Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: First 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Last

Moral Argument for God

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 907

Posted 09/09/07 - 03:44 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: 907

Posted 09/09/07 - 03:53 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: 907

Posted 09/09/07 - 04:04 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 - 04:10 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: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 09/09/07 - 05:42 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 [This is included for the irony.]

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 09/09/07 - 05:47 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 [This is included for the irony.]

lovelikepi

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

Posted 09/09/07 - 06:29 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: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 09/10/07 - 03:36 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 [This is included for the irony.]

TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 296

Posted 09/10/07 - 06:49 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 - 07:53 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: 9
Total Posts: 1914

Posted 09/10/07 - 06:13 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.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Page: First 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.