Is Slavery Moral?

[cvanwey]

Your assumptions are duly noted.

'Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.'

 

[Sanoy]

I disagree. Claiming, in essence, "this feels right" carries very little weight as it has been shown to be a very poor method of explaining reality. As far as requiring a theory of consciousness in order to determine what our moral grounding is I am not certain that is correct. It seems to me that this is much more in the realm of evolutionary
psychology.




Those are the only objective things of which I am aware. Can you show evidence for anything objective that is not material and demonstrated through empirical means?

Everything we experience comes through this same system of apprehension. You don't see the actual world, the actual world is not colored. Everything you experience is a mental reproduction. We follow the intuition of eating by it's own coercive force, we follow the intuition of having cognitive faculties that are capable of determining truths about the world, and we follow the intuition of morality by it's own force so why should we reject the reality of one over another and believe inconsistently with the actions we take. Knowledge begins with intuition so intuition shouldn't be rejected unless there is reason to reject it.

Unless you are pure reductionist I think you would need an evolutionary account of consciousness to say that you see it grounded in us. I'm not saying produce one, no one has, but just that you may need to clarify what you mean by it is seen in us.

Those systems rely on objective analytic systems like mathematics and logic.

 

[Sanoy]

As stated countless times now, morals are subjective. Neither of you seem to get this... And neither of you seem to get that you are also appealing to the subjective writings of a long-ago written book (and passing them off as objective).

This is my point...

I don't think they are subjective, and I don't think you live consistently with that claim.

 

[Phil 1:21]

As is your inability to defend your position. Toodle pipsky.

It's not my obligation to defend your assumptions.

'Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.'

The buns of Big Macs contain sesame seeds, not poppy seeds (since we're apparently posting irrelevant responses now).

Were you able to figure out a way to defend your position yet? I still have hope for our dialogue.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I don't think they are subjective, and I don't think you live consistently with that claim.

I suspect you're correct, especially on the last part. When one delves deep enough into the realm of subjective morality one finds it is a fallacy.

 

[cvanwey]

It's not my obligation to defend your assumptions.

The buns of Big Macs contain sesame seeds, not poppy seeds (since we're apparently posting irrelevant responses now).

Were you able to figure out a way to defend your position yet? I still have hope for our dialogue.

Your responses were irrelevant from the get-go. And if you cannot catch the irony of my last response, then I have given you too much credit.

So, yeah, "Monkey, cucumber, North Pole"

 

[Phil 1:21]

Your responses were irrelevant from the get-go. And if you cannot catch the irony of my last response, then I have given you too much credit.

So, yeah, "Monkey, cucumber, North Pole"

So, still no way to defend your position? I was hoping you'd move past this latest stumbling block. There's still hope.

 

[Belk]

Everything we experience comes through this same system of apprehension. You don't see the actual world, the actual world is not colored. Everything you experience is a mental reproduction. We follow the intuition of eating by it's own coercive force, we follow the intuition of having cognitive faculties that are capable of determining truths about the world, and we follow the intuition of morality by it's own force so why should we reject the reality of one over another and believe inconsistently with the actions we take.

I think we disagree on the meaning of intuition. None of these things are intuition to me. Eating is biological imperative. Cognitive function is a demonstrated reality. Morality is a part of cognitive function .

Knowledge begins with intuition so intuition shouldn't be rejected unless there is reason to reject it.

Knowledge is a function of empirical testing. I see no need of intuition.

Unless you are pure reductionist I think you would need an evolutionary account of consciousness to say that you see it grounded in us.

Why do you think that would be required? We know that we have consciousness. We do not need to define why in order to see why we have morality.

I'm not saying produce one, no one has, but just that you may need to clarify what you mean by it is seen in us.

Those systems rely on objective analytic systems like mathematics and logic.

Can you explain?

 

[cvanwey]

I'll keep our dialogue open in the hopes that you find a way to move forward. We were so close to breakthrough. You were literally right at the edge.

'Since skeptics, or perhaps everyone, allegedly uses presuppositions, this supposedly justifies presuppositional apologetics (i.e.) YOU. However, this is fallacious because the "presuppositions of non-believers or skeptics" are not relevant to the question of the existence of God. This is a tu quoque argument.

It is also a straw man argument since some skeptics allow the possibility of their mind being changed by evidence. Arguably, many skeptics "presuppose" skepticism and avoidance of dogmatism. These beliefs can themselves be subjected to skeptical examination. However, skepticism does not preclude belief in God.

It is also false to draw an analogy between skeptical presuppositions and religious presuppositions. Scepticism attempts to minimize assumptions while presuppositionalist believers assume quite a bit! This analogy is similar to the claim that religion is another way of knowing (i.e.) all belief systems are equally valid. An example of a faulty analogy:

"Arguments for religions and philosophical systems are arguments for world views. A world view is a general account of all reality, an understanding of the most basic features of the universe. All arguments for the truth of world views (whether religious, philosophical, political, scientific or whatever) must presuppose standards of rationality consistent with those world views. All such arguments, therefore, are circular in a way similar to ours. [12]"

If this conclusion was true, it would only imply that any such "world view" cannot be logically justified and not that presuppositional apologetics is justified. It is possible to live and provisionally believe things without any grand "world view", such as with existentialism or living without any knowledge of philosophy (naive realism).'

 

[Phil 1:21]

'Since skeptics, or perhaps everyone, allegedly uses presuppositions, this supposedly justifies presuppositional apologetics (i.e.) YOU. However, this is fallacious because the "presuppositions of non-believers or skeptics" are not relevant to the question of the existence of God. This is a tu quoque argument.

It is also a straw man argument since some skeptics allow the possibility of their mind being changed by evidence. Arguably, many skeptics "presuppose" skepticism and avoidance of dogmatism. These beliefs can themselves be subjected to skeptical examination. However, skepticism does not preclude belief in God.

It is also false to draw an analogy between skeptical presuppositions and religious presuppositions. Scepticism attempts to minimize assumptions while presuppositionalist believers assume quite a bit! This analogy is similar to the claim that religion is another way of knowing (i.e.) all belief systems are equally valid. An example of a faulty analogy:

"Arguments for religions and philosophical systems are arguments for world views. A world view is a general account of all reality, an understanding of the most basic features of the universe. All arguments for the truth of world views (whether religious, philosophical, political, scientific or whatever) must presuppose standards of rationality consistent with those world views. All such arguments, therefore, are circular in a way similar to ours. [12]"
If this conclusion was true, it would only imply that any such "world view" cannot be logically justified and not that presuppositional apologetics is justified. It is possible to live and provisionally believe things without any grand "world view", such as with existentialism or living without any knowledge of philosophy (naive realism).'

So still no defense? I do find it ironic, though, that in the second paragraph you mention straw men while engaging in that very thing. Anyway, let's keep the door open in the hopes you examine your position and come to a conclusion regarding its defense.

 

[cvanwey]

So still no defense? I do find it ironic, though, that in the second paragraph you mention straw men while engaging in that very thing. Anyway, let's keep the door open in the hopes you examine your position and come to a conclusion regarding its defense.

It's all subjective. What's your defense? I'm still awaiting the enlightenment of your superior knowledge. This is a forum arena. Please provide it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It's all subjective. What's your defense? I'm still waiting the enlightenment of your superior knowledge. This is forum arena. Please provide it.

We still haven’t moved past the below (post #630). Although I'm confident we can make progress.

So to recap how we got here…

You don’t believe in objective morality, rather stating that morality is subjective and a matter of personal opinion (#588).

You believe that “[morality] is defined by the ability to distinguish between right and wrong,” which really didn’t address the question asked. But for the sake of progress I allowed the pivot from “moral or immoral” to “right and wrong.” (#592)

When asked the basis upon which you personally distinguish between right and wrong (really “moral or immoral”), after much prodding the best you could state was consequentialism (#615) which holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences (the definition of consequentialism). In other words, the end justifies the means.

Seems terribly little progress for how many posts we’ve made, but I’m a patient person. So then, given this and your previous statement that you personally find slavery immoral, I’ll be happy to state and defend my position as soon as you defend yours.

 

[cvanwey]

We still haven’t moved past the below (post #630). Although I'm confident we can make progress.

So to recap how we got here…

You don’t believe in objective morality, rather stating that morality is subjective and a matter of personal opinion (#588).

You believe that “[morality] is defined by the ability to distinguish between right and wrong,” which really didn’t address the question asked. But for the sake of progress I allowed the pivot from “moral or immoral” to “right and wrong.” (#592)

When asked the basis upon which you personally distinguish between right and wrong (really “moral or immoral”), after much prodding the best you could state was consequentialism (#615) which holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences (the definition of consequentialism). In other words, the end justifies the means.

Seems terribly little progress for how many posts we’ve made, but I’m a patient person. So then, given this and your previous statement that you personally find slavery immoral, I’ll be happy to state and defend my position as soon as you defend yours.

As stated from post #615 'the moral argument is one of the best 'tricks' theists will use to AVOID answering questions '

 

[Sanoy]

I think we disagree on the meaning of intuition. None of these things are intuition to me. Eating is biological imperative. Cognitive function is a demonstrated reality. Morality is a part of cognitive function .



Knowledge is a function of empirical testing. I see no need of intuition.



Why do you think that would be required? We know that we have consciousness. We do not need to define why in order to see why we have morality.



Can you explain?

Perhaps that is a bad word to use so simply. Lets separate them between our intuitions, our experiences, and or apprehensions. We have the experience of hunger, the apprehension that it is coercive, and the intuition to obey our apprehension. We have the experience of having a correct thought, the apprehension that we are capable of true thinking, and the intuition to follow that apprehension. We have the experience of objective moral values and duties, the apprehension that it is coercive and prescriptive, and the intuition to obey it. So why should we not follow our intuition here? And I would disagree that our cognitive function is a demonstrated reality...not under naturalism anyway. Naturalism even fails to convince non theists that it can give us reliable cognitive faculties. It is absolutely not even close to being demonstrated, especially when the emergence of our rich form of consciousness can't be demonstrated.

"Knowledge is a function of empirical testing." ...Empiricism died out like 50 years ago because it's self refuting. The statement itself cannot be empirically tested as it is an analytic statement, it can only be apprehended.

We don't know we have consciousness, well you and I do because we follow our intuition that we have a consciousness, but that is far from being established from Empirical science. Why would matter have the property of consciousness?

Well your question "Can you show evidence for anything objective that is not material and demonstrated through empirical means?" can't be answered because you are asking me for a square circle. How can I give you a non material example that can be demonstrated empirically. Now as far as the question is there anything objective that is not material I would say you, or analytic truths, mathematics, logic. The statement there are no married bachelors is objectively true whether matter exist or not.

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps that is a bad word to use so simply. Lets separate them between our intuitions, our experiences, and or apprehensions. We have the experience of hunger, the apprehension that it is coercive, and the intuition to obey our apprehension. We have the experience of having a correct thought, the apprehension that we are capable of true thinking, and the intuition to follow that apprehension. We have the experience of objective moral values and duties, the apprehension that it is coercive and prescriptive, and the intuition to obey it. So why should we not follow our intuition here? And I would disagree that our cognitive function is a demonstrated reality...not under naturalism anyway. Naturalism even fails to convince non theists that it can give us reliable cognitive faculties. It is absolutely not even close to being demonstrated, especially when the emergence of our rich form of consciousness can't be demonstrated.

"Knowledge is a function of empirical testing." ...Empiricism died out like 50 years ago because it's self refuting. The statement itself cannot be empirically tested as it is an analytic statement, it can only be apprehended.

We don't know we have consciousness, well you and I do because we follow our intuition that we have a consciousness, but that is far from being established from Empirical science. Why would matter have the property of consciousness?

Well your question "Can you show evidence for anything objective that is not material and demonstrated through empirical means?" can't be answered because you are asking me for a square circle. How can I give you a non material example that can be demonstrated empirically. Now as far as the question is there anything objective that is not material I would say you, or analytic truths, mathematics, logic. The statement there are no married bachelors is objectively true whether matter exist or not.

Therefore Yahweh

 

[Sanoy]

Therefore Yahweh

^ I can't engage in this conversation therefore submit strawman.

 

[cvanwey]

Therefore not Yahweh.

Both are assertions (neither of which I actually profess). I state, I have NO clue! The end

 

[dmmesdale]

I disagree. Claiming, in essence, "this feels right" carries very little weight as it has been shown to be a very poor method of explaining reality.

Then don't use it when ginning up fictions like unknown common ancestors and a world without morals. You can bang your neighbor because it feels right and be totally wrong.

Those are the only objective things of which I am aware. Can you show evidence for anything objective that is not material and demonstrated through empirical means?

Triangles, squares, math equations for starters. All exist independent of human minds, time and space, discovered, not invented and are non material.

 

[cvanwey]

^ I can't engage in this conversation therefore submit strawman.

Uuuuum, you are using the argument from consciousness. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So please tell me why you mention 'intuition', 'apprehension', and 'consciousness', if it's 'unexplained mysticism' doesn't ultimately point to 'Yahweh'?

Why else would you speak of this topic? I doubt you are a neuroscientist, and attempting to demonstrate an alternative conclusion of non-supernatural means, are you? If so, I stand corrected I'm sure...

 

[Belk]

Perhaps that is a bad word to use so simply. Lets separate them between our intuitions, our experiences, and or apprehensions. We have the experience of hunger, the apprehension that it is coercive, and the intuition to obey our apprehension. We have the experience of having a correct thought, the apprehension that we are capable of true thinking, and the intuition to follow that apprehension. We have the experience of objective moral values and duties, the apprehension that it is coercive and prescriptive, and the intuition to obey it. So why should we not follow our intuition here?

I still do not understand how you are using the word here. My understanding of the word is as follows:

Definition of intuition
1 : quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition
b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition
c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Can you define how you are using the term?

And I would disagree that our cognitive function is a demonstrated reality...not under naturalism anyway. Naturalism even fails to convince non theists that it can give us reliable cognitive faculties. It is absolutely not even close to being demonstrated, especially when the emergence of our rich form of consciousness can't be demonstrated.

OK. You are free to believe you do not have cognitive function. I know that I do.

"Knowledge is a function of empirical testing." ...Empiricism died out like 50 years ago because it's self refuting. The statement itself cannot be empirically tested as it is an analytic statement, it can only be apprehended.

We don't know we have consciousness, well you and I do because we follow our intuition that we have a consciousness, but that is far from being established from Empirical science. Why would matter have the property of consciousness?

I do not require intuition to know I have consciousness. It is empirically proven with my every thought.

Well your question "Can you show evidence for anything objective that is not material and demonstrated through empirical means?" can't be answered because you are asking me for a square circle. How can I give you a non material example that can be demonstrated empirically. Now as far as the question is there anything objective that is not material I would say you, or analytic truths, mathematics, logic. The statement there are no married bachelors is objectively true whether matter exist or not.

Fair enough. I agree that there are non material things that are objective. Now, how do we demonstrate that morality is one of those things?