Moral Argument for God: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: First 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Last

Moral Argument for God

Tisthammerw
Professor

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

Posted 09/15/07 - 07:41 PM:	#331
Kwalish Kid wrote: The problem is that you are equivocating on the meaning of "ultimate and supreme". In one sense, you use it to mean that something really does exist. Hmm, I'm not sure if I've used it in that context (perhaps you are thinking of how I defined brute fact). Then, in order to get your pantheism off the ground, you use it to mean that something has authority. In this case we have a little of both when it comes to the metaphysical basis of morality. Anything that exists has some basis in existence (else it would not exist). According to the brute fact explanation, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is simply existence itself. Yet moral values prescribe our behavior. So existence itself somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and has the authority to do so. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Frankly, the is-ought "problem" is interesting, but nobody has ever offered a good argument for it. For the problem existing or for the problem's solution?
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 09/16/07 - 04:20 AM:	#332
Tisthammerw wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure if I've used it in that context (perhaps you are thinking of how I defined brute fact). Of course I am. Because your argument is that if we define brute facts in a certain way, then it leads to pantheism. You tend to change definitions in mid-argument. You said, "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." You then took that to mean that existence/reality itself is the supreme and ultimate authority. Then you introduce your extremely vacuous God definition. In this case we have a little of both when it comes to the metaphysical basis of morality. Anything that exists has some basis in existence (else it would not exist). According to the brute fact explanation, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is simply existence itself. Yet moral values prescribe our behavior. So existence itself somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and has the authority to do so. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Sure, but it doesn't grant authority in the sense that reality as a whole has some special knowledge or ability. It only licenses the inference that these prescriptive rules are a part of reality. But this was an assumption! For the problem existing or for the problem's solution? There is no reason to think that there cannot be moral facts. If this is the case, then these facts are an example of the collapse of the supposed is/ought distinction.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 589

Posted 09/16/07 - 07:43 AM:	#333
Why morality? Why Existence? I see that what is trying to be established is the real, knowable concept of morality and that somehow it is linked to existence, but I just don't see a meaningful argument supporting this claim. The part about morality part of existence seems more of a simple assertion, and there is no argument supporting it. I will admit that what you believe about morality is very much tied to your metaphysical concept, but then again, there is no argument supporting a particular metaphysical concept. Tisthammerw argues for pantheism, and while I think pantheism is a brilliant, simple way to understand the world, I also recognize Kwalish's point that defining existence this way does not put you any closer to a moral answer. Instead, it seems more of a trivial redefining of existence just so that we can lay claims about god. If you are going to use pantheism, then you have to be aware of the throwback of labeling all of existence as god: no act can be immoral. If our conception of God is one that entails an infallible being whose every act is moral, then all acts that occur in the universe are moral, for immoral acts are not part of god and therefore do not exist. So, pantheism cannot really support a claim concerning morality on a metaphysical level because the way in which morality exists is nothing more than a concept in the mind of a very specific part of the universe. In order for morality to exist and have a meaningful effect on the lives of humanity, God would need to be a moral authority, one that is beyond questioning. Maybe a year ago, I would have argued differently, for I do truly believe that existence is a first principle, but this only means, when it comes to morality, that the term "moral" is a reference to something that we feel as humans. What? I don't know, perhaps a sense of guilt, perhaps a rational confusion as to what's occurring, perhaps a societal outlash against a certain act. But it would be hard to convince me that there are metaphysical truths to begin with, much less that morality is linked to those metaphysical truths (and the truths of which I am speaking are knowable metaphysical truths). For if these truths were knowable they would not be metaphysics, they would just be physics.

Tisthammerw
Professor

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

Posted 09/16/07 - 01:58 PM:	#334
Kwalish Kid wrote: You said, "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." You then took that to mean that existence/reality itself is the supreme and ultimate authority. Not really. That is, I didn't ascribe "authority" to it merely from the the brute fact definition. Nor did I ascribe authority to it merely from defining reality/existence. How then did I do it? According to the brute fact position, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is existence itself. The "authority" aspect logically follows from the prescriptive nature of morality if we say that moral values existing has no basis other than existence itself (as I explain in the blue quote below:). In this case we have a little of both when it comes to the metaphysical basis of morality. Anything that exists has some basis in existence (else it would not exist). According to the brute fact explanation, the metaphysical basis of moral values existing is simply existence itself. Yet moral values prescribe our behavior. So existence itself somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and has the authority to do so. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Sure, but it doesn't grant authority in the sense that reality as a whole has some special knowledge or ability. Except of course that it somehow tells us how we ought to behave, and that its authority to tell us such overrides what any human thinks. As I have argued, this suggests pantheism. Do you disagree? If so why? 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? Remember however, that a pantheistic God does not necessarily possess consciousness (so it might not have special "knowledge" in the traditional sense). But perhaps you're referring to "reality as a whole" in a different sense. Obviously, if we got rid of a rock or a car, moral values would still exist (methinks even a pantheist would agree with that). I of course use the term "based in reality" differently from "every physical component is necessary for it to be real." Then you introduce your extremely vacuous God definition. This definition is what pantheism uses (considering that a pantheistic God need not posses omnipotence or even consciousness). Pantheism is certainly not traditional theism, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "vacuous." It would at least allow objective morality to be possible. For the [is-ought] problem existing or for the problem's solution? There is no reason to think that there cannot be moral facts. If this is the case, then these facts are an example of the collapse of the supposed is/ought distinction. This might be a tad question begging. An objector would argue that the is-ought problem is a reason to doubt the existence of moral facts (please recognize that here I am playing devil's advocate, since I am a staunch ethical objectivist). Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/16/07 - 03:29 PM
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

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

Posted 09/16/07 - 02:20 PM:	#335
Buddahchuck wrote: I see that what is trying to be established is the real, knowable concept of morality and that somehow it is linked to existence, but I just don't see a meaningful argument supporting this claim. The part about morality part of existence seems more of a simple assertion, and there is no argument supporting it. I'll try again. All existing things are based in existence (else they wouldn't exist). The "morality as brute fact" position says there is no metaphysical basis for moral values existing other than existence itself. If moral values exist, they must have some basis in existence, if only in some general sense. Tisthammerw argues for pantheism, and while I think pantheism is a brilliant, simple way to understand the world, I also recognize Kwalish's point that defining existence this way does not put you any closer to a moral answer. Please recognize however that nowhere did I define existence as pantheism. I instead argued that if existence has certain characteristics (and that it must have these characteristics if moral values existing has no basis other than existence itself), it is the supreme metaphysical reality. If you are going to use pantheism, then you have to be aware of the throwback of labeling all of existence as god: no act can be immoral. If our conception of God is one that entails an infallible being whose every act is moral, then all acts that occur in the universe are moral, for immoral acts are not part of god and therefore do not exist. What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for its components however (confer the fallacy of division). An airplane has the ability to fly, but that does not entail that an individual component can fly by itself (say, a wing without its engine). A pantheist could make the same sort of argument here. Remember that a pantheistic God need not be omnipotent. So while existence may say X should not happen, that need not imply that X won't happen, and it need not imply that some component of the universe won't do so. Existence being the supreme metaphysical reality does not actually entail that everything happening within it it is supposed to happen. I should point out that I am not actually a pantheist, or arguing for pantheism as such. I am saying that if objective morality exists, there are only two plausible answers to the question "Who or what says how we ought to behave?" One of them is the universe/reality/existence, and the other is God. The former suggests pantheism, and this (as I argue in post post #330) ends up pointing to theism anyway. But it would be hard to convince me that there are metaphysical truths to begin with, much less that morality is linked to those metaphysical truths (and the truths of which I am speaking are knowable metaphysical truths). For if these truths were knowable they would not be metaphysics, they would just be physics. Would it? Do you, for instance, claim to know that the physical world is real? If so, then you claim to know a metaphysical truth (namely, the rejection of idealism).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 589

Posted 09/16/07 - 02:43 PM:	#336
Tisthammerw wrote: What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for its components however (confer the fallacy of division). An airplane has the ability to fly, but that does not entail that an individual component can fly by itself (say, a wing without its engine). But if we have such a division with a a metaphysical truth and morality, how does morality apply? What form does it take? I can't think of a single thing that occurs that in not in conjunction with existence. In other words, how does existence say that X should not happen? Would it? Do you, for instance, claim to know that the physical world is real? Yes, it would be physics. First, I do not claim to know the physical world is real. For me, such a consideration is useless as such knowledge affects nothing of how I interact with the world. Additionally, such knowledge is epistemologically unobtainable. And if by some way I could know metaphysical truths as such (aside from simply believing/claiming them), then the way in which I know them would be indistinguishable from the way in which I know physics.

Tisthammerw
Professor

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

Posted 09/16/07 - 03:05 PM:	#337
Buddahchuck wrote: What is true for the whole is not necessarily true for its components however (confer the fallacy of division). An airplane has the ability to fly, but that does not entail that an individual component can fly by itself (say, a wing without its engine). But if we have such a division with a a metaphysical truth and morality, how does morality apply? What form does it take? Remember the context of the quote. The "whole" was the pantheistic God, and the "component" was the thing doing the immoral act. I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. I can't think of a single thing that occurs that in not in conjunction with existence. In other words, how does existence say that X should not happen? I'll play devil's advocate here and try to answer this question. "It just does." Moral values are based in existence and that is the end of it. That's what it means to be a brute fact. Yes, it would be physics. First, I do not claim to know the physical world is real. But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? For science to give us any real knowledge whatsoever, we're going to have to take some metaphysical and epistemological positions. There's just no way around that. Thus I don't think one can say something like "if it were knowable it would be physics not metaphysics." For me, such a consideration is useless as such knowledge affects nothing of how I interact with the world. Additionally, such knowledge is epistemologically unobtainable. Then so is scientific knowledge. Does not science study the physical world and its workings? Is not physics, for instance, "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions"? Wouldn't that by definition presuppose that the physical world is real?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 589

Posted 09/16/07 - 03:27 PM:	#338
I'm not saying morality takes a form as such. But what form does morality take? How does one do something that existence tells it that it shouldn't? It's a fair question, right? But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? No, physics assumes that perceptions are real, as does all of science. They are studies based in the realm of sense datum, and therefore do not examine anything closer than perceptions. Certainly we devise instruments to enhance these perceptions, but if we are to doubt the reality of those perceptions, then we can likewise doubt the reality of the conclusions drawn from them. For science to give us any real knowledge whatsoever, we're going to have to take some metaphysical and epistemological positions. What is real knowledge? If the metaphysical positions we take include that perceptions are real, and we are wrong, then the knowledge we gain is wrong. In other words, if we cannot know the metaphysical truth, then we cannot obtain "real knowledge". Then so is scientific knowledge. Does not science study the physical world and its workings? Is not physics, for instance, "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions"? Wouldn't that by definition presuppose that the physical world is real? It could, but not if you are taking the position that metaphysical truths are unknowable. If we are discussing matter and energy and their interactions, we are only discussing the ones about which we observe or hypothesize. So if I am doubting that these things are a reality, then I can still accept them as illusion and continue from there.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 692

Posted 09/17/07 - 09:16 AM:	#339
Tisthammerw wrote: But doesn't physics assume the physical world is real? If not, what does physics study? Actually Tist, the way around this problem is very simple:- There is no alternative to physics in explaining the world - or rather physics is a science which uses observable phenomena to match predicted effects with observed effects, choosing the best model. There are many alternatives to your rather eccentric position. therefore Buddahchuck does not need to deny all knowledge, only that which has an alternative.

munty13
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 197

Posted 09/17/07 - 09:55 AM:	#340
Just a little take on morality. If God is unconditional love, and everything is God, then everything is unconditional love. There is no right, and there is no wrong. These judgements are created by the observer. You as an observer can adopt the position that right and wrong don't even exist. This is unconditional love. The mind dismisses this position as 'nothing', and constantly overlooks it; but it's definitely there as a state of being. It reveals love is inherent to man's very being by simply doing 'nothing'. To forgive is simply to forget. To stop judging others asks you to do 'nothing'. Every conflict in the world throughout history has always taken place in man's need to be right, or resentment in being wronged.

Page: First 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.