The Moral Argument

[quatona]

I have posed a thought experiment pertinent to the moral argument. Anyone care to address it?

Which thought experiment (pertinent to the moral argument) would that be?

 

[Davian]

My my my...

This just about sums it up for me.

You are not being clear. In your theology, does same-sex sex preclude one from entering Heaven?

 

[anonymous person]

You can't step outside of your senses to test their veridicality.

Saying my senses are reliable because I can apprehend a world of physical objects begs the question that they are indeed presenting you with an accurate view of the world of physical objects.

Now if you can tell me how you managed to dissociate yourself totally from all of your senses and at the same time were able to apprehend the world as it is and then compare the deliverances of your senses to what the world is really like, I would love to hear it.

 

[anonymous person]

Which thought experiment (pertinent to the moral argument) would that be?

You can flip a switch to divert a speeding train from the track it is on to another track running parallel to it. If you don't flip the switch, two children that are playing on the track will die. If you do flip the switch, one child playing on the parallel track will die. There is no time to sit and ask twenty questions or split hairs, the train is speeding towards the two children. You have to choose to kill either two or one.

What should be done?

 

[quatona]

You can flip a switch to divert a speeding train from the track it is on to another track running parallel to it. If you don't flip the switch, two children that are playing on the track will die. If you do flip the switch, one child playing on the parallel track will die. What should be done?

I don´t know. I have mixed feelings about this hypothetical scenario.
Why do you ask for my subjective opinion when you actually want to argue that there´s an "objective morality"?
How is that question pertinent to the Moral Argument?

 

[anonymous person]

I don´t know. I have mixed feelings about this hypothetical scenario.
Why do you ask for my subjective opinion when you actually want to argue that there´s an "objective morality"?
How is that question pertinent to the Moral Argument?

I did not ask you this in order to argue that there is an objective morality.

The hypothetical does not allow for you to sit and split hairs over the issue. The train is speeding towards the children and you either choose to kill two children or one.

If you feel uncomfortable about answering the question, then don't.

 

[Davian]

Quote button still broken?

You can't step outside of your senses to test their veridicality.

Saying my senses are reliable because I can apprehend a world of physical objects begs the question that they are indeed presenting you with an accurate view of the world of physical objects.

Now if you can tell me how you managed to dissociate yourself totally from all of your senses and at the same time were able to apprehend the world as it is and then compare the deliverances of your senses to what the world is really like, I would love to hear it.

I am not claiming to be able to apprehend the world as it is by the use of my senses. I only claim to apprehend it well enough to drive a car, cross the street without getting run over, etc. using that method.

Back to a question you skipped over earlier:

If it is your position that you can't test the veridicality of your senses, why then do you consider them infallible?

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

 

[anonymous person]

I am not claiming to be able to apprehend the world as it is by the use of my senses. I only claim to apprehend it well enough to drive a car, cross the street without getting run over, etc. using that method.

You can't provide the test I ask for then.

Back to a question you skipped over earlier:

If it is your position that you can't test the veridicality of your senses, why then do you consider them infallible?

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

I said Jesus is infallible, not my senses. Pay attention.

 

[Davian]

You can't provide the test I ask for then.

I cannot address your misrepresentation of my position, no.

I said Jesus is infallible,

Is this the same "Jesus" that may not have even existed, and if he did, we have nothing actually written by him, no way to verify words attributed to him, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has been dead for 2000 years? This is who you claim to be "infallible"?

not my senses. Pay attention.

If your senses are fallible, then it follows that you may see things that show your worldview to be false, unless they are also infallible.

Perhaps what you meant to say in that post #211 was that there is nothing that could show your worldview to be false to you. Would that be more accurate?

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

That would explain why so many others see things that show your worldview to be false, while you remain confident in it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nicholas, you can flip a switch to divert a speeding train from the track it is on to another track running parallel to it. If you don't flip the switch two children that are playing on the track will die but if you flip the switch, one child playing on the parallel track will die. What should be done?

That is a good one. I think I would have to say flipping the switch is the best thing to do. Sometimes things are a gamble, and without knowing more, two lives is better than one.

 

[Moral Orel]

Now because I have shown that not every single member of that culture was targeted, you are moving the goalposts and "adding" to the definition that it doesn't mean the entire culture but just a city in that culture.

No, I am not. You are moving the goalposts to say that it can only be a culture, I am still stating that it can be a society, or a nation, or a culture.

Now because I have shown that not every single member of that culture was targeted, you are moving the goalposts and "adding" to the definition that it doesn't mean the entire culture but just a city in that culture. The definition that you said was definite and the only one we could use was: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Where in this definition does it say the deliberate and systematic destruction of a part of a racial, political or cultural group?

It doesn't. You are assuming that I am talking about all the peoples of the region that the Israelites fought wars in. I am not. There was more than one culture, more than one society, and more than one nation that the Israelites fought.

I agree they should have but does that mean they would have committed genocide?

I already said "yes". It was the first word, single sentence, in my response to that question.

 

[Moral Orel]

It does not. I will remind you that you claimed that every single member of a culture being a target to kill is genocide. We know that not every single member of the culture was a target.

I didn't exclusively say culture. If I did, then you might say, "well everyone in the region participated in idolatry, so they were all the same culture". Which I would disagree with, but it would just be another thing to argue about.

Now you keep bringing up this claim that "we know", but that is irrelevant to my question. My question is hypothetical. When you say, "It does not", you are saying that "even if God commands an entire society, or nation, or culture to be destroyed, regardless of motive, it is still not a command to commit genocide by the definition of the word". Is this true? Is that really what you think?

 

[anonymous person]

That is a good one. I think I would have to say flipping the switch is the best thing to do. Sometimes things are a gamble, and without knowing more, two lives is better than one.

I would agree with you. It really is not a hard question. In the scenario, I would say the deliberate killing of the child is good. I would say one would be morally obligated to kill the one child, to save the two.

The point of the scenario is to demonstrate that in some situations, life must be taken to achieve some greater good or end.

Follow so far?

 

[anonymous person]

I cannot address your misrepresentation of my position, no.

Is this the same "Jesus" that may not have even existed, and if he did, we have nothing actually written by him, no way to verify words attributed to him, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has been dead for 2000 years? This is who you claim to be "infallible"?

If your senses are fallible, then it follows that you may see things that show your worldview to be false, unless they are also infallible.

Perhaps what you meant to say in that post #211 was that there is nothing that could show your worldview to be false to you. Would that be more accurate?

Infallible

• Davian
• Apr 8, 2016
• infallible

That would explain why so many others see things that show your worldview to be false, while you remain confident in it.

I am honestly tired of talking with you. I will be turning my attention to Nicholas and others who I think are actually sincere. Thanks.

 

[Moral Orel]

Follow so far?

You bet.

 

[anonymous person]

You bet.

Awesome.

 

[Davian]

I am honestly tired of talking with you. I will be turning my attention to Nicholas and others who I think are actually sincere. Thanks.

Of course. Pull the mind-reading card just when the answers would get interesting.

Is that what this guy would do?

Kalamity Craig

• Davian
• Feb 1, 2016
• wlc

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And you think slavery and killing children is objectively wrong.

Which of your three definitions are you using now?

That's the last point I made from which you sought to divert attention by creating a strawman.

What strawman? You did present three different definitions. That's an easily demonstrable fact.

If I am wrong about your views of slavery and killing children say so.

You don't care enough about my views to even know what they are. That would require dialogue, which you have little interest in.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And you conceded you cannot even provide a test for determining the veridicality of your five senses which you rely so very heavily and dogmatically on.

Please.

Until you can do that, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Dogmatically? In what sense? I don't assume that my senses are infallible and that therefore I cannot be fooled or that I am invulnerable to error. You do assume that though, at least with respect to your religious intuitions, which have become dogmatically entrenched.

 

[quatona]

I did not ask you this in order to argue that there is an objective morality.

So which part of the Moral Argument is it pertinent to? The substantiation of premise1, premise2, or the conclusion?

Now, what´s the correct answer according to your "objective morality"?

The hypothetical does not allow for you to sit and split hairs over the issue

So you aren´t actually asking what you asked ("What should you do?", which asks me to take time to premeditate on the issue) but "What would you do?" (under time pressure, without having the time to think about it)?

The train is speeding towards the children and you either choose to kill two children or one.

That´s not the way I would describe my options, to begin with.

If you feel uncomfortable about answering the question, then don't.

I have answered it. Several of my values are in conflict here - it isn´t called a "moral dilemma for nothing".
In case you actually meant to ask "What would you (under time pressure, without having premeditated on such a scenario, and without the time to do so now)?": I cannot conclusively answer this question until I am actually in that situation, but I can easily fathom myself being paralyzed and unable to make a decision, which would result in the train running its original course.