor is anyone else, except for those who are omniscient, who know all. You keep making a reference to Hitler. You act as if you accept the premise that there are absolutely no objective moral values, then there is no reason that we shouldn't stop him. Well, I would say that there's absolutely no reason for you not to create a false moral system to support your, and my, indeed, intuitive moral judgments about killing innocent people. Truth, after all, has no objective value, and there's no reason why we shouldn't believe what is false. This is a very weird way of thinking, and I have to believe things that I know to be nonsense in order to support my own subjective moral premises. Hopefully I'll forget what I've learned someday, and go back fully to the illusion that absolute morals exist. I love absolute morals. If only they actually had the virtue of existing.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2423

Posted 09/10/07 - 04:36 AM:	#307
lovelikepi wrote: People make moral judgments based on their perceptions, a priori or a posteriori, and their perceptions are not always the same; they are subjective. Just as beauty is subjective, so the good is subjective. However, a judgment made from the point of view of an omniscient being is no longer subjective; it objective. Unless an objective being makes moral judgments, there can be no objective morality; there is only subjective morality. Here you are making the mistake of identifying "objective" in the sense of having no particular observational perspective with "objective" in the sense of not having a particular bias. A being with omniscience can still have a personal bias and a set of values that other beings, omniscient or not, do not share. I don't think that the whole "morality as a set of brute facts" argument really works. It is possible and likely that there are a set of general cognitive facts imbued into the human mind that cause it to be moral, but these are not morals. What exactly is a brute fact? It doesn't really matter. The brute fact position is simply a caricature invoked in order to provide a foil to the currently discussed divine command/nature model. However, it remains as viable as the position currently offered in this thread, if not better. So ethical norms are more about what value judgments are correct than being value judgments. Is there a set of objectively correct value judgments about what is right and wrong? Who makes these objectively correct judgments? You, to the best of my own subjective knowledge, are not objective. Nor is anyone else, except for those who are omniscient, who know all. Everyone must try to determine what is right or wrong. Only someone with perfect knowledge is guaranteed to judge correctly. However, the ability to judge correctly according to a set of rules does not mean that the perfect judge is the origin of those rules. We know that an omniscient being has the ability to be perfectly moral, but we have no reason to believe that they will be perfectly moral. There is no reason that an omniscient being cannot be evil. You keep making a reference to Hitler. You act as if you accept the premise that there are absolutely no objective moral values, then there is no reason that we shouldn't stop him. I'm not sure who you are referring to here. I suspect that even if there were no objective moral values, there would be plenty of reasons to stop Hitler.
_____________________ "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 "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

TMB
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 240

Posted 09/10/07 - 07:49 AM:	#308
Tist said, Then please tell me where my logic breaks down. What purpose would this serve. You either have no intention or capacity to consider things that expose your lack of rational debate. I have been over various points (as others also appear to have) ad infinitum, and always you sidestep. You either drop the point totally, or create some kind of diversion. You appear incapable of even approaching an average level of objectivity. With your blind faith in your own reason, who needs a reasonable discussion? I might as well offer counters in another language for all the connection they make to your pre-determined position. As I asked earlier, why bother with the facade of reason, you do it so badly that it appears worse than a position of blind faith. Do you not think you would be better this way, at least that way you could spend less time dodging?

lovelikepi

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

Posted 09/10/07 - 08:53 AM:	#309
Can an omniscient being have a personal bias? The judgment of an omniscient being would have to be true, wouldn't it? An omniscient being does have a personal point of view, but this point of view is synonymous with what is actually the case. Say that there are two omniscient beings. They must have exactly the same knowledge, which is all knowledge, and in effect I think that they would be essentially be the same, and they would share the same values. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about objective beings, and we are speaking in hypotheticals. How might two omniscient beings having exactly the same knowledge reach two different conclusions. How is a judgment made from all possible points of view still subjective? And yes, there are plenty of reasons not to allow another Holocaust to happen even if there are no objective moral values. Perhaps I was referring to another poster. How do you cite other posts?

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 09/10/07 - 07:13 PM:	#310
lovelikepi wrote: Can an omniscient being have a personal bias? The judgment of an omniscient being would have to be true, wouldn't it? An omniscient being does have a personal point of view, but this point of view is synonymous with what is actually the case. Say that there are two omniscient beings. They must have exactly the same knowledge, which is all knowledge, and in effect I think that they would be essentially be the same, and they would share the same values. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about objective beings, and we are speaking in hypotheticals. How might two omniscient beings having exactly the same knowledge reach two different conclusions. How is a judgment made from all possible points of view still subjective? And yes, there are plenty of reasons not to allow another Holocaust to happen even if there are no objective moral values. Perhaps I was referring to another poster. How do you cite other posts? This rests on a false assumption, that everything has either a true or false answer, when in fact there are plenty of things that entire completely on the subject, their is an entire subjective world. Whether you know everything or not, when you think that blue is a better colour than green doesn't make it so. Also, say moral truths actually aren't objective, no such truths exist in reality can be demonstrated or proven. Does this mean that an omniscient being would have no opinion? Would this mean that the omniscient being's opinion would be unimportanted and arbitraryly reached? Also does this mean that two omniscient beings must come to the same moral conclusions? I don't think so. Their views would be vastly more informed and thought out than any humans, but I still don't see how it would follow that they must agree. I think that there is a misguided and unneeded meshing of objective and subjective...and that objective is considered always to be superior in every situation, and subjective is always greatly undersold and unimportanted. I couldn't disagree more, objective is almost intirely unimportanted when addressing subjective matters, and visa versa. They both have their places and uses, and they equally as importanted if applied properly. I think that the problem is that objective values and such are so much easier to grasp, and there is only one right answer (depending on how it's defined, say different measurement scales and such) while subjective issues are always far more complicated, never having a universal single true answer, there are always exceptions to everything. You often hear people say explain love or something of that nature when talking about god. What they really mean is explain love subjectively. When one really can't not in any reasonal or logical sense, it's an emotion, and means something different and feels different for everyone. It is easy to explain objectively, love is an emotional and chemical reaction brought about by external, internal, and/or chemical stimuli. Those are the objective physical elements of love, which are the same for everyone. This is the way I expect god to be explained, a subjective god that is different for everyone isn't real. Something that is real is one or several things, exists independently of subjects and can be described in a universal manner. This is another work of meshing objective/subjective. They can often apply to a single thing, like the question "what is it like to be alive." Life has objectively describable features that can be recognized and understood by everyone. The subjective aspect of being a homo sapien, or more indepthly, being you. Cannot be described in such a manner. I accept that being the case of a god, however if it exists independently of people's minds, then it also has an objective description, and can be understood universally by everyone. Anyone, I've rambled on for awhile. Just thought I'd rant.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2423

Posted 09/11/07 - 04:00 AM:	#311
lovelikepi wrote: Can an omniscient being have a personal bias? The judgment of an omniscient being would have to be true, wouldn't it? An omniscient being does have a personal point of view, but this point of view is synonymous with what is actually the case. An omniscient being knows everything about the world perfectly. That doesn't mean that they have to like the world. Even if the omniscient being knows morality perfectly, that doesn't mean that they have to follow it. Say that there are two omniscient beings. They must have exactly the same knowledge, which is all knowledge, and in effect I think that they would be essentially be the same, and they would share the same values. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about objective beings, and we are speaking in hypotheticals. How might two omniscient beings having exactly the same knowledge reach two different conclusions. How is a judgment made from all possible points of view still subjective? If one omniscient being likes the taste of ice cream, then that being might use its abilities to get an ice cream cone. If the other does not, then that one will not. Why must omniscience make them both like ice cream?
_____________________ "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 "â€¦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: 708

Posted 09/11/07 - 06:30 PM:	#312
Kwalish Kid wrote: When you get to point 2, then you have a contradiction with point one I think that requires some justification. I do not believe it is a contradiction. (Confer my argument saying that denying point 2 is rationally untenable). It is not circular logic for something to have no prior origin. You keep demanding that everything have some origin outside of itself, which is something that is not consistent with the brute fact position. I have very specifically said several times now, I am referring to the metaphysical basis of something (this need not be the same as an origin, as I have also very specifically stated). I request that you please be a bit more careful in getting my position right before you attack it. If this is the case, the you have no argument for panpsychism. Have I ever claimed to have an argument for panpsychism? It is true I have argued that “the universe/reality/existence says how we ought to behave” implies pantheism, but I have very specifically stated that a pantheistic God does not require consciousness. Then if I have misinterpreted your response, please give me a straight answer to my question as to what your third alternative means. You said that the answer to the question “Who or what says how we ought to behave?” is "nothing other than the brute fact itself." If you are not saying that the basis of morality is morality, what are you saying? Can you please explain your position more clearly? The basis for a particular moral question is the brute fact. Unfortunately that doesn't quite answer my question, because the question is what it means to be a brute fact, remember? I'll quote it for you: 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." You're proposed third alternative "(3) nothing other than the brute fact itself" was vague, to say the least. I advanced one interpretation of your statement (that the basis of morality is itself), asking you if it was correct, and you've been a bit unclear whether it is. But perhaps that is beside the point given this statement: The brute fact simply exists and has no further basis. That's what it means to be a brute fact. That is what it has always meant to be a brute fact. There is nothing circular here. Well, it depends on how you define "brute fact." If you mean that the basis of morality's existence is existence itself (which is how I interpret a "brute fact"), then no it is not circular. Is this what you mean? If however you mean that the basis of morality is morality, then it is circular as I argued earlier. But as I have already explained, this circular logic doesn't seem to work. When answering the question of "Who or what says we should follow set S over set O?" It is true 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. This is your straw man argument again. Though perhaps you simply do not want to understand a real philosophical position I apologize, but please be aware of what I was saying. I was in effect saying, "Do you mean this? If so, this position does not seem rational because..." I would have gladly discussed your actual position if I knew what it was. Unfortunately, you did not give clear answers to my clarification questions (e.g. what exactly your proposed third alternative means). Your answers were almost as unclear as "a brute fact is a brute fact" which isn't terribly helpful in understanding your position as to what you mean by "brute fact." Until you provide me with clear questions regarding what your position is, it is perhaps premature to say things like "perhaps you simply do not want to understand a real philosophical position." I do. I would even like to understand yours. At times you it seems by "brute fact" you mean its basis is "nothing" whereas other times it seems its basis is "itself." I wasn't sure which (if any) position you adhered to, and so I argued against both of them while maintaining clarifying questions and/or statements like "if I have misinterpreted your response, please give me a straight answer to my question as to what your third alternative means." If you want me to give you my thoughts on your actual position, please make your position clear.
_____________________ 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: 708

Posted 09/11/07 - 07:56 PM:	#313
TMB wrote: You either have no intention or capacity to consider things that expose your lack of rational debate. I have been over various points (as others also appear to have) ad infinitum, and always you sidestep. It's easy to make villifying accusations to the opposition in controversial debates, but please provide one specific example of me sidestepping a point pertinent to the deductive validity of my argument. I can, in contrast, provide specific examples of you sidestepping such points. A number of times you seemed to ignore justification of various premises (including the claim that morality has authority behind it and that it commands behavior). Sometimes you seem to accuse me of sidestepping points I have already addressed (even when they are not pertinent to the validity of my argument). Consider for instance this exchange: Once again you avoid the crucial question by only answering the second part. The hard question to answer is what eveidence do we have that an objective morality does exist. Because I have already answered that question and I've already offered such evidence, remember? Post #228? We then discussed a bit more on alternatives ethical objectivism, you said, "You might think public nudity is morally wrong and I do not, in this case our relative moralities differ (so we can agree to disagree), but we are in agreement on the moral wrong of the Holocaust." I argued (in post #272) "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." You then sidestepped this point entirely (post #275). You have said, "You appear to have difficulty in seeing that their might some ideas not captured neatly into one of these systems [cultural relativism, ethical subjectivism, and ethical noncognitivism--which implies there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust]" in post #275. I asked you to provide me with one coherent alternative (post #278). You sidestepped this point. Also in post #278, there was this important matter pertinent to the deductive validity of the argument: 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? .... 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. You have subsequently given no explanation as to why you think your objection of the conclusion logically following from the definitions is a criticism. You sidestepped that point entirely. To your credit, you've done a little better lately addressing one of the points at hand; regarding the connection between morality and authority. This point seems a bit bizarre, since in post #242 you have very specifically stated that "I agree with you that morality does have authority." Nonetheless, here I am trying to justify this position, saying "morality makes commands, therefore it has authority." On that matter we seemed to be operating on different definitions. For me, morality saying how we ought to behave (e.g. "thou shalt not kill") is an instance of a command. To you that was apparently not the case (and thus you seemed to use a different definition). Regarding "sidestepping points," naturally, I am going to have to limit quoted sections for brevity's sake. Post #275 was quite long for instance. I am trying to cut to the heart of the matter in the quotes I choose, and I have very specifically stated (post #278) "If I have missed a specific point you would like me to address, by all means tell me." Even when you seem to sidestep my points (for whatever reason) and even though I am at times a little irked by this, I do not seek to vilify you. Let's please try to keep things civil.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2423

Posted 09/12/07 - 04:45 AM:	#314
A brute fact is something that is merely a part of the metaphysics of the universe without recourse to any other metaphysical fact or principle. It simply exists. The brute fact may be the origin of or the reason for other things. If we identify this state with "existing based on reality in general", then there is no argument for pantheism on this basis.
_____________________ "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 "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 457

Posted 09/13/07 - 03:05 PM:	#315
Tisthammerw wrote: 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. But we can have two parties observe the speed of an object, observe it correctly, and disagree. They can use precise measurement, time their measurement to the exact same second, and still they can have different conflicting measurments. This is because in our universe, speed is relative, not absolute. They can both be correct. Why should morality follow rules more strict than relativity?

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5387

Posted 09/13/07 - 03:10 PM:	#316
Makarismos wrote: But we can have two parties observe the position of an object, observe it correctly, and disagree. They can use precise measurement, time their measurement to the exact same second, and still they can have different conflicting measurments. This is because in our universe, position is relative, not absolute. They can both be correct. Why should morality follow rules more strict than relativity? What are you calling their measurement? The numbers each writes in his log book? Of course they differ, they are based on different measurement systems as you note. But, if you convert each to an arbitrary reference system, they will agree. You are misunderstanding relativity.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 09/13/07 - 03:34 PM:	#317
I think the important point is that two things can disagree and both be right depending on the system and the rules. Tisthammerw is simply defining morality in such a way that there can only be one right answer to any givem question, and if two things are right that contradicts the rules. For explain if I define birds as the only flight capable animal then if I find a flying insect or mammal then there is a contradiction. Are the animals wrong? No, of course not, there must be something wrong with the way I'm defining the rules and the terms. The problem with Tisthammerw's terms is that she is starting with the assumption that morality is absolute and objective fact. Then going from there. Trying to prove assumptions backed entirely by the assumptions she is trying to prove. When you point this out it's ignored, and the points simply reiterated without ever addressing the points you've raised.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 662

Posted 09/14/07 - 01:07 AM:	#318
rabeldin wrote: What are you calling their measurement? The numbers each writes in his log book? Of course they differ, they are based on different measurement systems as you note. But, if you convert each to an arbitrary reference system, they will agree. You are misunderstanding relativity. You appear to have edited Makarismos' post, and replaced 'speed' with 'position'. Odd. However, Makarismos is right - this is not a difference of units of measure. From two reference frames in relative motion along an axis, the speed (and mass, and length) of an object in a third frame on that axis will be different. They won't just appear different - they will be different.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 708

Posted 09/15/07 - 08:33 AM:	#319
Makarismos wrote: 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. But we can have two parties observe the speed of an object, observe it correctly, and disagree. They can use precise measurement, time their measurement to the exact same second, and still they can have different conflicting measurments. This is because in our universe, speed is relative, not absolute. They can both be correct. Why should morality follow rules more strict than relativity? There is one difference between your analogy and what I was saying. I said a given action cannot be simultaneously right and not right for Bob. Even in relativity, the velocity of an object cannot be both 20 m/s and 30 m/s for the same frame of reference at the same time. Suppose frame of reference A says 20 m/s, and reference frame B says 30 m/s. What you cannot have is both A and B be true for the same frame of reference. This would violate the law of noncontradiction. There is of course such a thing called ethical relativism, where what a person/culture believes is right makes it right for that person/culture. For instance, ethical subjectivism says that if a person thinks stealing is morally right then it is morally right for that person to steal. What if other people say he's wrong? Ethical subjectivism says a person can only make value judgments for themselves and not other people. Otherwise you wouldn't have a coherent metaethical system. Think of it this way. Suppose Marley believes X is right for him to do, and Bob believes X is wrong for Marley to do. What should Marley do? The theory that Bob and Marley are both right cannot really give an answer to this question (whereas other forms of ethical relativism can). You could reiterate Bob and Marley's beliefs on what Marley should do, but this still doesn't answer the question. Of course, you can redefine "right" and "wrong" to mean something entirely different and end up with emotivism (a form of ethical noncognitivism, which says moral right and wrong do not exist); redefining "right" and "wrong" to mean feelings of personal approval and disapproval, respectively. In this case you can say that both Bob and Marley are "right" in that they are voicing their true feelings on the matter. But ethical noncognitivism actually throws out the idea of ethical truths altogether, so this wouldn't be a form of ethical relativism. For instance, noncognitivism says there is nothing morally wrong with the Holocaust, because moral right and wrong (i.e. correct and incorrect statements of fact regarding morality) do not exist. An noncognitivist may not like what Hitler did. But for noncognitivism it is like favoring vanilla over chocolate. It's just a matter of personal preference and nothing's really wrong. Not even torture and genocide. As you might suspect, I do not find this position plausible.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 457

Posted 09/15/07 - 09:02 AM:	#320
If we were seeking an answer to the question of what speed bob was travailing, and we asked bob to observe it, and Marley to observe it, then they could both get different answers which were correct. I don’t see any case where bob would think that he was travelling at 20m/s and also that he was travelling at 30m/s. His measurements would always agree with his measurements. I don’t see why you would make the claim that they wouldn’t? So there is no difference yet, try again. What principal makes an answer necessary to the question "what should bob do"? Other than your own need for there to be an answer. What if there isnt an answer?

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 708

Posted 09/15/07 - 11:55 AM:	#321
Makarismos wrote: I don’t see any case where bob would think that he was travelling at 20m/s and also that he was travelling at 30m/s. His measurements would always agree with his measurements. I don’t see why you would make the claim that they wouldn’t? Neither do I. Fortunately I make no such claim. I would say however that Bob (in this case) would hold to a view that violates the law of noncontradiction. I used relativity as a counter-analogy when I argued that the correct answer for a given frame of reference cannot be contradictory--that not even relativity permits this. Likewise, it cannot be the case that it is simultaneously right and not right for Bob to do X (confer trying to answer the question quoted below). What principal makes an answer necessary to the question "what should bob do"? The principle that morality exists. If you take the position that morality exists, what you cannot have is Bob think he is right to do X, Marley think it is wrong for Bob to do X, and have both people be right. This, as I said, would violate the law of noncontradiction. This form of ethical relativism is incoherent and would be unable to answer the question "What should Bob do?" (unlike consistent forms of ethical relativism). What if there isnt an answer? Then this would be ethical noncognitivism (the belief that morality does not exist), as I suggested earlier. It would not be ethical relativism (the belief that morality exists and that its truths are relative).
_____________________ 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: 708

Posted 09/15/07 - 12:50 PM:	#322
Wosret wrote: Tisthammerw is simply defining morality in such a way that there can only be one right answer to any givem question Technically I have not. I have defined objective morality as moral truths being independent of what people think, feel, and believe. The problem with Tisthammerw's terms is that she is starting with the assumption that morality is absolute and objective fact. Then going from there. Trying to prove assumptions backed entirely by the assumptions she is trying to prove. Please give me one specific example of such an assumption. I was not, for instance, trying to prove that objective morality exists based on the assumption of objective morality. What I was arguing is that if objective morality exists, it is evidence for the existence of God. My assumption of objective morality existing was my conditional proof assumption (CPA), so to speak. In logic, a conditional proof assumption is assuming a statement is true and see what logically follows as a result, thereby getting a conditional statement. If for instance one made the CPA that statement A is true, and through that one shows B and C are true (when we assume A is true), then one can write down A --> (B & C) (i.e. if A, then B and C are true). Similarly, I was arguing that if objective morality (OM) exists, it is evidence for the existence of God. Yes, I was assuming OM in my argument, but I wasn't trying to prove OM based on that assumption. The aimed conclusion was something different, and so I was not "Trying to prove assumptions backed entirely by the assumptions she is trying to prove." P.S. I am a he, not a she.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2423

Posted 09/15/07 - 12:50 PM:	#323
Makarismos wrote: If we were seeking an answer to the question of what speed bob was travailing, and we asked bob to observe it, and Marley to observe it, then they could both get different answers which were correct. I don’t see any case where bob would think that he was travelling at 20m/s and also that he was travelling at 30m/s. His measurements would always agree with his measurements. I don’t see why you would make the claim that they wouldn’t? So there is no difference yet, try again. Both I and the police officer with his radar gun agree that I am driving a certain speed, even though we are both moving at different speeds relative to any object we'd care to name. This is because we both pick the same reference frame, the road, for pretty much the same very good reasons. In general relativity, two observers, regardless of their relative motions, could very well measure speeds to be exactly the same because they must choose a frame of reference before they begin measurement. The theory of relativity tells us that it is perfectly possible for observers to do such a thing because there is a way to translate from one reference frame to another with out distorting the physics that one might describe. Talk of observers is misleading. Frames differ in certain respects and observers are fairly free in the frames that they choose to record their observations.
_____________________ "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 "â€¦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: 708

Posted 09/15/07 - 01:29 PM:	#324
Kwalish Kid wrote: A brute fact is something that is merely a part of the metaphysics of the universe without recourse to any other metaphysical fact or principle. Except of course reality. All facts are based in reality (else they wouldn't be real), and anything that exists has basis in existence (else it wouldn't exist). A brute fact is something that has no basis other than the universe/reality/existence itself. At least, you don't seem to have presented an alternative to this interpretation of a brute fact that works (or one that you are willing to clarify). If we identify this state with "existing based on reality in general", then there is no argument for pantheism on this basis. There is one, at least in regards to objective morality being a brute fact. If we go by my viewpoint of what it means to be a brute fact (see above), then the basis for moral values existing is existence and reality itself; it's an irreducible aspect of the universe. And if that is true, then the answer to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" is "reality." By attributing the universe (or reality, or existence) with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. You have called this a non sequitur, but it's unclear why this would be true. 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? To recap: A more general definition of God is "the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality." Pantheism is simply equating the supreme metaphysical reality with the universe/reality/existence. Again, it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5387

Posted 09/15/07 - 03:19 PM:	#325
mric wrote: rabeldin wrote: What are you calling their measurement? The numbers each writes in his log book? Of course they differ, they are based on different measurement systems as you note. But, if you convert each to an arbitrary reference system, they will agree. You are misunderstanding relativity. You appear to have edited Makarismos' post, and replaced 'speed' with 'position'. Odd. However, Makarismos is right - this is not a difference of units of measure. From two reference frames in relative motion along an axis, the speed (and mass, and length) of an object in a third frame on that axis will be different. They won't just appear different - they will be different. 1. I didn't edit his post. Read it again and check to see if he edited it after I quoted it. 2. If you understand relativity, then you know that there is no preferred reference system. Any two people measuring the speed, position, direction, mass, and length of an object in motion can get different results which can be calibrated using Einstein's theory. That is as true for very slow speeds as for speeds close to the speed of light. It just so happens that the difference is not measurable when the speed is low. 3. If you insist that Makarismos is right, then you both would flunk Physics. Our measuring equipment is as susceptible to contraction etc, as is the object we measure.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.