Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:28:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:18:54 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance? Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

If everything is meaningless, then nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately, will accomplish nothing. Nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately will thereby have meaning.

Is this an attempt to point out a contradiction? Because I can explain it some what better if need be.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:29:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:28:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:18:54 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance? Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

If everything is meaningless, then nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately, will accomplish nothing. Nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately will thereby have meaning.

Is this an attempt to point out a contradiction? Because I can explain it some what better if need be.

No, it was just meant to be snarky clever word play for humor, nothing more.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:33:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:29:09 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:28:02 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:18:54 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance? Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

If everything is meaningless, then nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately, will accomplish nothing. Nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately will thereby have meaning.

Is this an attempt to point out a contradiction? Because I can explain it some what better if need be.

No, it was just meant to be snarky clever word play for humor, nothing more.

Snarky clever word play?! I take umbrage!

But actually reading it again if you use "nothing" as a noun it makes sense lol
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:39:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:34:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:10:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 7:15:51 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:


A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

Or any set of rules that is codified and unchanging, due to its writters being exctinct. Morality can be extrapolated from 'The Art of War', as its writter is long since dead, its an authored work. That would make it an objective anchor in which to judge morality. What you consider to be 'the one and only' is personal preference. Subjective.

That is an assumption you make that stems from your presuppositional bias. I believe God has revealed Himself to man and given man convincing proof that He is who He claims to be.

I have also stated that I believe He is a necessary being without whom morality boils down to nothing more than personal and cultural likes and dislikes. Within your own culture there are many subcultures that oppose the views you support. You think that just because you have a majority view that makes it right.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

A Bipolar extraterrestrial entity that askes for its follows to sacrafice close personal possesions, or people, while claiming Omniscience is never 'morally right'.

And what do you ground moral rightness upon - yourself? Why are you "right"? Establish your ground/standard/measure/reference point for rightness and goodness.

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator.

Lets start with the basics, then. Do you enjoy being hit in the face? Nor do I.

No, I don't, yet some do.

Nor do a lot of people. So, its probably a good assumpt that hitting people in the face is wrong.

Based on your preference you claim to have established this. You do not like being hit in the face. For someone who does why is that wrong?

Do you like having your possesions stolen? Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people, etc etc.

That just betrays your worldview and confirms mine. In an evolutionary framework there is nothing wrong with stealing. If it gets you what you want and you get to keep it by making it difficult for others to steal from you then what's wrong with it? Do unto others before they do unto you. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure?

Basic understanding of stimuli. We naturally try to avoid pain and suffering, it stands to reason because we avoid it, we should try not to inflict it on others.

Your biological bag of atoms responds differently than mine. What is wrong with that?

You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good.

Its only made up if you really do enjoy being hit in the face, having your possesions taken, etc.

What is wrong with hitting others in the face and taking their possessions if my biological bag of atoms responds to its stimulus in this manner?

Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong.

Ironically, because they believed they are privy to the objective morality of the one true God. Sticky wicket.

So what makes that wrong? They, as relative human beings like you prefer this type of action. Unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging, good standard to ground right and wrong on all you have is preference. You prefer they don't do this and they prefer this course of action because they believe it justifies what they like. It is their might makes right policy to bring you into submission to their views. What is good about it? What is wrong with it? It is your personal opinion and those of like minds verses their personal opinion and those of like minds outside of an objective universal standard and measure. Why yours?

Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Flip to FJ's universal, freeware morality, we already know the answer. No God required.

Pardon?

I grant that atheists, to an extent, act in accordance with true moral principles, yet they cannot provide a source for morality without God that can explain why they believe what they do other than they like or dislike something.

Explained previously.

Rubbish.

Good to them is, "I like it" and bad is, "I don't like it." Your justification is nothing more than that and pushing you likes and dislikes on others. That is all you have. You have no other ground to base your morality on.

Well... in this instance, pushing my 'likes' (not being punched in the face) on some one else runs parallel to their desires, too. Its mutually beneficial for my morality to be followed. Everyone wins.

I win if I punch you in the face and take your possessions as long as I can get away with it, like in a dark alley without witnesses. Then I enjoy what I did not previous have!

http://plato.stanford.edu...

How do you get anything but a relative, shifting standard outside of God?....

Do you reasonably ever feel people will enjoy being punched in the face without cause?

You are making a moral judgment based on nothing more than your likes and those who agree with them. And how do you do something without cause? The cause is I feel it will achieve something I like.

What would be necessary for objective, universal values outside of God? First you need a mind that is all knowing thus is good by His very nature and thus knows what is right in all circumstances to establish the standard. Values originate from mind and absolute values from an absolute Mind.

Or basic understanding of human stimuli, which is why I am using the blunt instrument of 'punched in the face'.

Why does my stimulus have to be the same as yours and what makes it good as opposed to just like or dislike?

Nothing is moral unless there is a standard for morality that we can compare right and wrong to, a standard that does not change. Without that measure/standard all baby rape is is a preference. As a Christian whose basic presuppositions rest on God/ are based on God's standard, I can say without doubt it is wrong or there is no such thing as wrong. It can mean whatever you want it to mean without God and an objective standard. God is the basis for all truth. It derives from His being or else it means anything and everything and nothing.

Even though His desires are subject to interpretation of how the Bible translates, making it sadly, subjective. This doesn't include His capricious whims and mandates.

You assume that there is no correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

You mean the Christian God borrowed from them.

You grant He exists to do this then do you?

Again, you misunderstand what is necessary for objective, universal morals. Your grounds are constantly shifting. They are based on likes and dislikes, your tastes as opposed to other tastes.

There are plenty of societies that functioned just fine without the knowledge of interpretation of Christ, as well as societies that understood the basic concept of not punching people in the face, and extrapolated that into other subsets of morality...

They don't function just fine. There are always those who oppose the values of their society and all kinds of opposition is at work under the surface. Just listen to your local news.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:49:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:48:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:19:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

The Bible has deceived every single person who has read and studied it. Only God understands what He has us saints and prophets write for Him.

Bog, you know that none of your arguments are convincing to me. I feel sad that you are so deceived. You need special help so that you do not harm yourself and for no reason other that you have made yourself this self proclaimed saint and prophet of God. You are not convincing anyone, nor will you. From a concerned person I would ask you to seek some professional help, please!

Peter
I'm not in this forum to convince antichrists like you and most of the other members in here. I'm only here for God's chosen believers who listen to Him without having to argue. Most of God's believers I have met and spoken to in the past 3 1/2 years don't argue at all. They listen intently and thank me for sharing the Truth with them.

Everyone, listen to Bog. Do not argue with him. Thank him for what he is sharing with you! He, and he alone has the answers you need! Bow down to him and do not question what he says, just obey. It is not for you to question his authority. No one else on earth knows what he knows. He is full this knowledge.

Peter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:56:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

Or any set of rules that is codified and unchanging, due to its writters being exctinct. Morality can be extrapolated from 'The Art of War', as its writter is long since dead, its an authored work. That would make it an objective anchor in which to judge morality. What you consider to be 'the one and only' is personal preference. Subjective.

That is an assumption you make that stems from your presuppositional bias.

What part of that is presuppositional?

I have also stated that I believe He is a necessary being without whom morality boils down to nothing more than personal and cultural likes and dislikes. Within your own culture there are many subcultures that oppose the views you support. You think that just because you have a majority view that makes it right.

Do you like being hit in the face? I think you don't...

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

A Bipolar extraterrestrial entity that askes for its follows to sacrafice close personal possesions, or people, while claiming Omniscience is never 'morally right'.

And what do you ground moral rightness upon - yourself? Why are you "right"? Establish your ground/standard/measure/reference point for rightness and goodness.

Do you like being struck randomly in the face?

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator.

Lets start with the basics, then. Do you enjoy being hit in the face? Nor do I.

No, I don't, yet some do.

Out of sexual gratification, so it stands to reason its not a moral cause.

Nor do a lot of people. So, its probably a good assumpt that hitting people in the face is wrong.

Based on your preference you claim to have established this. You do not like being hit in the face. For someone who does why is that wrong?

See above.

Do you like having your possesions stolen? Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people, etc etc.

That just betrays your worldview and confirms mine. In an evolutionary framework there is nothing wrong with stealing. If it gets you what you want and you get to keep it by making it difficult for others to steal from you then what's wrong with it? Do unto others before they do unto you. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

Strawman. Evolutionary frame works seek to -prevent- you from acting like an animal. Not encourage it.


Your biological bag of atoms responds differently than mine. What is wrong with that?

Do you like being struck in the face?

You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good.

Its only made up if you really do enjoy being hit in the face, having your possesions taken, etc.

What is wrong with hitting others in the face and taking their possessions if my biological bag of atoms responds to its stimulus in this manner?

And now we get into silly season... Because the same can there fore be done to you with no reprecussion.

Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong.

Ironically, because they believed they are privy to the objective morality of the one true God. Sticky wicket.

So what makes that wrong? They, as relative human beings like you prefer this type of action. Unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging, good standard to ground right and wrong on all you have is preference.

In the name of their God, much like what you claim. So, clearly, what you think is objective isn't.

You prefer they don't do this and they prefer this course of action because they believe it justifies what they like. It is their might makes right policy to bring you into submission to their views. What is good about it? What is wrong with it? It is your personal opinion and those of like minds verses their personal opinion and those of like minds outside of an objective universal standard and measure. Why yours?


I grant that atheists, to an extent, act in accordance with true moral principles, yet they cannot provide a source for morality without God that can explain why they believe what they do other than they like or dislike something.

Explained previously.

Rubbish.

Your invention of absurdities is not my problem.

Good to them is, "I like it" and bad is, "I don't like it." Your justification is nothing more than that and pushing you likes and dislikes on others. That is all you have. You have no other ground to base your morality on.

Well... in this instance, pushing my 'likes' (not being punched in the face) on some one else runs parallel to their desires, too. Its mutually beneficial for my morality to be followed. Everyone wins.

I win if I punch you in the face and take your possessions as long as I can get away with it, like in a dark alley without witnesses. Then I enjoy what I did not previous have!

Yes, and we lost something, its not EVERYONE wins if that happens, is it? You are selectively ignoring the counter.


Do you reasonably ever feel people will enjoy being punched in the face without cause?

You are making a moral judgment based on nothing more than your likes and those who agree with them. And how do you do something without cause? The cause is I feel it will achieve something I like.

And you reasonably feel that act is going to be true of the recipient of your action? Again, you are selectively ignoring the 'why'.

What would be necessary for objective, universal values outside of God? First you need a mind that is all knowing thus is good by His very nature and thus knows what is right in all circumstances to establish the standard. Values originate from mind and absolute values from an absolute Mind.

Or basic understanding of human stimuli, which is why I am using the blunt instrument of 'punched in the face'.

Why does my stimulus have to be the same as yours and what makes it good as opposed to just like or dislike?

Because it will then be applied to you based on the same reason you did it, and it would be 'right'. Thats the point you are doggedly ignoring.


Even though His desires are subject to interpretation of how the Bible translates, making it sadly, subjective. This doesn't include His capricious whims and mandates.

You assume that there is no correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

You assume there is a correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

You mean the Christian God borrowed from them.

You grant He exists to do this then do you?

No more than Jupiter borrowed from Zues and Mars borrowed from Ares.

Again, you misunderstand what is necessary for objective, universal morals. Your grounds are constantly shifting. They are based on likes and dislikes, your tastes as opposed to other tastes.

Strawman.

There are plenty of societies that functioned just fine without the knowledge of interpretation of Christ, as well as societies that understood the basic concept of not punching people in the face, and extrapolated that into law.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:02:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:49:18 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:48:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:19:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

The Bible has deceived every single person who has read and studied it. Only God understands what He has us saints and prophets write for Him.

Bog, you know that none of your arguments are convincing to me. I feel sad that you are so deceived. You need special help so that you do not harm yourself and for no reason other that you have made yourself this self proclaimed saint and prophet of God. You are not convincing anyone, nor will you. From a concerned person I would ask you to seek some professional help, please!

Peter
I'm not in this forum to convince antichrists like you and most of the other members in here. I'm only here for God's chosen believers who listen to Him without having to argue. Most of God's believers I have met and spoken to in the past 3 1/2 years don't argue at all. They listen intently and thank me for sharing the Truth with them.

Everyone, listen to Bog. Do not argue with him. Thank him for what he is sharing with you! He, and he alone has the answers you need! Bow down to him and do not question what he says, just obey. It is not for you to question his authority. No one else on earth knows what he knows. He is full this knowledge.

Peter

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:16:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

Peter, your ignorance is refulgent.

If you believe the bible contains accurate history not only do you not understand ancient history, you have not thoroughly read the bible.

Until you educate yourself a bit more, you are just wasting my time as well as every other intellectual who frequents this site.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:08:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:56:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Or any set of rules that is codified and unchanging, due to its writters being exctinct. Morality can be extrapolated from 'The Art of War', as its writter is long since dead, its an authored work. That would make it an objective anchor in which to judge morality. What you consider to be 'the one and only' is personal preference. Subjective.

That is an assumption you make that stems from your presuppositional bias.

What part of that is presuppositional?

You build you view of the world on a particular philosophical system of core beliefs that the rest of the web of beliefs rests on. This foundational presuppositional basis is something you take by faith, just like I do. Your presuppositional beliefs have no way of justifying/making sense of themselves.

Do you like being hit in the face? I think you don't...

No, but some people find enjoyment in it.

Do you like being struck randomly in the face?

What do you not understand by my reply - no, yet some people find pleasure in it.

No, I don't, yet some do.

Out of sexual gratification, so it stands to reason its not a moral cause.

Show me you base it on something other than personal preference. If that is the only ground for morality you have then what is wrong with it? Hitler liked to murder Jews because he saw them as inferior to the Aryan race. What is your preference?

Nor do a lot of people. So, its probably a good assumpt that hitting people in the face is wrong.

Based on your preference you claim to have established this. You do not like being hit in the face. For someone who does why is that wrong?

See above.

You are saying it is wrong. Someone who likes it says otherwise. What makes your view right? The more you call him wrong the more he wants to hit you in the face.

Do you like having your possesions stolen? Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people, etc etc.

That just betrays your worldview and confirms mine. In an evolutionary framework there is nothing wrong with stealing. If it gets you what you want and you get to keep it by making it difficult for others to steal from you then what's wrong with it? Do unto others before they do unto you. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

Strawman. Evolutionary frame works seek to -prevent- you from acting like an animal. Not encourage it.

The evolutionary framework does not seek anything. It just is. You are trying to personify evolution, give it characteristics of person. From an evolutionary standpoint you are an animal, a highly evolved one. Some animals like to eat their young. what is your preference?

Your biological bag of atoms responds differently than mine. What is wrong with that?

Do you like being struck in the face?

Do you understand English?

You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good.

Its only made up if you really do enjoy being hit in the face, having your possesions taken, etc.

What is wrong with hitting others in the face and taking their possessions if my biological bag of atoms responds to its stimulus in this manner?

And now we get into silly season... Because the same can there fore be done to you with no reprecussion.

The repercussions in your worldview stem from those of like mindedness who have the power to control those who don't, until you meet them in a dark alley.

Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong...So what makes that wrong? They, as relative human beings like you prefer this type of action. Unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging, good standard to ground right and wrong on all you have is preference.

In the name of their God, much like what you claim. So, clearly, what you think is objective isn't.

So what makes it wrong? Because you and those like minded don't like it? Tough.

You prefer they don't do this and they prefer this course of action because they believe it justifies what they like. It is their might makes right policy to bring you into submission to their views. What is good about it? What is wrong with it? It is your personal opinion and those of like minds verses their personal opinion and those of like minds outside of an objective universal standard and measure. Why yours?

I grant that atheists, to an extent, act in accordance with true moral principles, yet they cannot provide a source for morality without God that can explain why they believe what they do other than they like or dislike something.

Explained previously.

Rubbish.

Your invention of absurdities is not my problem.

All you explained was that you prefer one course of action to another. What makes that "right."

Good to them is, "I like it" and bad is, "I don't like it." Your justification is nothing more than that and pushing you likes and dislikes on others. That is all you have. You have no other ground to base your morality on.

Well... in this instance, pushing my 'likes' (not being punched in the face) on some one else runs parallel to their desires, too. Its mutually beneficial for my morality to be followed. Everyone wins.

I win if I punch you in the face and take your possessions as long as I can get away with it, like in a dark alley without witnesses. Then I enjoy what I did not previous have!

Yes, and we lost something, its not EVERYONE wins if that happens, is it? You are selectively ignoring the counter.

Where does "evolution" say that you have to win? Quit giving evolution human persona.

Do you reasonably ever feel people will enjoy being punched in the face without cause?

You are making a moral judgment based on nothing more than your likes and those who agree with them. And how do you do something without cause? The cause is I feel it will achieve something I like.

And you reasonably feel that act is going to be true of the recipient of your action? Again, you are selectively ignoring the 'why'.

I am just mocking the implications of carrying your worldview to its conclusions to show how it can't make sense of morality without assuming God. My worldview can explain why hitting someone in the face is morally wrong. Yours cannot because it is based on preference.

Why does my stimulus have to be the same as yours and what makes it good as opposed to just like or dislike?

Because it will then be applied to you based on the same reason you did it, and it would be 'right'. Thats the point you are doggedly ignoring.

That is fine and dandy if I don't like being hit in the face or if my "stimuli" avoids this behavior. Why if my stimuli like this behavior?

Even though His desires are subject to interpretation of how the Bible translates, making it sadly, subjective. This doesn't include His capricious whims and mandates.

You assume that there is no correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

You assume there is a correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

Book eel feel so be just not me whale awhile.

Understand?

Jesus wept!

Understand?

Again, you misunderstand what is necessary for objective, universal morals. Your grounds are constantly shifting. They are based on likes and dislikes, your tastes as opposed to other tastes.

Strawman.

(As he avoids giving anything but his preference, his mere opinion)

Establish your ground or measure for goodness and tell me why what you believe is truly good. Why is your preference, your likes, your taste, good? Who are you to tell me what good is?

Peter
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:14:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

What if there was a scenario in which baby rape was beneficial to all involved?

Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma.

The 2 sentences were not suppose to be separated. But also, what if my grandma is a unrepentant Nazi who delighted in torturing Jews? Loving my grandma seems immoral in that case (based on my values).

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.

But objective morality doesn't exist. You copped out of trying point out an objective truth with the baby rape and grandma scenarios.

"We must have intrinsic meaning ..." why?
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:16:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 1:16:03 AM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

Peter, your ignorance is refulgent.

If you believe the bible contains accurate history not only do you not understand ancient history, you have not thoroughly read the bible.

Sure I believe it. You don't understand, obviously.

Until you educate yourself a bit more, you are just wasting my time as well as every other intellectual who frequents this site.

You need the education.

Why are you wasting you time on this site if that is the way you feel? Do you feel your intellectual position is superior to mine and every other intellectual?

I feel I can justify the biblical position or else I would not believe it or the God revealed in it. My position is not one of blind faith.

I will make the claim that you speak of things you know very little about. Prove me wrong or I will dismiss your wild assertions for what they are.

Peter
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:18:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:14:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

What if there was a scenario in which baby rape was beneficial to all involved?

In what scenario should we ought to rape babies?

Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma.

The 2 sentences were not suppose to be separated. But also, what if my grandma is a unrepentant Nazi who delighted in torturing Jews? Loving my grandma seems immoral in that case (based on my values).

There's a difference between loving what someone does and just loving someone. A son can abhor what his grandma does but it's still moral to love his grandma.

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.

But objective morality doesn't exist. You copped out of trying point out an objective truth with the baby rape and grandma scenarios.

What do you mean by this? How did I cop out?

"We must have intrinsic meaning ..." why?

Because if meaning or purpose is given extrinsically it can't be the case that we all ought or not to do anything. Whatever we ought or ought not to do would be undefined until we defined it.
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:31:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:18:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:14:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

What if there was a scenario in which baby rape was beneficial to all involved?

In what scenario should we ought to rape babies?

The details are not really important. The point being that if there was a scenario in which good for all could come from such an act could we still call it immoral? But idk, lets just say there are aliens that will destroy the world unless they are delivered one raped baby per year, upon delivery the baby is taken care of and given a much better life than could be had on earth via alien tech. Would the person charged with raping the baby to save humanity be considered immoral?

Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma.

The 2 sentences were not suppose to be separated. But also, what if my grandma is a unrepentant Nazi who delighted in torturing Jews? Loving my grandma seems immoral in that case (based on my values).

There's a difference between loving what someone does and just loving someone. A son can abhor what his grandma does but it's still moral to love his grandma.

We should define love and what that entails. Also define moral, because depending on the scenario it may not be moral to love grandma.

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.

But objective morality doesn't exist. You copped out of trying point out an objective truth with the baby rape and grandma scenarios.

What do you mean by this? How did I cop out?

Because instead of considering scenarios you just went to the tired baby rape scenario.

"We must have intrinsic meaning ..." why?

Because if meaning or purpose is given extrinsically it can't be the case that we all ought or not to do anything. Whatever we ought or ought not to do would be undefined until we defined it.

... and? What's wrong with allowing people to come up with their own values? We as a civilization have done a fair job of it already. Of course there's room for improvement.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:39:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:31:30 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:18:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:14:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

What if there was a scenario in which baby rape was beneficial to all involved?

In what scenario should we ought to rape babies?

The details are not really important. The point being that if there was a scenario in which good for all could come from such an act could we still call it immoral? But idk, lets just say there are aliens that will destroy the world unless they are delivered one raped baby per year, upon delivery the baby is taken care of and given a much better life than could be had on earth via alien tech. Would the person charged with raping the baby to save humanity be considered immoral?

What we ought to do is save humanity. Raping an infant is still something that we ought not to do. By raping an infant in order to save humanity, raping the infant was still something that was ought not to be done.

Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma.

The 2 sentences were not suppose to be separated. But also, what if my grandma is a unrepentant Nazi who delighted in torturing Jews? Loving my grandma seems immoral in that case (based on my values).

There's a difference between loving what someone does and just loving someone. A son can abhor what his grandma does but it's still moral to love his grandma.

We should define love and what that entails. Also define moral, because depending on the scenario it may not be moral to love grandma.

Moral is right or good. Love is wishing good for something.

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.

But objective morality doesn't exist. You copped out of trying point out an objective truth with the baby rape and grandma scenarios.

What do you mean by this? How did I cop out?

Because instead of considering scenarios you just went to the tired baby rape scenario.

Isn't that a scenario? I don't understand how it wouldn't be applicable when considering objective morality. If you argue that objective morality doesn't exist it follows necessarily that all conceivable scenarios are subjectively immoral.

"We must have intrinsic meaning ..." why?

Because if meaning or purpose is given extrinsically it can't be the case that we all ought or not to do anything. Whatever we ought or ought not to do would be undefined until we defined it.

... and? What's wrong with allowing people to come up with their own values? We as a civilization have done a fair job of it already. Of course there's room for improvement.

I wasn't arguing that point. I was saying that in order to have objective morality we must have intrinsic meaning.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:43:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

What part of that is presuppositional?

-cut-
I am referring to what 'objective' can be based off of. The Art of War is done, authored. It cannot be added to anymore. Its 'objective' by that standard. The presupposition is that one is 'right', which is not a claim I am making.


Out of sexual gratification, so it stands to reason its not a moral cause.

Show me you base it on something other than personal preference. If that is the only ground for morality you have then what is wrong with it? Hitler liked to murder Jews because he saw them as inferior to the Aryan race. What is your preference?

And would Hitler, in turn then like to BE murdered by Jews? Stop looking at it from my end as what I prefer, and instead what I think OTHER people would prefer not to have happen as how actions or inactions are being formulated.

Nor do a lot of people. So, its probably a good assumpt that hitting people in the face is wrong.

Based on your preference you claim to have established this. You do not like being hit in the face. For someone who does why is that wrong?

And if they LIKE being hit in the face, nothing stops them from asking others to do it to them, however rational observation of other people could easily arrive them at the conclusion their sensation on the matter is not the norm.

You are saying it is wrong. Someone who likes it says otherwise. What makes your view right? The more you call him wrong the more he wants to hit you in the face.

So absurdity is your only recourse to argument?

Do you like having your possesions stolen? Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people, etc etc.


The evolutionary framework does not seek anything. It just is. You are trying to personify evolution, give it characteristics of person.

YOUR argument started off with Evolutionary view, if you don't like how it gets applied, don't use it. If it doesn't 'seek' anything, and just is, don't attribute things to it, you invented the characiture that it personifies dog eat dog. I would suggest you abandon your argument if you don't like it.

From an evolutionary standpoint you are an animal, a highly evolved one. Some animals like to eat their young. what is your preference?

Nonsequitur.

Do you understand English?

Do you? Stop ignoring the consequences of the argument presented.

You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good.

Its only made up if you really do enjoy being hit in the face, having your possesions taken, etc.

What is wrong with hitting others in the face and taking their possessions if my biological bag of atoms responds to its stimulus in this manner?

And now we get into silly season... Because the same can there fore be done to you with no reprecussion.

The repercussions in your worldview stem from those of like mindedness who have the power to control those who don't, until you meet them in a dark alley.

Strawman, I have never made that contention.

So what makes it wrong? Because you and those like minded don't like it? Tough.

So what makes God objective or real? Because you and those like minded say so? Tough.


All you explained was that you prefer one course of action to another. What makes that "right."

Its easily applied and rationable to all, and even in the case of absurd exception (the guy that likes getting hit in the face), the reason for the anomoly can be found and exception made provided the exception understands his desires are indeed statistically slim.


Well... in this instance, pushing my 'likes' (not being punched in the face) on some one else runs parallel to their desires, too. Its mutually beneficial for my morality to be followed. Everyone wins.

I win if I punch you in the face and take your possessions as long as I can get away with it, like in a dark alley without witnesses. Then I enjoy what I did not previous have!

Yes, and we lost something, its not EVERYONE wins if that happens, is it? You are selectively ignoring the counter.

Where does "evolution" say that you have to win? Quit giving evolution human persona.

Where have I even hinted about evolution as a means for morality? Stop inventing what you want me to say! Thus far, the only biological evolutionary concept for morality has been brought up by you.

Do you reasonably ever feel people will enjoy being punched in the face without cause?

You are making a moral judgment based on nothing more than your likes and those who agree with them. And how do you do something without cause? The cause is I feel it will achieve something I like.

And you reasonably feel that act is going to be true of the recipient of your action? Again, you are selectively ignoring the 'why'.

I am just mocking the implications of carrying your worldview to its conclusions to show how it can't make sense of morality without assuming God.

.... and failing. I agree, you mock. You don't refute. You create absurdity rather than create argument.

My worldview can explain why hitting someone in the face is morally wrong. Yours cannot because it is based on preference.

Only if you choose to ignore what you have been reading, and say 'evolution' a few more times.

Why does my stimulus have to be the same as yours and what makes it good as opposed to just like or dislike?

Because it will then be applied to you based on the same reason you did it, and it would be 'right'. Thats the point you are doggedly ignoring.

That is fine and dandy if I don't like being hit in the face or if my "stimuli" avoids this behavior. Why if my stimuli like this behavior?

Then again, use your reasoning to understand that your case is not even close to universal. If I am born with a desire to be punched in the face, but strangely 7.5 billion people don't, I can ration out that my case is abberant. That doesn't mean I can't in turn be struck in the face if asked; I should reasonably assume people wouldn't want to, but I should appreciate that other people don't feel as I do, I am outside the norm.

Even though His desires are subject to interpretation of how the Bible translates, making it sadly, subjective. This doesn't include His capricious whims and mandates.

You assume that there is no correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

You assume there is a correct interpretation. Bad assumption.

Book eel feel so be just not me whale awhile.

Understand?

Jesus wept!

Understand?

God is many, and One. God is 3 represenations of the whole, which is the same. A father, a son, and a spirit at once. Your cheese, you describe the smell.

Understand?


Again, you misunderstand what is necessary for objective, universal morals. Your grounds are constantly shifting. They are based on likes and dislikes, your tastes as opposed to other tastes.

No, my grounds are not 'constantly shifting'. They are based on observance of the world around me, and rational conclusion of that, as well as the consequences of my actions when such they might be by others.

Now, make a new strawman.

You tell me why an Omniscient entity asking a father to kill his child to prove his dedication is the anchor for your morality. You tell me why 2 entities understand of eachothers' power, and one staking his reputation on a wager of his most faithful of the flock is the anchor for your morality. I have given you the reasons for my basis, and you have strawmaned, invented absuridites, and selectively ignored each argument.

Justify why God is 'Good' in light of His -obviously- questionable actions.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:58:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:39:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:31:30 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:18:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:14:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

What if there was a scenario in which baby rape was beneficial to all involved?

In what scenario should we ought to rape babies?

The details are not really important. The point being that if there was a scenario in which good for all could come from such an act could we still call it immoral? But idk, lets just say there are aliens that will destroy the world unless they are delivered one raped baby per year, upon delivery the baby is taken care of and given a much better life than could be had on earth via alien tech. Would the person charged with raping the baby to save humanity be considered immoral?

What we ought to do is save humanity. Raping an infant is still something that we ought not to do. By raping an infant in order to save humanity, raping the infant was still something that was ought not to be done.

This is a contradiction. If we ought to save humanity then we ought to rape a baby (as the scenario requires). You didn't directly answer my question. Would the person who raped the baby to save humanity be considered immoral? If no, then it shows that baby rape is not absolutely immoral. Your last sentence "it still ought not be done" comes from a mindset in which the scenario doesn't apply. I agree with you, we ought not to rape babies. But if this scenario becomes a reality well ... we ought to save humanity, right?

Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma.

The 2 sentences were not suppose to be separated. But also, what if my grandma is a unrepentant Nazi who delighted in torturing Jews? Loving my grandma seems immoral in that case (based on my values).

There's a difference between loving what someone does and just loving someone. A son can abhor what his grandma does but it's still moral to love his grandma.

We should define love and what that entails. Also define moral, because depending on the scenario it may not be moral to love grandma.

Moral is right or good. Love is wishing good for something.

Good and right need to be defined, because

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.

But objective morality doesn't exist. You copped out of trying point out an objective truth with the baby rape and grandma scenarios.

What do you mean by this? How did I cop out?

Because instead of considering scenarios you just went to the tired baby rape scenario.

Isn't that a scenario? I don't understand how it wouldn't be applicable when considering objective morality. If you argue that objective morality doesn't exist it follows necessarily that all conceivable scenarios are subjectively immoral.

No, it's an act. Baby rape by itself has no context. That's why when i put the act on the context of aliens it becomes morally gray. If you had said homicide, the act of killing a human being, it would also not help because it is devoid of context (say like self defense). The argument is not that all scenarios are necessarily moral or immoral. We need context to understand. And context is not necessarily absolute/universal/objective. That's why I put the acts into context. Depending on how much I love my racist grandma I could be perpetuating racism. That would be bad based on my values.

"We must have intrinsic meaning ..." why?

Because if meaning or purpose is given extrinsically it can't be the case that we all ought or not to do anything. Whatever we ought or ought not to do would be undefined until we defined it.

... and? What's wrong with allowing people to come up with their own values? We as a civilization have done a fair job of it already. Of course there's room for improvement.

I wasn't arguing that point. I was saying that in order to have objective morality we must have intrinsic meaning.

Yes but this doesn't really make sense to me because I'm arguing against objective morality. Also what is intrinsic meaning?
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 3:40:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just to give you another scenario. Lets take the act of Abortion.

Now many Christians will say abortion is objectively/absolutly wrong because God says so (forget about in cases of danger towards the mother). However in the Bible there is a formula that causes abortion, and it's justified as ok because if the abortion is successful that means the woman was unfaithful. So when given context abortion can be acceptable, even according to God. https://www.biblegateway.com...
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 9:52:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:58:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:39:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:31:30 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:18:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:14:40 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:04:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance?

Sure, rape an infant.

What if there was a scenario in which baby rape was beneficial to all involved?

In what scenario should we ought to rape babies?

The details are not really important. The point being that if there was a scenario in which good for all could come from such an act could we still call it immoral? But idk, lets just say there are aliens that will destroy the world unless they are delivered one raped baby per year, upon delivery the baby is taken care of and given a much better life than could be had on earth via alien tech. Would the person charged with raping the baby to save humanity be considered immoral?

What we ought to do is save humanity. Raping an infant is still something that we ought not to do. By raping an infant in order to save humanity, raping the infant was still something that was ought not to be done.

This is a contradiction. If we ought to save humanity then we ought to rape a baby (as the scenario requires). You didn't directly answer my question. Would the person who raped the baby to save humanity be considered immoral? If no, then it shows that baby rape is not absolutely immoral. Your last sentence "it still ought not be done" comes from a mindset in which the scenario doesn't apply. I agree with you, we ought not to rape babies. But if this scenario becomes a reality well ... we ought to save humanity, right?

If we ought to save humanity then the best that could be said is that we ought to do something that we ought not to do. The thing that we still ought not to do is rape the baby. The act itself doesn't become something we ought to do. Just as a woman being held at gunpoint doesn't ought to be raped just because she'll be killed if she doesn't submit otherwise.


Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

Loving your grandma.

The 2 sentences were not suppose to be separated. But also, what if my grandma is a unrepentant Nazi who delighted in torturing Jews? Loving my grandma seems immoral in that case (based on my values).

There's a difference between loving what someone does and just loving someone. A son can abhor what his grandma does but it's still moral to love his grandma.

We should define love and what that entails. Also define moral, because depending on the scenario it may not be moral to love grandma.

Moral is right or good. Love is wishing good for something.

Good and right need to be defined, because

Good: to be desired or approved of.

Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.


In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

Meaning can be given extrinsically but there would be no intrinsic meaning. We must have intrinsic meaning in order for objective morality to exist.

But objective morality doesn't exist. You copped out of trying point out an objective truth with the baby rape and grandma scenarios.

What do you mean by this? How did I cop out?

Because instead of considering scenarios you just went to the tired baby rape scenario.

Isn't that a scenario? I don't understand how it wouldn't be applicable when considering objective morality. If you argue that objective morality doesn't exist it follows necessarily that all conceivable scenarios are subjectively immoral.

No, it's an act. Baby rape by itself has no context. That's why when i put the act on the context of aliens it becomes morally gray. If you had said homicide, the act of killing a human being, it would also not help because it is devoid of context (say like self defense). The argument is not that all scenarios are necessarily moral or immoral. We need context to understand. And context is not necessarily absolute/universal/objective. That's why I put the acts into context. Depending on how much I love my racist grandma I could be perpetuating racism. That would be bad based on my values.

Well you yourself said "tired baby rape scenario" then went on to say that it wasn't a scenario. Objective morality is an argument that doesn't concern itself with context. "Killing without necessary justification is immoral" would be an example of objective morality. Moral absolutism is where something is immoral regardless of context like "it's always wrong to kill."

"We must have intrinsic meaning ..." why?

Because if meaning or purpose is given extrinsically it can't be the case that we all ought or not to do anything. Whatever we ought or ought not to do would be undefined until we defined it.

... and? What's wrong with allowing people to come up with their own values? We as a civilization have done a fair job of it already. Of course there's room for improvement.

I wasn't arguing that point. I was saying that in order to have objective morality we must have intrinsic meaning.

Yes but this doesn't really make sense to me because I'm arguing against objective morality. Also what is intrinsic meaning?

Intrinsic meaning means that things are valued just for being the thing that they are. A baby will have value without any extrinsic value given to it. There is no extrinsic value criteria that a baby needs in order to be valued.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 10:01:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

Who said there has to be a purpose for our existence?

Whatever we ought to do is clearly defined. It is defined in what you christians love, A BOOK, however the books that I speak of are law books. We as human beings decide what we "ought" to do

if you found out today that without a doubt there was no god and therefore all religions were fake man made creations, would you all of a sudden start raping little boys and girls, would you kill your neighbors in the street? simply because your "basis" for morality was gone -- I hope not
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 10:02:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Have we been into benny's favourite sexual pastime yet? You know baby rape.
Oh for fun he means.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 10:18:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

I would disagree. There are worldviews / philosophies / religions holding the same basic moral principles as Christianity that predate Christianity. Buddhism is one example. It predates Christianity by some 500 years. It could be argued that Christianity borrowed from them.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 10:25:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Intrinsic meaning means that things are valued just for being the thing that they are. A baby will have value without any extrinsic value given to it. There is no extrinsic value criteria that a baby needs in order to be valued.

you talk about intrinsic value, but if life itself doesn't hold intrinsic value in your view then something more than I suspect is wrong with you. In my view life has value whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic, and therefore should be important to us all.

You claim to that we derive our morals from an objective morality set forth by a god. How exactly do you claim this, when this same god if you believe the bible to be his word.
condoned slavery and in fact gave instruction on it
killed innocent men women and children during the flood
condoned the rape of women, gave instruction and guidance on it and gave virgin women to soldiers as prizes for winning wars.
ordered the killing of the canaanites even the babies
considered women as chattel and nowhere near the equal of men

You really think that this is the entity that we got our morals from - give me a break please
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:34:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 10:25:09 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Intrinsic meaning means that things are valued just for being the thing that they are. A baby will have value without any extrinsic value given to it. There is no extrinsic value criteria that a baby needs in order to be valued.

you talk about intrinsic value, but if life itself doesn't hold intrinsic value in your view then something more than I suspect is wrong with you. In my view life has value whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic, and therefore should be important to us all.

You claim to that we derive our morals from an objective morality set forth by a god. How exactly do you claim this, when this same god if you believe the bible to be his word.
condoned slavery and in fact gave instruction on it
killed innocent men women and children during the flood
condoned the rape of women, gave instruction and guidance on it and gave virgin women to soldiers as prizes for winning wars.
ordered the killing of the canaanites even the babies
considered women as chattel and nowhere near the equal of men

You really think that this is the entity that we got our morals from - give me a break please

(1) I do believe life has intrinsic value
(2) I am not a Christian
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:38:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.

Peter
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:39:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

God is the source but morality isn't God's opinion. Morality derives from God's absolute nature. Anything absolute can never be anything other that what it is.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.