The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

Hey...If it's true it's true. The fact that it is a copy paste change anything about the information itself?

You think plagiarism is okay?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

@anonymous person, if you cannot defend your case honestly, then what does that say about your case?

 

[Moral Orel]

Edit: I just want to ask you this. What is the purpose that God bestowed upon himself that he was not created with?

I don't know that He did at all.

 

[Moral Orel]

In this senario, lets say there was a person who was equal to the "painbot" inventor that opposed the inventor. That would only make the "motives" for the purpose subjective. But the purpose remains objectively true. You may say the inventor is wrong for creating a robot for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering upon it, but all that will do is make the intention behind the purpose subjective.

Right, so I do understand what you're saying. That it is objectively immoral for the painbot to resist it's own torture because it would be going against it's purpose.

What if the inventor was a psychopath with anger issues? What if the motive for such an invention was to prevent psychopaths from inflicting pain and suffering on another human being by taking it all out on a machine? What if hundreds of human lives are saved because of "painbots". Some may say the motivation is good and some may disagree but it still does not change the fact that a good "painbot" is one who suffers greatly and a bad "painbot" does not suffer.

Right, motivations don't matter. If he invented it because he wanted to torture and get away without legal consequences, or if he invented it and then marketed it to children to try and create more psychopaths with anger issues is irrelevant. His motivations can be bad if his purpose is to not do such a thing, or his motivations can be objectively good if his purpose is to do such a thing. It still has no bearing on the morality of the choice the robot makes to allow it's torture or to resist it's torture. I notice you skipped the murderbot though. That's a harder pill to swallow isn't it? But the same rules apply universally right? When that robot rapes, and murders, and pillages (by choice to follow it's created purpose) it is acting in an objectively morally good manner.

I just think it's interesting to think about a definition of morality that pays no mind to cooperation, or fairness, or any sort of balance between pleasure and pain. To think that there is nothing intrinsically evil about inflicting pain itself seems a bit off to me, but that is the conclusion that must be reached from this definition of morality.

Now let's say there was a being with a higher authority. That still does not change the created purpose of a "painbot". All it could do is make the motives behind the creation of the "painbot" objectively bad. What if there was a law that forbid the creation of "painbots". The legislators who created the law is of a higher authority than the inventor. Thus making the motives for the creation of the "painbots" objectively bad but that still does not change the fact that a good "painbot" is one that suffers and a bad "painbot" is one who doesn't.

Ah ah ah! A legislator can't make what I do objectively bad because he has no bearing on my purpose. He cannot change my purpose. The only thing that makes a legislator a higher authority than me is the power to enforce it's will on me and we agree that "might makes right" is no way to define morals. God would be a higher authority than me because as a creator He can assign my purpose. No legislator can ever assign my purpose, all they can do is say, "Do that and I'll do this".

 

[anonymous person]

@anonymous person, if you cannot defend your case honestly, then what does that say about your case?

I can and I will be able to do just that so long as God helps me and He has done just that by allowing you to help me. I not only used the links you provided to go back and cite my references but I left a note for all to see how helpful you are in making sure we all do what is right. ☺

 

[Moral Orel]

Remember my analogy of the rock? Even if a being had no "created" purpose, if that being had somelevel of intelligence, that being can give itself a purpose. Given the fact that there is nobody equal or greater to God. His purpose is objective by default.

This logic doesn't follow for me. It isn't that I see errors necessarily, I just don't see the connections you are making. If you are created for a purpose, then it is an objective fact that that is your purpose. But how is it an objective fact that your purpose is such-and-such and not just an objective fact that you said it is such-and-such.

So then let's take it down to a relatable mundane level. You mentioned legislators in another post, so I'll use that here. If there was no God, and the law told me my purpose is to pay taxes, then I have an objective purpose to pay taxes?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can

Can you? Really? Because the repeated examples of dishonesty in presenting and defending your case would suggest otherwise.

and I will be able to do just that so long as God helps me and He has done just that by allowing you to help me. I not only used the links you provided to go back and cite my references but I left a note for all to see how helpful you are in making sure we all do what is right. ☺

This isn't the first time your tactics were exposed. They have become familiar enough to form part of your MO here.

 

[Moral Orel]

Remember my analogy of the rock? Even if a being had no "created" purpose, if that being had somelevel of intelligence, that being can give itself a purpose. Given the fact that there is nobody equal or greater to God. His purpose is objective by default.

God's purpose that he bestowed unto Himself is to love and be loved in return .

Okay, so let's follow these down the rabbit hole of my terrible imagination as well. What if God bestowed upon Himself the purpose of hating and being hated. Is there anything to stop Him from doing so? There is nothing greater than Him to say that He is wrong in bestowing such a purpose, so He would create us to have someone to hate and to be hated by, and makes that our purpose. He gives us free will, so that we could choose to love Him instead, but that would be objectively immoral, in this scenario.

Again, and I'll repeat this ad-nauseum because someone, somewhere is likely to read this post and take it all the wrong way, I'm not saying God hates us, or that we should hate God. I'm simply trying to imagine a universe, and all of its implications, in which there is nothing intrinsically bad about all the things that I consider to be bad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because the argument consists of two premises. Neither of them have anything to do with accountability.

Then the argument is meaningless and has nothing to do with morals.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You think plagiarism is okay?

On a webforum? Who cares.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

@Nicholas Deka. You are getting closer. I will answer your questions. However, it is going to be a busy day today and I don't want to shortchange your answer due to time constraints.

 

[anonymous person]

Then the argument is meaningless and has nothing to do with morals.

Ok thank you for sharing that with me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On a webforum? Who cares.

So you'd be fine with a poster presenting someone else's work as their own? You'd be fine with a poster copying your posts and presenting them as if it were their own?

 

[anonymous person]

So you'd be fine with a poster presenting someone else's work as their own? You'd be fine with a poster copying your posts and presenting them as if it were their own?

I really don't see why you would be troubled by this. Is it objectively wrong to plagiarize? If so, why?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I really don't see why you would be troubled by this. Is it objectively wrong to plagiarize? If so, why?

You're going to try that again? Didn't work out well for you last time.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Nicholas Deka. You are getting closer. I will answer your questions. However, it is going to be a busy day today and I don't want to shortchange your answer due to time constraints.

Thanks. Don't rush yourself or strain yourself on my account.

 

[Davian]

"For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God.." Deuteronomy 10:17

My God is the God revealed in Christ Jesus. In Colossians chapter 1, a stunning section of Scripture crescendos to verse 18, expressing God's desire and priority throughout the ages, that in all things, Jesus Christ, is the preeminent One. Preeminent means superior to or notable above all others; superiority in excellence; distinction above others in quality, rank, etc.

www.sharefaith.com/guide/christian-apologetics/preeminence-of-christ.html

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was the proof that was furnished as a public vindication of His radical claims. The death and resurrection of Jesus stands as the ultimate miracle to prove His divine nature. He predicted His resurrection (John 2:19-21), His death was confirmed (John 19:33), Roman soldiers guarded His tomb (Matthew 27:62-66), yet the tomb was empty on the third day, and no claim was made that His body was ever found. Many eyewitnesses claimed to see Him alive (1 Corinthians 15) for 40 days.

I am not disputing that you beleive all that, but what I asked was, how is what your god says objective if it is only one of many?

 

[Davian]

On a webforum? Who cares.

I do. I think one should aspire to intellectual honesty in all venues, unless both sides agree that what is being discussed is fiction. Even then, it can still be applied, where appropriate.

 

[Davian]

I really don't see why you would be troubled by this. Is it objectively wrong to plagiarize? If so, why?

I am not aware of anything that is "objectively" wrong. How would you establish such a thing?

 

[Sapiens]

Are there moral believers?

Moral in the sense of morally perfect, no. No amount of "good deeds" can make a person good.

However, we, believers, are growing in holiness as we live. As for non-believers, they can morally improve as people too during their lives but that doesn't make them good.