The Moral Argument

[Sapiens]

I do not know what you mean. To me, that is all morality is.

It doesn't matter.

And if it doesn't matter, there is no presupposition that humans have any intrinsic value (beyond what a person/family/society/population puts on them). We can theorize (evolutionary theory) that groups of social animals with a morality that works towards the common good rather than the "individual egoistic and sometimes psychopathic good" had a survival advantage over those groups that didn't.

I see it as rooted in reality, based a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract. It exists because that behaviour evolved with as as social animals.

I do not see a problem. Your question makes as much sense to me as "What gives a human value without Gribbg?".

Why can you not make a determination of right and wrong based on reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract?

So it sucks. But, it still beats the alternative by a long shot (not existing at all).

Indeed. And the Earth seem flat, and to hang in space while the Cosmos rotates around it. The desk on which my computer monitors rest seems to be of a solid material, and not mostly empty space.

I don't know. For me, it would seem a more coherent description of reality, and I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.

What motivates you to be here in this forum?

But you didn't answer my question though. What then, according to you, and supposing that God doesn't exist, give humans as a whole and as individuals value? Unless you don't really believe we do? I suppose you believe not, based on what you just said. I can hardly understand how you content yourself with this view though.

Yeah, but the question is: would you be able to recognize the truth? I wish so, for you.

In any case, to answer your question: well, it's to discuss this kind of stuff of course! It's a good place to challenge ideas and be challenged by others. It is different and not as fun in my opinion as a face to face discussion since we got to wait for others to answer and misunderstandings can happen and etc but it is easier to find people to discuss with with the same interest! I previously thought it would be easier to convince other people online with these awesome-kick-ass arguments in favor of God's existence but I now realize that my own stubborness has been surpassed... (and Im a pretty stubborn person in life). It seems you guys' opinion has already been settled in concrete. In general, I like to reflect and like to make others reflect too. Quite simply, thats why.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Stay on topic please guys. We are talking about the trolley experiment and variations of it. We are talking about morally sufficient reasons for doing or allowing certain things to happen.

We are not talking about God or Yahweh yet. That is coming. I know you guys are eager, but please be patient.

No, sorry, not going to be listening to advice to stay "on topic" from you.

 

[quatona]

It seems you guys' opinion has already been settled in concrete.

Indeed, my opinion about the Moral Argument has been settled firmly. Its flaws aren´t that hard to spot.

 

[anonymous person]

You proposed the moral rule: The less lives taken, the better the option.

I never proposed that as a some sort of moral rule.

You even got very nasty when people didn´t fully agree with it. Let´s not forget that.

Good suggestion.

Now, in order to get back on topic, here´s my question again:
If God commanded you not to flip the switch what would be the moral thing to do?

Not flip it.

 

[anonymous person]

This is not an example for "greater good" btw. - it´s plain and simple body-count thinking.

Taking into account that all we know in the experiment is that two will die or one, then saving the two at the expense of the one is the greater good.

Unless the act of saving the two has no moral connotation at all.

If that is what you think then you are in the wrong conversation, for we all assume here that such acts have a moral dimension to them. We are not moral nihilists.

 

[Moral Orel]

We are not talking about God or Yahweh yet. That is coming. I know you guys are eager, but please be patient.

Can we get to the next part then? I'll happily let you get to your conclusion.

 

[quatona]

I never proposed that as a some sort of moral rule.

You did base your argument on this very principle.

Not flip it.

So when introducing your alleged "objective morality" into the equation the principle that your moral solution that you defended so vehemently (two killed is better than one killed) was based upon flies out the window without further notice. Funny that.

 

[Hieronymus]

Can we get to the next part then? I'll happily let you get to your conclusion.

*suspense*

 

[bhsmte]

You did base your argument on this very principle.


So when introducing your alleged "objective morality" into the equation the principle that your moral solution that you defended so vehemently (two killed is better than one killed) was based upon flies out the window without further notice. Funny that.

Obedience, over what he has already claimed is the right moral choice, tells you all you need to know.

 

[anonymous person]

Certain here have raised questions about God commanding certain courses of action against certain people. Here I am thinking of the issue of the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites.

The questions were raised by those that thought the questions were pertinent to the moral argument.

In response I posed several thought experiments that were pertinent to the questions raised about God commanding certain courses of action.

They were pertinent in that they sought to show that we as human beings who are finite affirm that there can be morally sufficient reasons for either indirectly or directly killing human beings whether they be children or grown men and women.

Everyone but quatona whose position is not quite clear to me, has affirmed they would save the two children at the expense of the one assuming that all we know about the scenario is that two will die for sure if we do not act, but if we do, one will die.

 

[quatona]

Taking into account that all we know in the experiment is that two will die or one, then saving the two at the expense of the one is the greater good.

An appeal to "greater good" typically points to a greater good beyond the immediate problem/issue.
As a self-announced "philosopher" you can be expected to be familiar with that.

 

[Hieronymus]

Certain here have raised questions about God commanding certain courses of action against certain people. Here I am thinking of the issue of the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites.

Then look for the reason for their extermination, and see if it is justified for God to command this.
THEN you can see if it is moral or immoral.

 

[anonymous person]

You did base your argument on this very principle.

No I did not.

So when introducing your alleged "objective morality" into the equation the principle that your moral solution that you defended so vehemently (two killed is better than one killed) was based upon flies out the window without further notice. Funny that.

Well if you will notice, in the trolley experiment, all we know is that two will die if we do not divert the train.

So in light of this limited knowledge, we base the decision on that knowledge, i.e. the number of lives at stake.

But if our knowledge is more extensive and includes more information than just the number of potential lives at stake, we include that knowledge into our decision making process.

Did you miss my variation of this where I posed a scenario in which two children or one must be shot and we know that the two will grow up to rape, pillage, murder, and never change for as long as they live over against the one who will grow to be altruistic, and live a life of selflessness and self-sacrificing to take care of the poor and hungry of the world?

In such a scenario, one would shoot the two, not the one.

Thus you are wrong. The principle is not how many live or die, but whether, what the greater good is.

 

[Sapiens]

Go here and read up on logical fallacies,

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

It will help you in the future.



None of which is illuminated in the slightest by appeals to supernatural agency.



That's OK. It takes practice like anything else.



No. The cornerstone theories of biology and cosmology 'are so' for the reason I said - they are predicated on decades of critically robust data from dozens of lines of convergent fields of study.

All of which, by the way, is available for you to see and study for yourself. It's 2016. You're on the internet. There are countless scientific resources linked to primary literature in all the relevant fields, literally at your fingertips. You are without excuse.



The key difference, of course, is evidence. Facts. Tangible, replicable data. Science has it.

Christianity doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even have an epistemological model to make sense of its own purported 'truth'.



No one had to be. That's the great thing about science - it actually has what religion can only ever pretend to have - means and methodologies for deriving information about the universe.



Again, none of which necessitates any appeal to supernatural agency.



You just said two completely different and contradictory things, so I'll have to answer them separately.

'God's nature is good' - Again, this does nothing to avoid the dilemma. All it does is reorder it. Is Yahweh the author of his own nature? Answer yes and take the arbitrary horn. Is he not? Answer yes and take the independent standard horn.

'He is goodness' - I have already have a word for goodness. It's called 'goodness'. It suffices just fine for its purposes. Yahweh is superfluous to its meaning, so I discard him out of hand.



And now you've taken the independent standard horn. If he says it's good because it's good, then goodness necessitates no ontological basis in him.

I think I never responded to your Euthyphro Dilemma response.

I've done a bit more reading on this and I was wondering what you meant here. How can God be the author of His own nature? It has been brought to my attention, while reading on the matter on W.L.C.'s website "reasonablefaith" that this is a false dilemma since there exists a third alternative. I see you kept trying to make this a bi-optional dilemma...

Now here's my understanding: when you say "is God's nature his because it's good or is good because it's his", again it implies an independent horn (He happens to have a good nature, judged form an outwardly standard of goodness) and an arbitrary one (his nature is good only because it is God's).

Now, in my prior understanding I wanted to combine both, and I wasnt that wrong I think. The third alternative, as we have already encountered, grounds Goodness in God's own nature, not in an abstract or independent one. He is that independent and objective reference. Why assume his will is arbitrary? If Goodness is his nature, then I see no reason to believe that he would ever do any wrong. In any case, like I've already said, I just don't see how there could exist an independent standard of goodness, floating around in a cold, indifferent and impersonal universe where God would not exist. So I just wanted to clarify my position.

Just wanted to add a quote from Dr. Craig:

"The morally good/bad is determined by God’s nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by his will. God wills something because he is good, and something is right because God wills it."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz45LlUgdzb

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then look for the reason for their extermination, and see if it is justified for God to command this.
THEN you can see if it is moral or immoral.

Immoral then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

An appeal to "greater good" typically points to a greater good beyond the immediate problem/issue.
As a self-announced "philosopher" you can be expected to be familiar with that.

I am.

But we are limited to what we know, for the experiment in question, limits us to what we know immediately, not what we know will happen in the future. All we know in the train scenario is that two will die if we do not act. We don't know of anything else and so our decision is based on what we know, now what we do not know.

 

[Sapiens]

Indeed, my opinion about the Moral Argument has been settled firmly. Its flaws aren´t that hard to spot.

It's unfortunate though, because God does exist and one day you'll have to render account of yourself before Him. I can't force you to believe that of course, but I believe it would be in your best interest if you did. Because when that day comes, it might just be too late... Don't stop searching and asking questions! That's what I do.

 

[anonymous person]

Immoral then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Can you tell us why you think God could have no morally sufficient reason for commanding the utter destruction of the Amalekites?

 

[quatona]

Certain here have raised questions about God commanding certain courses of action against certain people. Here I am thinking of the issue of the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites.

The questions were raised by those that thought the questions were pertinent to the moral argument.

In response I posed several thought experiments that were pertinent to the questions raised about God commanding certain courses of action.

No, they weren´t. They were not about the actions and decisions of an omnipotent omniscient creator god. They were about crisis management when things have already gone wrong. Omni-God could never possibly in such a dilemma. Omni-God has countless other options to his disposal.

They were pertinent in that they sought to show that we as human beings who are finite affirm that there can be morally sufficient reasons for either indirectly or directly killing human beings whether they be children or grown men and women.

Yes, humans hold human values. That´s nothing new.

Everyone but quatona whose position is not quite clear to me, has affirmed they would save the two children at the expense of the one assuming that all we know about the scenario is that two will die for sure if we do not act, but if we do, one will die.

And you are the guy who first appealed to this very rationale, and then immediately invalidated it by introducing another.
It´s quite ironic that on your way to attempting to substantiate the Moral Argument (about objective morality and its necessary connection to a God) you work your way up from agreed upon human moral opinions and from values that aren´t depending on there being a God, at all. Humans value human lifes - who would have thunk?

 

[anonymous person]

It's unfortunate though, because God does exist and one day you'll have to render account of yourself before Him. I can't force you to believe that of course, but I believe it would be in your best interest if you did. Because when that day comes, it might just be too late... Don't stop searching and asking questions! That's what I do.

There are those who benefit from what we write here in addition to ourselves. Just because five or six people here object does nothing to refute that fact.