The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

It is very important to me.

No it's not Jeremy. No one here believes that you care one iota about intellectual integrity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you have a link to the thread?

Ah, the excuses... You know that I do have a link to the exact post... You know that because I posted it to you in that very conversation, titled "Replies."

 

[bhsmte]

Is it objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest?

If one desires to have respect and trust from others, than one could conclude, it is objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest. Why? Because psychological studies, objectively demonstrate, how dishonesty craters trust and relationships.

Just as, it would be objectively wrong, for me to continue chain smoking, if my goal was to care for the health of my lungs.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This has nothing to do with our discussion. Fallacies have no place in civil, philosophical discourse where men of integrity seek to hash out their intellectual views.

Let's stay on topic, which is what all of you should want to do anyway.

 

[quatona]

Actually the definition I gave was Oxford's English Dictionary's definition.

So? I am working from the definition you provided and insisted on being used (whereas I have in earlier stages warned you that it doesn´t help your case - quite the opposite), whereever you have taken it from.It means that there are possibly countless objective perspectives.
Just yesterday I wrote a long response to you concerning this very problem (which, of course, you simply ignored). This definition won´t carry you through the moral argument, in fact it´s fatal for it.
Do you want to change it now, out of a sudden? (I mean, it´s not like you and I hadn´t know all along that you´d need to change it midstream. Anything but "God-given" won´t work. But we both know, either, that this would reveal what the moral argument actually is, anyway: Circular reasoning.)

 

[bhsmte]

No it's not Jeremy. No one here believes that you care one iota about intellectual integrity.

Here is where I am at. Jeremy either doesn't realize everyone of his posts reveal a bit more about himself, every time he hits the post reply button, or, he knows this and simply doesn't care.

Human psychology, you gotta love it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here is where I am at. Jeremy either doesn't realize everyone of his posts reveal a bit more about himself, every time he hits the post reply button, or, he knows this and simply doesn't care.

Human psychology, you gotta love it.

He doesn't care. He's shameless. So long as he gets attention. That's why he posts prolifically here, and not on his (?paid) blog, or any of the other forums he "frequents" under his other username.

 

[bhsmte]

He doesn't care. He's shameless. So long as he gets attention. That's why he posts prolifically here, and not on his (?paid) blog, or any of the other forums he "frequents" under his other username.

I have two good friends who are behavioral psychologists and we get together for a couple cold ones and we talk about this site and some of the stuff posted here.

They really get a kick out of it and it is amazing, what they can glean from observing the pattern of responses from people.

 

[anonymous person]

No it's not Jeremy. No one here believes that you care one iota about intellectual integrity.

Not answering that here. Go back to the thread and answer it if you want.

I answered all of the questions I came across in the thread you PM'd me.

 

[anonymous person]

If one desires to have respect and trust from others, than one could conclude, it is objectively wrong to be intellectually dishonest. Why? Because psychological studies, objectively demonstrate, how dishonesty craters trust and relationships.

Just as, it would be objectively wrong, for me to continue chain smoking, if my goal was to care for the health of my lungs.

Objectively wrong means wrong independent of what human beings think or feel or prefer, it has nothing to do with what one's goals are or one's ends, or whether or not an act can be shown to be wrong.

Let me explain.

The proposition: "Being intellectually dishonest is wrong."

Is a proposition that either purports to report a fact about reality i.e. it refers to a feature of the world that exists independent of human opinion or preference, or it purports to report a fact about reality i.e. it refers to the subjective opinions of some human beings.

Or it is a proposition that does not even purport to report facts about reality.

My question therefore is this:

If someone is being intellectually dishonest, have they failed to be something they are obligated to be, even if they are of the opinion that it is just fine and dandy. Have they broken a moral law to which they are accountable that transcends all of the opinions and preferences and personal tastes of human beings?

Yes or no?

 

[anonymous person]

I have two good friends who are behavioral psychologists and we get together for a couple cold ones and we talk about this site and some of the stuff posted here.

They really get a kick out of it and it is amazing, what they can glean from observing the pattern of responses from people.

This is off topic. Please stay on topic and do not contribute to the derailing of this thread. The thread is about the moral argument for the existence of God.

 

[anonymous person]

He doesn't care. He's shameless. So long as he gets attention. That's why he posts prolifically here, and not on his (?paid) blog, or any of the other forums he "frequents" under his other username.

Ad hominems are fallacies and have no place in substantive irenic discussion. Please be an example of a man of intellectual integrity and honesty and do not contribute to the derailing of this thread, which is about the moral argument for the existence of God.

 

[anonymous person]

Here is where I am at. Jeremy either doesn't realize everyone of his posts reveal a bit more about himself, every time he hits the post reply button, or, he knows this and simply doesn't care.

Human psychology, you gotta love it.

None of this is relevant to the moral argument and its two premises. Please be an example to everyone here as one who has intellectual integrity and refrain from introducing red herrings into the discussion which is fallacious.

 

[anonymous person]

So? I am working from the definition you provided and insisted on being used (whereas I have in earlier stages warned you that it doesn´t help your case - quite the opposite), whereever you have taken it from.It means that there are possibly countless objective perspectives.
Just yesterday I wrote a long response to you concerning this very problem (which, of course, you simply ignored). This definition won´t carry you through the moral argument, in fact it´s fatal for it.
Do you want to change it now, out of a sudden? (I mean, it´s not like you and I hadn´t know all along that you´d need to change it midstream. Anything but "God-given" won´t work. But we both know, either, that this would reveal what the moral argument actually is, anyway: Circular reasoning.)

The discussion is about the existence of objective moral values and duties. Objective meaning simply independent of human opinion, that is, values and duties whose goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness is not derived from human beings and what they think, but something external and transcendent to them.

They either are grounded in some external grounds or they are grounded in the opinions of human beings.

You have already said that a certain act is wrong. Is the wrongness of the act derived from a moral fact that is true for everyone or is the wrongness of the act derived from the opinions of those that are of the opinion that it is wrong?

 

[anonymous person]

That's quite deliberate, seeing as I cannot seem to get an answer from you on any question. Would you like me to post for you the questions I'm still waiting for you to respond to?

In the above you said you would post the questions you wanted me to answer.

Meh, no. You can go back to the threads and answer them there instead of derailing this one.

Then you went back on your word and told me to go back and answer them in their own threads.

I have done that. And when I asked if you would answer the question I asked you, you said:

Sure.

So will you answer the question?

 

[Davian]

Yea. You're an ethical subjectivist. You think right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the human making the claim.

That's naturalistic meta-ethical subjectivism.

You Davian, Archaeopteryx are all in that camp.

You are misrepresenting my position. Is that intentional, or not?

Are you lying for Jesus, or just wrong?

 

[anonymous person]

You are misrepresenting my position. Is that intentional, or not?

Are you lying for Jesus, or just wrong?

Where is my error?

If I have lied, show where and why.

 

[Davian]

The discussion is about the existence of objective moral values and duties. Objective meaning simply independent of human opinion, that is, values and duties whose goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness is not derived from human beings and what they think, but something external and transcendent to them.

They either are grounded in some external grounds or they are grounded in the opinions of human beings.

Or they are grounded in something like the social contract. No false dichotomies required.

You have already said that a certain act is wrong. Is the wrongness of the act derived from a moral fact that is true for everyone or is the wrongness of the act derived from the opinions of those that are of the opinion that it is wrong?

I would say that it would be derived from a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness.

 

[anonymous person]

Or they are grounded in something like the social contract. No false dichotomies required.

The social contract is a contract constructed by human beings who come together and share their opinions on the badness and goodness, rightness and wrongness of certain actions. Such a theory does not ground values and duties at all, but presupposes certain values and duties exist and then seeks to formulate a way human beings can relate to one another in society while affirming these values and duties.

Thus the charge of a false dichotomy by appealing to social contract theory fails.

I would say that it would be derived from a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness.

All of which are matters of opinion among human beings.

In addition, social contract theory deals with the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual,-Wikipedia, not the ontological grounds for moral values and duties.

As such it is irrelevant here.

 

[Davian]

Ummm... excuse me? If you're going to make an informed comment on someone's position, you had better understand it.

Having had his theology exposed as morally bankrupt, it would seem that Jeremy would drag the morality of others down to the same level. I am not sure what this might accomplish.