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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last

Moral Argument for God

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 727

Posted 06/23/07 - 12:28 PM:	#101
To recap: Tisthammerw wrote: Worset wrote: It takes the format of 1) If B then A 2) A is false 3) So B is falss. Which doesn't follow. Actually it does. The structure of what you described is modus tollens, a valid inferential form (see here). And now for the rest of the post. Wosret wrote: "Tisthammerw" wrote: Actually it does. The structure of what you described is modus tollens, a valid inferential form (see Just as a virtue ethicist would deny it is possible for rape to be a virtue, so too would a theist argue that premise #2 implies that God cannot command rape. Why think otherwise? Perhaps because it is logically possible for God to command rape. It is true that God commanding rape does not violate any laws of logic (e.g. it does not lead to a self-contradiction). But then again, raping people being a virtue does not violate any logical laws either. So this gets us nowhere. This is because pure logic simply doesn’t have anything to say about what ought to be, only about what is (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4). And just because something is logically possible does not mean it is metaphysically possible (i.e. that it could happen in some possible world). If it is metaphysically impossible for rape to be ethical, then both the virtue ethicist and the theist could deny the veracity of their respective premise #1. Edited by Tisthammerw on 06/23/07 - 12:33 PM
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/24/07 - 01:39 AM:	#102
Tisthammerw wrote: Not at all. I'm saying that if human sacrifice cannot possibly be ethical, then God (the basis of ethics) cannot command human sacrifice. I don't know that my mechanism for assessing morality wasn't given by God. On the contrary, I think God is ultimately responsible for my knowledge that human sacrifice is morally wrong (I believe he is the reason my conscience exists). Eh, sort of. I do not believe in divine command theory. However, I do believe God is the basis of objective morality. If I argued my point as you described (God defines morality, therefore God is the basis of morality) then yes my argument would be circular. However, I did not make the argument you described. I justified my assertion "God is the best explanation for objective moral values" using an entirely different argument. Do you believe that human sacrifice cannot possibly be ethical? If you do (and that belief is not based on God's dictate) then you have a non-God basis for objective morality. If you don't, then you don't appear to believe in objective morality... ...Unless you believe there are objective morals, but you have no reason to believe that any of your moral beliefs are objectively true. Which of those three options do you fit into?

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/24/07 - 02:03 AM:	#103
Tisthammerw wrote: But is it not the case that morality does have the power to command behavior? Does not morality say how we should behave? It seems clear that objective morality does have supreme authority behind it. For one thing, moral objectivism says that ethical truths are independent of human thinking. Second, ethical statements as "we should not torture people for fun" do indeed command our behavior. The question is, how does morality contain its authority behind these statements? What is the metaphysical basis of ethics? Ethics being grounded in the heart of God explains why objective morality has this transcendent authority above human minds. Please explain how "being grounded in the heart of God" commands behaviour. In particular, describe the process of "command" that only partially succeeds in commanding behaviour. It does not explain it to me. I don't understand how God provides a metaphysical basis for morality. (By the way, arguing that there is no atheist base for objective morality doesn't really cut much ice - I don't accept there is objective morality. However, I am willing to argue on the premise there is, because my position is that there is no support for theism from that premise).

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 727

Posted 06/24/07 - 05:09 PM:	#104
mric wrote: Do you believe that human sacrifice cannot possibly be ethical? If I had to guess, I'd say No. If you do (and that belief is not based on God's dictate) Except why must it be the case that the belief cannot ultimately originate from God? Objective morality has to have some kind of basis after all (see below). If not God, what is the basis for morality's transcendent authority? Please explain how "being grounded in the heart of God" commands behaviour. I've already tried to do this. If it's still unclear to you, I think you're going to have to pick a specific point of my explanation and ask questions there. Should-statements (and synonymously ought-statements) say what should be, e.g. “my stapler should be blue,” and sometimes the source for these is the individual. While I believe this ought-statement to be true (my stapler ought to be blue) it is nonetheless a matter of personal taste rather than an objective truth. Ethics is another example of something that says what ought to be. Specifically, it makes certain commands and statements of how people ought to behave. For instance, “people should not steal.” Yet this should-statement is not an issue of personal taste, and the source of this truth cannot be an individual or culture. How is this possible? The issue is finding a source and metaphysical basis for objective morality that would enable it to be possible. Ethical statements as "we should not torture people for fun" do indeed command our behavior. The question is, how does morality contain its authority behind these statements? What is the metaphysical basis of ethics? The authority obviously goes beyond human beings if moral objectivism is true. So what is it? Ethics being grounded in the heart of God explains why objective morality has this transcendent authority above human minds. God by definition is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality. Thus, objective moral values being grounded in God means they would reside within a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe. In contrast, atheism provides no source for morality. Ethics being grounded in God explains why moral values transcend humanity. It also explains why some should-statements are matters of personal taste and why others are not. All things considered, God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values. Edited by Tisthammerw on 06/24/07 - 05:17 PM
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/24/07 - 09:54 PM:	#105
Tisthammerw wrote: Except why must it be the case that the belief cannot ultimately originate from God? Objective morality has to have some kind of basis after all (see below). If not God, what is the basis for morality's transcendent authority? If you can't think of a basis for objective morality other than God, then your argument in this thread is "morality is objective and based on God, and this is strong evidence for the existence of God". This is known as begging the question. In order to take objective morality as any kind of evidence, proof or indication of the existence of God, you need a reason to believe in objective morality without dependence on God, and then you might have an argument. If you get to that point, there are at least two other major criticisms - but let's get there first.

Pliny
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Location: Near Seattle
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 41

Posted 06/24/07 - 10:18 PM: Subject: There is Morality w/o God	#106
Actually there is morality without God. Certain animals evolved to have a great deal of adaptive social behavior that has been well documented. In many cases this behavior is truly altruistic and moral in the sense that it is being "good" to others without any immediate or visible benefit. We evolved from the same ancestors as these animals (there is overwhelming evidence to support that statement, but that is a different subject) and we, I believe, have inherited these moral behaviors.

Morkin
KFC

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 15, 2007
Location: Calgary, Canada
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 312

Posted 06/25/07 - 07:43 AM:	#107
mric wrote: So, let's summarise. Perfect. You wrapped up this thread nicely.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 727

Posted 06/26/07 - 04:38 PM:	#108
mric wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Except why must it be the case that the belief cannot ultimately originate from God? Objective morality has to have some kind of basis after all (see below). If not God, what is the basis for morality's transcendent authority? If you can't think of a basis for objective morality other than God, then your argument in this thread is "morality is objective and based on God, and this is strong evidence for the existence of God". This is known as begging the question. A number of things wrong here. First, don’t confuse my personal beliefs with the argument. It's true that I can't think of any other legitimate basis of objective morality besides some type of God, but that does not mean any premise of my argument presupposes the conclusion. As analogy, I may not be able to think of an alternate conclusion of a mathematical proof, but that does not mean the proof begs the question. My argument is "if objective moral values exist, then they are evidence for the existence of God." My starting point is not “morality is objective and based on God” rather “morality is objective, and this is evidence for the existence of God because objective morality requires a transcendent source of authority…” In order to take objective morality as any kind of evidence, proof or indication of the existence of God, you need a reason to believe in objective morality without dependence on God Are you saying we need to presuppose that objective moral values do not come from God? If so why? Such a statement I think requires some explanation. Here's what we can do. First, we can intuitively recognize the existence of objective moral values--without (at least initially) believing in God (and this is what my argument does; it accepts objective morality and reasons from there). Then we can use reason to argue that objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God. This I have done, yet you have done little to address my reasoning, e.g. finding an alternate transcendent source of authority for objective morality to be possible.
_____________________ 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: 727

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/26/07 - 04:54 PM:	#109
Pliny wrote: Actually there is morality without God. Certain animals evolved to have a great deal of adaptive social behavior that has been well documented. This sort of thing was dealt with before. Remember that there is a difference between the way things are and the way things ought to be. The issue is not whether people and animals can behave in ways that would benefit others without God. I'm not arguing that. The issue is whether the ought exists. "People should behave in ways to benefit others" is a truth that cannot be empirically tested. We can empirically test for if they behave in such ways but not whether they should behave in such ways. (Confer the is-ought problem, see also Even if animals were moral agents as humans were, we still need some kind of metaphysical basis for ethics.
_____________________ 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: 727

Posted 06/26/07 - 05:11 PM:	#110
Morkin wrote: "mric" wrote: So, let's summarise. Perfect. You wrapped up this thread nicely. Not quite. Among other things, Mric really didn't address my reasoning in this post. Let’s also take a look at something he said in that post. mric wrote: If you believe in objective morality because there is a philosophical way of showing that morality is objective without begging the question of god, then the existence of objective morality does not constitute evidence of the existence of god. In practice it's a bit tough to support that statement. People often believe in objective morality because it's something they intuitively recognize. Many intuitively recognize the existence of objective moral values without believing God, but it doesn't logically follow that objective moral values are not evidence for the existence of God. As analogy, people can recognize the existence of similarities between organisms without begging the question of evolution (creationists frequently do so for instance). It does not however logically follow that such similarities cannot be used as evidence for evolution. One possibility is that creationists are mistaken and that such similarities really are evidence for evolution. Evolutionists use arguments to explain why such similarities are evidence for evolution. You and Mric may claim my own argument (which says if objective moral values exist they provide evidence for God's existence) may not be sound, but a bit more work will need to be done to show that this is actually the case, e.g. actually addressing the reasoning my argument uses.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/26/07 - 11:23 PM:	#111
Tisthammerw wrote: Not quite. Among other things, Mric really didn't address my reasoning in this post. Let’s also take a look at something he said in that post. In practice it's a bit tough to support that statement. People often believe in objective morality because it's something they intuitively recognize. Many intuitively recognize the existence of objective moral values without believing God, but it doesn't logically follow that objective moral values are not evidence for the existence of God. As analogy, people can recognize the existence of similarities between organisms without begging the question of evolution (creationists frequently do so for instance). It does not however logically follow that such similarities cannot be used as evidence for evolution. One possibility is that creationists are mistaken and that such similarities really are evidence for evolution. Evolutionists use arguments to explain why such similarities are evidence for evolution. You and Mric may claim my own argument (which says if objective moral values exist they provide evidence for God's existence) may not be sound, but a bit more work will need to be done to show that this is actually the case, e.g. actually addressing the reasoning my argument uses. OK. So you have a philosophical argument that is: You believe that objectivity in morality can only be based on an authority (by your definition). You have a hunch that morality is objective (and you explicitly claim no you have no rationale for this hunch). This state of affairs is, you believe, strong evidence for the existence of God. Can't you see why nobody who doesn't already believe in God will find nothing of any substance in this argument? It is based on hunches. Let's say I have an intuition that objective morality can be based on something other than God - this appears to be good enough to be a premise in your philosophical process. By the way, you appear to be confusing 'intuitively recognise' with 'observe' in your evolution analogy. People observe species similarity - if people just had an intuition with no observation that species were similar, then species similarity would not be evidence of evolution. You clearly can't observe the objectivity of morality, so your analogy is completely fallacious. Edited by mric on 06/26/07 - 11:30 PM

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/26/07 - 11:42 PM:	#112
Tisthammerw wrote: If you can't think of a basis for objective morality other than God, then your argument in this thread is "morality is objective and based on God, and this is strong evidence for the existence of God". This is known as begging the question. A number of things wrong here. First, don’t confuse my personal beliefs with the argument. It's true that I can't think of any other legitimate basis of objective morality besides some type of God, but that does not mean any premise of my argument presupposes the conclusion. As analogy, I may not be able to think of an alternate conclusion of a mathematical proof, but that does not mean the proof begs the question. My argument is "if objective moral values exist, then they are evidence for the existence of God." My starting point is not “morality is objective and based on God” rather “morality is objective, and this is evidence for the existence of God because objective morality requires a transcendent source of authority…” Are you saying we need to presuppose that objective moral values do not come from God? If so why? Such a statement I think requires some explanation. Here's what we can do. First, we can intuitively recognize the existence of objective moral values--without (at least initially) believing in God (and this is what my argument does; it accepts objective morality and reasons from there). Then we can use reason to argue that objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God. This I have done, yet you have done little to address my reasoning, e.g. finding an alternate transcendent source of authority for objective morality to be possible. I am not asking you to find a basis for objective morality, I am asking you to explain a plausible reason why you believe in it (given that your definition of objective morality requires a transcendent authority) that does not beg the question of the existence of God. The way you have defined objective morality, as requiring a transcendent authority, means that observational evidence is never going to be sufficient to be a reason to believe in objective morality. Therefore you are either starting with the unfounded premise "there is objective morality that requires a transcendent authority", or you have a philosophical rationale for believing this. You appear to be saying it is an unfounded premise. Now, on top of that fundamental problem, I have difficulty understanding your definition of objective morality. I don't understand how a being saying something actually makes it a universal 'ought'. The fact you have to use ugly metaphors like "grounded in the heart of God" is a fairly good indication that you don't understand it either. As you correctly point out, the example of Quetzlcoatl advocating human sacrifice of non-Aztecs implies a parallel reductio ad absurdum of virtue ethics as well as of your position. That doesn't stop it being a completely successful reductio of your position.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/26/07 - 11:52 PM:	#113
Oh, by the way, the answer I would give to 'Where does the ought come from' is that it comes from a complex mixture of personal interpretation of internal moral tendencies combined with customs, practices and edicts in society. This seems accurately to explain why moralities are a complex set of overlapping sets that modify through time. Given that heredity, upbringing and society are all external to the individual, and are active in forming individual morality, we have an explanation why individual morality is not entirely arbitrary and personal.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 727

Posted 06/30/07 - 02:15 PM:	#114
I should reiterate what my argument is saying: If objective moral values exist, they are evidence for the existence of God. It is not my intention to justify the existence of objective morality (though we could do that on another thread). You yourself said, "I am willing to argue on the premise there is [objective morality], because my position is that there is no support for theism from that premise." Let's focus on this. And if you decide to, please address the reasoning of my argument. mric wrote: OK. So you have a philosophical argument that is: You believe that objectivity in morality can only be based on an authority (by your definition). Objective morality by definition carries with it an authority that transcends humanity, so I'm guessing the answer to your question is yes. You have a hunch that morality is objective (and you explicitly claim no you have no rationale for this hunch). Do you have a rationale that your senses and memory are ever reliable? There are some things we have to recognize intuitively (even logic and reason fall under this category). In any case, my argument is "if objective moral values exist, they provide evidence for the existence of God." I'm not really here to argue that objective moral values exist, I'm here to argue that if they do they are evidence for the existence of God. If you have found something flawed in the reasoning of my argument, by all means please present it to me. Can't you see why nobody who doesn't already believe in God will find nothing of any substance in this argument? No. Please explain why. It is based on hunches. Let's say I have an intuition that objective morality can be based on something other than God - this appears to be good enough to be a premise in your philosophical process. No. I used logic and reason to argue that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for God's existence. I did not use hunches to argue my conclusion from the premise of objective morality existing. If you don't like my reasoning, please explain what is wrong with it. By the way, you appear to be confusing 'intuitively recognise' with 'observe' in your evolution analogy. People observe species similarity How do you know this? How do you know that other people even exist? You intuitively believe your senses (and memory) are at least sometimes reliable. I am not asking you to find a basis for objective morality, I am asking you to explain a plausible reason why you believe in it (given that your definition of objective morality requires a transcendent authority) that does not beg the question of the existence of God. Again, the existence of objective morality is something I and others intuitively recognize. How do you know your senses and memory are ever reliable? It's something you intuitively believe. Keep in mind I believed in objective morality before concluding that God is the metaphysical basis of it. At first I didn't think the argument from morality worked at all, but years later I thought about it some more and found that the argument is a surprisingly strong one (if argued correctly). You for instance have tended to shy away from the actual reasoning of my argument that says if objective moral values exist God probably does too. For instance, you have repeatedly asked how God could be the basis for ethics, and I have repeatedly explained my reasoning behind it. IIRC, you haven’t done much in the way of addressing that reasoning. Therefore you are either starting with the unfounded premise "there is objective morality that requires a transcendent authority", or you have a philosophical rationale for believing this. You appear to be saying it is an unfounded premise. If objective morality exists it carries with it a transcendent authority. I have justified this premise repeatedly. If you think my justification doesn't work, feel free to attack the reasoning behind it. Now, on top of that fundamental problem, I have difficulty understanding your definition of objective morality. I don't understand how a being saying something actually makes it a universal 'ought'. Again, I am not arguing for divine command theory (whereby morality is based on God's commands as opposed to e.g. his nature). Why does morality's metaphysical basis being God make moral truths objective? Because God by definition is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality. So if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would reside within a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe. What I mean by “grounded in the heart of God” is that objective morality is an inseparable part of who and what God is (as the supreme metaphysical reality). Otherwise, what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be (e.g. how people ought to behave)? The best non-theist answer seems to be that reality says what ought to be, but then we get back to the problem I described in post #70. As you correctly point out, the example of Quetzlcoatl advocating human sacrifice of non-Aztecs implies a parallel reductio ad absurdum of virtue ethics as well as of your position. That doesn't stop it being a completely successful reductio of your position. But why should we believe it is successful? The whole point of me bringing up the parallel reductio ad absurdum of virtue ethics was to show that the argument isn't necessarily sound. To recap (from post: #101): (1) It is possible for God command rape (if God were the basis of ethics), and if he did raping people would be ethical (2) Raping people cannot possibly be ethical (3) Therefore: God is not the basis for morality. And its parallel: (1) It is possible for raping people to be a virtue (if virtues were a basis of morality), and if it were raping people would be ethical. (2) Raping people cannot possibly be ethical. (3) Therefore virtues cannot be a basis of morality. Both the theist and the virtue ethicist could argue that if premise (2) is correct, then premise (1) is false. If raping people cannot be ethical, why on Earth should we believe that it is possible for God/virtues to say it is ethical? Thus, the argument is not necessarily sound, unless perhaps there is good justification for the claim that both premises are true (and I haven't seen any). Oh, by the way, the answer I would give to 'Where does the ought come from' is that it comes from a complex mixture of personal interpretation of internal moral tendencies combined with customs, practices and edicts in society. This is where moral beliefs might come from, but not objective morality. Moral objectivism by definition implies that moral truths are independent of human thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. If a personal interpretation of morality allows one to believe that slaughtering Jews is okay (something that has happened before) would that mean it is moral to do so? Obviously not. If moral values are objective they transcend humanity. The question is what is the transcendent source of objective morality's authority? Again, this is an important question in this thread that often seems to be avoided, which seems somewhat odd because this is what my argument is largely based on.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/30/07 - 11:26 PM:	#115
Tisthammerw wrote: I should reiterate what my argument is saying: If objective moral values exist, they are evidence for the existence of God. Let's just get this point right first. I am afraid this doesn't work - you have hidden assumptions. The existence of objective moral values is not in itself evidence for anything, unless we also have knowledge of the existence of objective moral values. Unknown truths are not evidence for anything. The strongest statement I believe you can make is "knowledge that objective moral values exist is evidence for the existence of God." You have explicitly stated that you do not have knowledge of the existence of objective morality, just an intuition. You are essentially saying that the existence of the murder weapon is evidence for the death being a murder, you don't have any evidence that the murder weapon exists, and you believe it was a murder because you have a hunch that there is a murder weapon. There may be lots of other evidence that it was a murder, but you are starting your prosecution case with the lack of a murder weapon. Do you still not see why this argument has no power to convince?

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/30/07 - 11:31 PM:	#116
To carry on the 'murder weapon' analogy, you have multiple groups of forensic pathologists who each make wildly different claims about the cause of death, or whether anyone else was involved. Perhaps moral standards don't have the same metaphysical status as intuitions about causality or the existence of the external world (since no two moral philosophers or theologians can agree what the objective moral standards they are 'intuiting' are).

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 06/30/07 - 11:41 PM:	#117
Tisthammerw wrote: But why should we believe it is successful? The whole point of me bringing up the parallel reductio ad absurdum of virtue ethics was to show that the argument isn't necessarily sound. To recap (from post: #101): (1) It is possible for God command rape (if God were the basis of ethics), and if he did raping people would be ethical (2) Raping people cannot possibly be ethical (3) Therefore: God is not the basis for morality. And its parallel: (1) It is possible for raping people to be a virtue (if virtues were a basis of morality), and if it were raping people would be ethical. (2) Raping people cannot possibly be ethical. (3) Therefore virtues cannot be a basis of morality. Both the theist and the virtue ethicist could argue that if premise (2) is correct, then premise (1) is false. If raping people cannot be ethical, why on Earth should we believe that it is possible for God/virtues to say it is ethical? Thus, the argument is not necessarily sound, unless perhaps there is good justification for the claim that both premises are true (and I haven't seen any). I wasn't trying to make this argument. I was asking if you were comfortable with the possibility that the objective moral laws that you intuit are those of a God like Quetzlcoatl, rather than, say, Jehovah. The reason for asking this is my view that people do not have intuitions that morality is objective without any assumption about its content. Is it fair for me to take your premise as the bare intuition 'morality is objective, and I have no assumptions as to what constitutes morality'? A yes/no would be ok.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 07/01/07 - 02:28 AM:	#118
By the way, let's try another subjective/objective distinction. Are the meanings of words subjective or objective? Do we live in a Lewis Carroll world where words mean whatever each of us chooses them to mean, or do they have an objective basis? If, like me, you think the meaning of words has an objective sense, then what authority gives language its objectivity? Well, the answer is possibly something like "use in social groups, coherence of language games", though lots of philosophers have different answers. The reason to bring this up is to show that objectivity does not require that things Tisthammerw wrote: ...are independent of human thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. Only that they are not matters of personal whim. Tisthammerw is setting a standard for objectivity that is rather stronger than most people use in the context of morality - it is being defined as 'externality to anything human'.

Nichie
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 07/01/07 - 10:41 AM:	#119
I didn't read anything before this except for the beginning post. I know I probably should, but I don't want to spend my time with 5 pages. “If people are only good because they fear punishment, then we are indeed a sad lot.” -Albert Einstein, American Physicist
_____________________ "When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it's called religion." -Robert M. Pirsig “The God of the old testament is arguably the most unplesent character of all fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” -Richard Dawkins

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 727

Posted 07/01/07 - 04:48 PM:	#120
mric wrote: "Tisthammerw" wrote: I should reiterate what my argument is saying: If objective moral values exist, they are evidence for the existence of God. Let's just get this point right first. I am afraid this doesn't work Why? In post #103 you yourself said, "I don't accept there is objective morality. However, I am willing to argue on the premise there is, because my position is that there is no support for theism from that premise." Are you reversing your position now? - you have hidden assumptions. So does science. It assumes that are senses are at least sometimes reliable (hence the use of empirical data). But just as science takes for granted this assumption, similarly in this thread I am arguing that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. If you want to debate whether objective moral values exist at all, I suggest we take that to another thread. Speaking of hidden assumption and senses... You have explicitly stated that you do not have knowledge of the existence of objective morality, just an intuition. And why isn't this knowledge? Not all intuition is knowledge, but some is. Your belief that sense experience is at least sometimes reliable is based on intuitive recognition as well. Do you still not see why this argument has no power to convince? Not if we accept as a given that objective moral values exist. Many people--even some atheists--do agree on this. Arguments tend to go from an agreed upon fact(s) to a conclusion. It is true that in this case the argument will not convince everyone because not everyone believes in objective morality. However, this argument is not aimed at such people. This argument is aimed at people who already believe in objective moral values. How about my argument? Is it at least deductively valid, i.e. are objective moral values (if the exist) evidence for God? If not, I ask you again: where exactly does the reasoning of my argument break down? I was asking if you were comfortable with the possibility that the objective moral laws that you intuit are those of a God like Quetzlcoatl [one who orders ritual human sacfice], rather than, say, Jehovah. Bear in mind that I may not necessarily hold the religious views you assume of me (I am a theist, but I am not a conservative Christian). But to answer your question I would feel more comfortable with Jehovah. Is it fair for me to take your premise as the bare intuition 'morality is objective, and I have no assumptions as to what constitutes morality'? As far as I can tell, the answer is "yes." The premise starts with "objective moral values exist" and makes no assumptions as to what precisely those moral values are. By the way, let's try another subjective/objective distinction. Are the meanings of words subjective or objective? The meanings of words are not objective. They are (in general) not "subjective" in the sense that they are relative to the person. However, they are relative to the culture/society that creates the language. For instance, according to one online dictionary the word "not" in German means "distress, hardship, necessity." (See here.) In English, "not" means something very different. If, like me, you think the meaning of words has an objective sense, then what authority gives language its objectivity? Well, the answer is possibly something like "use in social groups, coherence of language games", But this isn’t an objective truth then; it is relative (see above). I do not believe that meanings of words are objective truths; they are relative to the culture. Also bear in mind there is a difference from saying what things are and the way things ought to be. When we speak of truths that command our behavior and also transcend humanity (“You should not do X”), it is only fair to ask what transcendent source of authority makes these commands. Is it reality? Is it God? What? Tisthammerw is setting a standard for objectivity that is rather stronger than most people use in the context of morality - it is being defined as 'externality to anything human'. That might be true. Moral objectivism is the idea that morals are independent of human thought, opinion and belief. At least off the top of my head, I'm not sure how any of this depends on humanity.
_____________________ 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: 727

Posted 07/01/07 - 05:20 PM:	#121
Nichie wrote: I didn't read anything before this except for the beginning post. I know I probably should, but I don't want to spend my time with 5 pages. Fair enough. I have a web page on the topic that explains my position fairly comprehensively and is relatively concise (it is about 2469 words long as of this post). But I can be briefer yet (this post is about 838 words long), albeit not as comprehensive. Here it is in a nutshell. I am arguing that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. Ethics is an example of something that says what ought to be. Specifically, it makes certain commands and statements of how people ought to behave. In doing so, objective morality somehow possesses supreme authority behind its statements. Authority is “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary, definition 2a) Objective ethical statements such as “We should not torture people for fun” do indeed command our behavior with an authority that transcends human minds. The question is, how do ethical statements carry such ultimate authority behind them? In determining the source and metaphysical basis for objective moral values, the key question becomes what transcendent source of authority says what ought to be (e.g. how people ought to behave)? And why would it be that some ought-statements (e.g. my stapler ought to be blue) are matters of personal taste and others are not? Theism has an answer. Ethics being grounded in the heart of God explains why objective morality has this transcendent authority above human minds. By definition, God is the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality transcending all else. So if objective moral values were grounded in the heart of God they would reside in a metaphysical basis of supreme authority in the universe. All things considered, God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values. Probably the best objection to this argument is to argue that morality is a brute fact. Objective morality requires no source or metaphysical basis; morality just is. But this has potential problems. Consider this argument. If objective morality has literally no source and no basis, then there is literally nothing that says Hitler was wrong when he believed he should slaughter millions of Jews. Here some might object, saying that is not what they mean by objective morality being a brute fact. It is reality that says Hitler’s actions are wrong. Reality—unlike fallible humans—cannot be mistaken about what is right, and it is reality in some general sense that says what ought to be. It’s just that there isn’t any specific component of the universe (as a person or culture) that says it’s wrong, but rather the universe itself. By attributing the universe with supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals, this would by definition be accepting some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating God with the universe/reality/existence (it should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism). But even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics. This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). This pantheistic God must also be omnipresent—assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of who you are and where you are. Interestingly, this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says what ought to be) must also be incorporeal. This pantheistic God must also be eternal—assuming morals are valid and binding regardless of when you are. Yet the necessity of a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person—a moral God that says what everyone ought to do and a God that everyone ought to obey. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by implying the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.). “If people are only good because they fear punishment, then we are indeed a sad lot.” -Albert Einstein, American Physicist I agree. But arguing that objective moral values are evidence for God has nothing to do with the existence of a punisher; it has more to do with finding a transcendent source of authority for the commands of objective moral values.
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 07/03/07 - 12:36 PM:	#122
Tisthammerw wrote: As far as I can tell, the answer is "yes." The premise starts with "objective moral values exist" and makes no assumptions as to what precisely those moral values are. I don't see that as a coherent position. According to this view, morality is objective, but could be entirely silent on the matters of human behaviour - indeed, objective morality may consist in, say, just one god-given edict: "all penguins should tango when in submarines". To have an intuition that morality is objective without assumptions as to what that morality is seems the sort of bizarre distortion of language only a philosopher could make. The group of people who could be persuaded by the "objective morality is proof for the existence of god" is limited to those who have no reason to think one thing is moral, rather than another, or indeed that morality has any bearing on our behaviour. I just don't believe there is such a group.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 07/03/07 - 12:47 PM:	#123
Tisthammerw wrote: Objective ethical statements such as “We should not torture people for fun” ... Oops. I thought you said that you weren't making assumptions as to what precisely those moral values are.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 727

Posted 07/03/07 - 08:12 PM:	#124
mric wrote: "Tisthammerw" wrote: As far as I can tell, the answer is "yes." The premise starts with "objective moral values exist" and makes no assumptions as to what precisely those moral values are. I don't see that as a coherent position. According to this view, morality is objective, but could be entirely silent on the matters of human behaviour You misunderstand. Obviously, moral values command our behavior. I was saying that the argument (based on the necessity of a transcendent source of authority) does not say precisely what these commands might be. Of course, I often use examples of moral principles to illustrate my point. Hence the following: Tisthammerw wrote: Objective ethical statements such as “We should not torture people for fun” ... Oops. I thought you said that you weren't making assumptions as to what precisely those moral values are. The argument itself doesn't contain those assumptions, but examples such as the above illustrate the concept that objective morality carries with it some kind of authority. Hence the full text, "Objective ethical statements such as 'We should not torture people for fun' do indeed command our behavior with an authority that transcends human minds." Very few ethical objectivists believe that this example of a moral statement is a false one, hence its use as an example. The group of people who could be persuaded by the "objective morality is proof for the existence of god" is limited to those who have no reason to think one thing is moral, rather than another, or indeed that morality has any bearing on our behaviour. How on Earth does your statement logically follow? Just because the argument from morality doesn't specify what the rules of behavior are doesn't mean it implies such rules do not exist. Neither does the argument imply that there can be no reason for thinking certain behaviors are moral. Given the existence of objective morality, what is its metaphysical basis? How do ethical statements carry ultimate authority behind them? That's what the argument is about. Now how about addressing the actual reasoning of the argument? Again, my claim is that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. My argument seems to demonstrate that objective moral values indeed constitute strong evidence. If you think the argument is invalid, please explain where the reasoning breaks down. I don't think you have done that. Edited by Tisthammerw on 07/03/07 - 08:17 PM
_____________________ Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

mric
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 673

Posted 07/04/07 - 02:20 PM:	#125
Tisthammerw wrote: How on Earth does your statement logically follow? Just because the argument from morality doesn't specify what the rules of behavior are doesn't mean it implies such rules do not exist. Neither does the argument imply that there can be no reason for thinking certain behaviors are moral. If there are reasons to think certain behaviours are morally objective (reasons rather than intuitions) which do not beg the question, then those reasons are likely to lead to a non-god source for objective morality. The argument pretty much requires that there are no reasons to believe in your strong form of objective morality beyond personal hunch. Tisthammerw wrote: Given the existence of objective morality, what is its metaphysical basis? How do ethical statements carry ultimate authority behind them? That's what the argument is about. Now how about addressing the actual reasoning of the argument? Again, my claim is that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God. My argument seems to demonstrate that objective moral values indeed constitute strong evidence. If you think the argument is invalid, please explain where the reasoning breaks down. I don't think you have done that. The reason your argument breaks down is that it is not the argument it first appears. To expand your argument more fully, so that it is closer to deductively valid: Moral objectivity requires morality to have no dependence on any aspect of humanity or society Morality needs to bear relationship X to an authority to be objective (I have never understood what X is - 'being grounded in its heart' is a rather opaque metaphor for me) There are no possible non-God based reasons to believe that morality is objective (if there were, there would be a non-God based explanation for its objectivity) Morality is objective Therefore there is an authority to which morality bears relationship X In order to have relationship X to morality, the authority must also have other characteristics required to be a god. I am not sure I can agree with premises 1, 2 or 3. Indeed, premise 3 implies a radical practical moral relativism, even given a theoretical moral objectivism. I accept 4 for the purpose of this discussion. 6 is a clear non sequitor and requires significant further premises.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.