Another discussion of objective morality has broken out, so I thought I would provide a home for it.
579 thoughts on “objective morality, for the umpteenth time”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Another discussion of objective morality has broken out, so I thought I would provide a home for it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Fifth, have you looked at my above questions about the “revelation” argument?
Right. There are different kinds of oughts. Consider, ‘You ought to be using a Phillips head screwdriver for that job.’
Why is a norm of belief not a norm of cognitive conduct?
peace
To say that the statement “to eat pork is evil” is false is to make a statement about moral ought.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Yes.
It’s a claim about claims involving moral oughts, not itself a moral ought claim. Compare: “addition is an operation in arithmetic” is a claim about arithmetic. It’s not itself an arithmetical claim (i.e. an equation). Likewise, a claim about moral oughts is not itself a moral ought-involving claim.
You could put it that way, if you didn’t mind being hopelessly confused.
I think that might go a bit too far. I think it might be better to say SOME (call them) “meta-moral” claims are themselves moral claims, while others aren’t. So, for example, the claim that
Eating pork is evil is false
would be a moral claim, since it entails that eating pork is not evil. While on the other hand, the claim that
Eating pork is evil is soooo yesterday
is not itself a moral claim, since it doesn’t entail the truth or falsity of any (object level) moral claim.
With what?
You seem to have went to a lot of trouble to say that you agree that one particular thing can be revealed by an omnipotent God. I agree that God could reveal his bare existence if he wanted too.
God could after all reveal anything that could be revealed including his bare existence.
I would say that it would have been easier to explore what an omnipotent God could not reveal.
peace
What I want to know is what you think you can do with the conclusion to the argument that I provided, which is about as far as I think you can get with “revelation.” How do you get from that to the claim that God exists (if you think you can)?
I have the impression, anyhow, that you think you can get from
An omnipotent being could make it so I could know things if it wanted to
to
An omnipotent being exists
I’d like to know how.
As for the trouble I went to, I wanted to see how much of your premise can find any leg to stand on. If you put it in any stronger way, it stops being plausible.
Wait a minute, a more relevant question would be
Is the claim that there are no valid arithmetical claim’s itself an arithmetical claim?
lets see
Let X = an arithmetical claim
Let Y = an valid arithmetical claim
X≠Y seems to be an arithmetical claim (ie an equation).
What am I missing?
peace
I don’t think it’s as far as you can get with revelation and I don’t think I could do much at all with the argument you provided.
You have a very mistaken impression. That is not my position at all.
I’m not sure how I can be more clear on this point.
What premise is that?
peace
Couldn’t an omnipotent being reveal things to me so I can know them?
You know, your very favoritist question!
I’m trying to see if there’s anything you can do with it.
Walto,
I know that God exists because God has made himself known to me not because I have reasoned from a set of premises to the logical conclusion that God exists.
Do you understand that???
peace
All that is is a justification for knowledge.
It’s not an argument for God’s existence
“God exists therefore I can know stuff”
peace
If you insist you’ve got nothing but your feeling, that’s fine with me. I don’t think that’s been your usual stance, though, and I was trying to see if I could help you make an actual case.
You can justify knowledge with that.
peace
It’s not a feeling it’s knowledge.
I don’t feel God exists. I know God exists
I know God exists because God has made himself known to me,
Certainly not because I feel a certain way
peace
Again God’s existence is not something you make a case for.
God’s existence is the thing that allows you to make cases.
peace
Let’s see you do it!
You want me to beg?
I gave you a revelation premise. Show us how you can justify knowledge with it.
here is the syllogism
P1: God who can reveal stuff to me so that I can know it, exists
conclusion: I can know stuff
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise
peace
No you just gave me a hypothetical revelation.
peace
Obviously P1 is problematic for those of us who (really really) don’t believe in God. I was trying to get you an argument for God from a plausible revelation premise.
But you’ll have to help me!
I mean, I doubt it’s possible, but….it’s worth a try!
I thought you said that ( God exists ) is an observation based on your worldview, otherwise it would be a claim?
That’s question-begging 101. I’m trying to help you put something together that’s not obviously fallacious.
By since we all know the Christian God exists, it is ok.
Why should that be a problem for me? I know God exists
I thought I made it clear that God’s existence is not established by argument. I think I have said just that at least 20 times here.
What else can I do?
peace
We can describe my experience of God’s existence as observation.
I observe that God exists
Just as my existence can be described as observation from your perspective.
You observe I exist
This is not complex.
You are not making a claim when you acknowledge my existence you are simply sharing your observation
peace
Again what question am I begging???
God’s existence is not in question
peace
fifth, to walto:
fifth,
You may not be bright enough to realize it, but this is an argument:
A rational person would go on to ask questions such as:
Has God really made himself known to me?
How can I tell?
Are there other explanations for my mental state?
…and so on.
fifth, to newton:
Observations can be mistaken, particularly when they are as tenuous as your “observation” that God exists.
Hence the questions I just posed:
I describe that as psychotic
fifthmonarchyman,
I keep telling you I’m trying to help you build an argument that can maybe move somebody other than you. But it seems you’re leaving all the heavy lifting to me! 😱
walto,
Instead of trying to help fifth, you should be working through your confusion regarding objectivity and objective morality. You’re confused enough that you managed to mock your own position, after all!
Also, you might want to try to figure out why you fall apart and start making false accusations (quote mining, equivocation) when someone correctly points out your errors.
KN,
Yes. In other words, the interesting question is whether objective morality exists.
Walto’s mistake is to answer ‘yes’, based on the fact that people make judgments regarding morality that purport to be objective. As you and I know, that’s not enough. Judgments that purport to be objective don’t thereby become objective.
Again, no one will ever be convinced to abandon their rebellion against God by an argument. That is what the Holy Spirit does.
I will be happy to help anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth but I don’t expect to ever move anyone.
If people’s allegiances could be moved by argument then regeneration would be unnecessary
quote:
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
(Joh 3:3)
end quote;
peace
Amazing that you spend maybe 4 or 5 hours a day here arguing with people in that case.
I thought you could use some help. But….suit yourself.
What makes you think that I’m here to argue that God exists? Are you here to argue that God does not exist?
If so that is just sad
I’m here because I’m interested in ID and especially it’s relationship to AI. More generally I’m interested in science and I enjoy talking to folks with a different perspective from mine.
I find it to be amazing that folks on your side of the fence are literally obsessed with the question of God’s existence. I’ve said many many times that I would rather talk about something else here.
I commented on this particular thread because I thought you were having an interesting discussion on objectivity.
The problem is that in every single thread that I comment on the atheists feel compelled to bring up God’s existence again for some reason.
It’s almost like they are trying to convince themselves of something.
peace
KN,
Right.
Right, and his approach fails because
a) he can’t demonstrate God’s existence;
b) even if he could, he would need to determine God’s will; and
c) even granting a) and b), God’s opinions regarding morality are subjective, unless fifth can demonstrate that morality is independent of God.
That seems to be a pullback from your earlier claims regarding ‘human flourishing’. In any case, the facts regarding human nature can’t lead us to objective morality. You inevitably run into the Humean is/ought problem.
Besides that, you also run into your perennial problem of elevating the interests of humanity above those of other sentient creatures.
He hasn’t settled on a position. In an earlier discussion, he tried to argue for an objective morality based on the aggregated desires of sentient beings. That failed for a number of reasons that I summarize here and here.
Now he says:
And:
I asked him:
He responded:
However, he now seems to be restricting that claim to prudential values, not moral values:
If you what to call the vast majority of humanity psychotic because we observe that God exists that is certainly your prerogative.
Forgive us if we dismiss your aprasial.
peace
walto, to fifth:
I think the Godbot behavior is fifth’s attempt to convince himself.
Imagine how it feels to be him. He’s built his life around his faith, but he can’t defend it, and he gets his ass handed to him on a daily basis — by atheists, no less.
That’s gotta sting. It’s an itch that he can’t quite scratch, but he keeps trying.
I’ve heard this complaint from you before, but I think your take on the nature of your participation here is wildly inaccurate. I suggest that if you have look with an unbiased eye, you’ll find that what you do here is nothing at all like what you think you’re doing.
Just take a random sample of your initial post on a couple dozen threads, and you’ll discover what it is that you are actually interested in. And what you really want to talk about.
I’ll grant that I will step in when I see God blasphemed and my friends demeaned and belittled in threads.
But that does not mean it’s what I’m interested in or that I wouldn’t be very happy if that sort of juvenile school yard behavior was not so prevalent here.
As Ive said dozens of times
If you don’t want me to remind you that you know God exists don’t blaspheme him
peace
Based on the evidence, you must consider not talking about Jesus for five minutes utter blasphemy.
Anyhow, I just thought you might like to try to put an actual argument together. If not, fine. Sorry to have suggested it.
I’ll tell you that often I avoid commenting in threads because I know that as soon as I do the the usual suspects will arrive and talk will immediately switch to God’s existence.
peace
nope, but to give you a hint calling God an imaginary sky daddy would count as blasphemy and calling Christians stupid and irrational would count as belittlement.
peace
Well, if your opening remark on a thread that was previously devoted to, say, thermodynamics is something from the Bible, what can you expect?
That’s exactly what this book of mine says psychos do. I was totally expecting that