Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

Morality is discussion of what constitutes the good(and by extension the evil)...if it is merely sentiments, then there any supposed discussion is purely fictitious and arbitrary.

The discussion is to determine if the often emotional first response is valid.

'Oh, I don't like that. It's wrong'.
'Why is it wrong?'
'Gee, it just is'

I think we can all agree that that is worthless as an argument. But (ahem), it's what you are proposing.

 

[Fervent]

If countless people had been presenting what they claim is evidence for little green men and none of it had come anywhere close to convincing you then at some point (at least I hope) you'd be confident that they didn't exist. And we're not talking about a few arguments and claims over the last few weeks. We're talking about a serious investigation over decades. And that's not hyperbole.

It depends, what you are presenting is essentially an argument from silence. But you're neglecting a very important part of arguments from silence, which is identification of what kind of evidence would be expected should little green men exist. So what evidence for God do you think is missing that makes the supposed lack compelling?

You'd think me foolish for still entertaining some thoughts on them being real. Then again, those who do believe in little green men would suggest that simply because I have not been convinced, how could I claim to know with confidence that no such beings exists?

Yeah, you're basically arguing that something is false because you are not aware of compelling evidence that it is true. It's an argument from ignorance at worst, an argument from silence at best.

See the difference?

Yeah, you've basically demonstrated exactly what I stated. You're convinced by an argument from ignorance.

Now now. Play nice.

What? Your qualifying statement about sufficiency to live a meaningful life leaves a huge spread.

You mustn't forget that any argument that denies I can be justifiably confident about any given matter and is simply arrogant also applies to you.

Again, I am a philosophical skeptic. I don't believe what I think to be true can be held up as knowledge, and only accept it as the best I can arrive at for pragmatic purposes. I am painfully aware of various epistemic challenges ranging from what I see as crippling(Munchaussen's trilemma, Gettier problems) to difficult(Hume's fork, Hume's criticism of deduction, the complete lack of formal justification for abduction). I certainly wouldn't bet my life on my supposed knowledge.

Yes, you do. Don't play games with me. I don't appreciate it.

No games, your meaning is unclear to me.

It's a problem that has yet to be addressed. If I steal candy from a child then the morality is in there somewhere. You have the act and the context. I don't think it's that difficult. Why is it a problem for you?

I don't know the consequences, your design in stealing candy from a child, your relationship with the child, etc. The act is just one consideration, and I would argue it is the smallest part.

If someone wants to impose their will on others then that will happen however one determines morality, be it objective or subjective. If enough people consider something to be wrong then that society will deem it wrong. They may decide on punishment for doing what they consider to be wrong. Again, that happens whether morality is subjective or objective. If it's an argument that applies to both, it's useless.

Sure, but without some objective element what is and isn't deemed wrong is arbitrary. The holocaust can't be deemed wrong because the society that engaged in it viewed it as right at the time, chattel slavery can't be held to be wrong because it was approved of in the society that it was done in. Everything is permissible, and the only way to determine what is right or wrong is whoever has both the capacity and desire to provide external censure of some form. The only rule, if there is nothing objective about morality, is strength and will to power. Which renders any moral discussion pointless, except perhaps through some form of collusion. Even then, there remains an objective moral standard in might makes right, though.

Should I ruin my shoes to save the child? It seems simple to me And you asked the question precisely because it's a simple moral problem. So I'd say that you're wrong.

Is it simple? And what pertinent feature alters the simplicity from the one you presented in your question?

If you can't determine what the objective moral position actually is, then it's a complete waste of time claiming that it exists.

Perhaps, but I don't see morals and ethics as something that requires debate. Because the only person I'm concerned with in that regard is myself.

It's galactically simple. Is an act right or wrong in itself? Or only relative to the context. Neither you nor anyone else addressed that in any way that approaches a reasonable argument I'm afraid.

Again, you're presenting a false dilemma. Objective morality doesn't have to be based in the act itself.

Maybe you've only come across the question and not the context. Singer asked it to highlight the different ways we help others. It's a simple answer when it's the drowning kid and new shoes. We can all answer it because it's a black and white question in that context. But me not going out to dinner and send the money to a charity which might accentuate in a child's life being saved? That is a lot more nuanced. More difficult to answer. And, what Singer wanted to show, people don't like answering it because it makes them think about what they do themselves. It's why you won't answer it.

I've encountered the context, and my read of it wasn't about "different ways we help others" but to raise a challenge about how we tend to have an out-of-sight out-of-mind view of morality. I brought it up because you seem to be presenting a dilemma between spending money on yourself and addressing the needs of others, which you seem to think is somehow complicated by a lack of immediacy and visibility. So my raising it is in line with Singer's context.

Oh, good grief. You obviously don't. You are judging me right now because of my arguments and my beliefs.

Am I? You seem to think yourself a mind reader, that's twice in one post.

Because you haven't answered it. It's not easy to answer although It's a simple yes or no. Am I wealthy? Do I have money to spare? Is it a special ocassions? Do I give generously to charities anyway? You gave the Singer question in response because it's a blazingly simple to answer in contrast. It's why Singer asked it, to highlight the difference between the two questions.

No, Singer wasn't highlighting the difference. He was comparing the similarities and asking what the pertinent difference is that makes us act like they're not equivalent.

It appears that you don't understand that.

That's a fallacy. We don't vote on what is right or wrong. If we all individually agree that something is wrong then we can all take steps to prevent someone from doing it. We each think that stealing personal goods is generally wrong and it seems that almost everyone agrees (even thieves know it's wrong). So...we make laws to punish those that steal.

Oh? So how do we "take steps'? How does such collective action take place? And what is it about popularity of an opinion that is supposed to make it wrong?

It's why gay marriage is legal but stealing my car isn't. Enough people individually came to those decisions.

If you say so, though I'm not sure how the fact that people supposedly came to it on their own is supposed to make it any less arbitrary if there's nothing objective about right and wrong.

Democracy, eh?

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[Fervent]

The discussion is to determine if the often emotional first response is valid.

oh? And how are we supposed to determine validity, without an objective standard?

'Oh, I don't like that. It's wrong'.
'Why is it wrong?'
'Gee, it just is'

I think we can all agree that that is worthless as an argument. But (ahem), it's what you are proposing.

No, it's not what I'm proposing. It's what the person I was responding to seems to be suggesting, since they claim that morality is just a subjective feeling.

 

[Bradskii]

It depends, what you are presenting is essentially an argument from silence. But you're neglecting a very important part of arguments from silence, which is identification of what kind of evidence would be expected should little green men exist. So what evidence for God do you think is missing that makes the supposed lack compelling?

It's all been presented over the last 60 years. There has been no stone unturned. There is nothing left to offer. My decision is made.

Yeah, you're basically arguing that something is false because you are not aware of compelling evidence that it is true.

No, I'm arguing that all the evidence has been presented and has failed. Hey, this isn't something I decided after a discussion with some guy down the local pub.

Again, I am a philosophical skeptic.

Me too. But that doesn't stop us being absolutely confident on many matters.

I don't know the consequences, your design in stealing candy from a child, your relationship with the child, etc. The act is just one consideration, and I would argue it is the smallest part.

What's that you say? You need more context to determine the morality? My shoes may get wet in saving the child but yours will be ruined if you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Sure, but without some objective element what is and isn't deemed wrong is arbitrary. The holocaust can't be deemed wrong because the society that engaged in it viewed it as right at the time, chattel slavery can't be held to be wrong because it was approved of in the society that it was done in.

You keep making the same mistakes throughout. It's up to you to determine if the holocaust was right or wrong. I dunno about you but I can put forward pretty strong arguments that it was wrong. Just because a lot of people think something is right doesn't make it so. It's the same argument as 'Oh, so you think slavery is ok because lots of people kept slaves'. Good grief, man. How can you be so wrong about something that is so simple?

Everything is permissible, and the only way to determine what is right or wrong is whoever has both the capacity and desire to provide external censure of some form.

Again, the same mistake.

The only rule, if there is nothing objective about morality, is strength and will to power.

And again.

Which renders any moral discussion pointless, except perhaps through some form of collusion. Even then, there remains an objective moral standard in might makes right, though.

And again.

Is it simple? And what pertinent feature alters the simplicity from the one you presented in your question?

Strewth, I wouldn't have to explain this to my grandson...

Springer's dilemma is immediately apparent. Shoes or child. Is that clear? It really ought to be. I shouldn't have to point it out. But dinner or charity? Is that obvious? Do we need more context? Is it every meal? What dollar figures are we talking about? Is it just dinner? Or should I live frugally and give all my worldly goods to starving children and live in a mud hut?

You can answer the first question because it contains all the context you need. You cannot answer the second because it doesn't.

Perhaps, but I don't see morals and ethics as something that requires debate.

You don't feel a requirement to justify any moral position to which you hold? There's no 'I think X is wrong because...'? Don't you have reasons for holding to them? Oh, unless X is wrong because it just is. If someone says we should ban women from voting you don't think there'd be a need to point out how wrong that is? You know, debate it?

And I might point out that far from holding to a position that says that you don't think morals and ethics as something that requires debate, that's exactly what you've been doing for umpteen posts.

Again, you're presenting a false dilemma. Objective morality doesn't have to be based in the act itself.

We can say that something can be objectively wrong without there being an act? We both know that makes zero sense. But hey, I can ask for an example I guess.

I've encountered the context, and my read of it wasn't about "different ways we help others" but to raise a challenge about how we tend to have an out-of-sight out-of-mind view of morality. I brought it up because you seem to be presenting a dilemma between spending money on yourself and addressing the needs of others, which you seem to think is somehow complicated by a lack of immediacy and visibility. So my raising it is in line with Singer's context.

Which makes it easy to answer. Yes, you ought to save the child. But you can't answer my question because there's not enough context. If you bite the bullet and try to answer it I guarantee that you'll add some context. Give it a go and see where it goes.

Am I? You seem to think yourself a mind reader, that's twice in one post.

Do yourself a favour. You're not judging me on my position? Please, gimme a break here.

No, Singer wasn't highlighting the difference. He was comparing the similarities and asking what the pertinent difference is that makes us act like they're not equivalent.

And the difference is..? Come on, you know the answer. Yes, it's context! Well done.

Oh? So how do we "take steps'? How does such collective action take place?

Democracy. Yeah, it's a useless system, but what can you do, eh?

And what is it about popularity of an opinion that is supposed to make it wrong?

Who said popularity makes something wrong? I didn't. The only person who can decide if something is right of wrong is...drum roll...you.

If you say so, though I'm not sure how the fact that people supposedly came to it on their own is supposed to make it any less arbitrary if there's nothing objective about right and wrong.

Are your decisions on moral matters arbitrary? Mine aren't. Now, if someone said that X is wrong and I just accepted that, then that would be arbitrary. But we wouldn't do that, would we. We'd want to debate the reasons why X is wrong. We'd want to know the context so we could make a decision. Let getting your shoes wet or saving the drowning kid for example. Easy decision! Me having dinner or sending the money to Medicins sans Frontiere? Hmm. Bit trickier, eh? Not enough...what was the term...context.

 

[Bradskii]

oh? And how are we supposed to determine validity, without an objective standard?

Present the facts, agree to them, debate the outcome, see if it's beneficial and to whom, listen to arguments from people whose opinion we respect, investigate, consider the context...is all this coming as a suprise to you?

No, it's not what I'm proposing. It's what the person I was responding to seems to be suggesting, since they claim that morality is just a subjective feeling.

It often starts with that. But 'Gee, you know...it's just wrong', well that cuts no ice with us, does it. As someone once said, we need to agree the basic facts, debate the outcome, see if it's beneficial and to whom, listen to arguments from people whose opinion we respect, investigate, consider the context. Then come to a decision.

Trust me, this actually happens quite a lot.

 

[Fervent]

It's all been presented over the last 60 years. There has been no stone unturned. There is nothing left to offer. My decision is made.

That hardly answers my question, so it seems that you're simply convinced by a illicit argument.

No, I'm arguing that all the evidence has been presented and has failed. Hey, this isn't something I decided after a discussion with some guy down the local pub.

Again, you're either arguing from ignorance or silence. The former is fallacious on its face, the latter is fallacious unless establishing criteria are presented. So from what I can tell you're just convinced by bad arguments.

Me too. But that doesn't stop us being absolutely confident on many matters.

Oh? Perhaps it doesn't stop you, but I'm definitely not going to move to confidence while basically every means of reasoning remains suspect.

What's that you say? You need more context to determine the morality? My shoes may get wet in saving the child but yours will be ruined if you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

This deserves nothing more than a head-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

You keep making the same mistakes throughout. It's up to you to determine if the holocaust was right or wrong. I dunno about you but I can put forward pretty strong arguments that it was wrong. Just because a lot of people think something is right doesn't make it so. It's the same argument as 'Oh, so you think slavery is ok because lots of people kept slaves'. Good grief, man. How can you be so wrong about something that is so simple?

I suspect the arguments suffer from either begging the question or being non-sequitors, but you've already demonstrated bad arguments are compelling to you.

Again, the same mistake.

Simply claiming that something is a mistake is not a counterargument.

And again.

Again, you're not presenting a counter.

And again.

Not a counter.

Strewth, I wouldn't have to explain this to my grandson...

Springer's dilemma is immediately apparent. Shoes or child. Is that clear? It really ought to be. I shouldn't have to point it out. But dinner or charity? Is that obvious? Do we need more context? Is it every meal? What dollar figures are we talking about? Is it just dinner? Or should I live frugally and give all my worldly goods to starving children and live in a mud hut?

What is the pertinent difference?

You can answer the first question because it contains all the context you need. You cannot answer the second because it doesn't.

What context is missing that is present in the first question?

You don't feel a requirement to justify any moral position to which you hold? There's no 'I think X is wrong because...'? Don't you have reasons for holding to them? Oh, unless X is wrong because it just is. If someone says we should ban women from voting you don't think there'd be a need to point out how wrong that is? You know, debate it?

Not to anyone but myself, and frankly what better justification is there than "God said it, so it must be true."?

And I might point out that far from holding to a position that says that you don't think morals and ethics as something that requires debate, that's exactly what you've been doing for umpteen posts.

The only thing I've been debating is to point out that absent some objective basis there's no such thing as morality. I'm not arguing particular ethical positions, at least not in my conversation with you.

We can say that something can be objectively wrong without there being an act? We both know that makes zero sense. But hey, I can ask for an example I guess.

Bradskii, king of the strawman. No where did I say an act can be absent, simply that the moral character need not be inherent in the act to be objective.

Which makes it easy to answer. Yes, you ought to save the child. But you can't answer my question because there's not enough context. If you bite the bullet and try to answer it I guarantee that you'll add some context. Give it a go and see where it goes.

Nope, you seem to not realize I have answered your question by presenting Singer's thought experiment because there is no pertinent difference. The question is, why do you think these situations are different? What is the supposed missing context?

Do yourself a favour. You're not judging me on my position? Please, gimme a break here.

You think too highly of yourself.

And the difference is..? Come on, you know the answer. Yes, it's context! Well done.

"Context" is not an answer, its a vague general statement that doesn't identify what's supposed to be the difference maker.

Democracy. Yeah, it's a useless system, but what can you do, eh?

Who said popularity makes something wrong? I didn't. The only person who can decide if something is right of wrong is...drum roll...you.

Ah...so if I determine that it's right to kill infidels, then it is right to kill infidels? Seems to rob the concept of any meaning.

Are your decisions on moral matters arbitrary? Mine aren't. Now, if someone said that X is wrong and I just accepted that, then that would be arbitrary. But we wouldn't do that, would we. We'd want to debate the reasons why X is wrong. We'd want to know the context so we could make a decision. Let getting your shoes wet or saving the drowning kid for example. Easy decision! Me having dinner or sending the money to Medicins sans Frontiere? Hmm. Bit trickier, eh? Not enough...what was the term...context.

Yours aren't? So what is your non-arbitrary way of determining the validity of a moral position? Is it purely your decision what is right or wrong, or is there some moral reality independent of what anyone believes to be right or wrong?

 

[Fervent]

Present the facts, agree to them, debate the outcome, see if it's beneficial and to whom, listen to arguments from people whose opinion we respect, investigate, consider the context...is all this coming as a suprise to you?

Again, the is-ought problem remains unanswered. Even if you either choose to be obtuse or are truly too dense to understand why it is a serious issue for reasoning about morality.

It often starts with that. But 'Gee, you know...it's just wrong', well that cuts no ice with us, does it. As someone once said, we need to agree the basic facts, debate the outcome, see if it's beneficial and to whom, listen to arguments from people whose opinion we respect, investigate, consider the context. Then come to a decision.

The relationship between "facts" and value judgments remains a black box in your explanation, with no real explanation of how, without any moral truth independent of human opinion, any moral value can be non-arbitrary such that we can call some valid and others invalid. Basically the only thing you seem to think determines the morality of a position is the fact that you agree or disagree with it. Which as you stated, that simply cuts no ice.

Trust me, this actually happens quite a lot.

It may happen a lot, but that doesn't explain how it supposedly separates "valid" from invalid. It's just sloppy thinking.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Morality is discussion of what constitutes the good(and by extension the evil)...if it is merely sentiments, then there any supposed discussion is purely fictitious and arbitrary. Morality is the discussion of how things ought to be, which cannot simply be sentiment. If things that we feel are right are in fact neither right or wrong in some intrinsic fashion, then the only question is what we have the capacity to get away with.

Or what we can convince our selves about. Even if someone have the power to force me to act against my morality I don't change my views because of that, so I still see the distinction between power and morality.

A Creator-given purpose gives something intinsic we can use as a benchmark for making determinations, and the existence of purpose means there is a way that things are supposed to be such that we ought to act in accordance with them.

What makes the creators purpose intrinsic? Why, should I or anyone accept that just because someone sees a purpose for us that would determined what is moral or not?

It goes beyond mere sentiment because the Creator has the ability to define reality and doesn't change depending on circumstances.

These are not characteristics a creator must have. Reality could be started by a creator but then keep being defined by its constituents in the process of it existing as an example. There is nothing that says that a creator must be unchanging, or that the purpose it sees for someone is unchanging.

A true morality identifies what is and isn't right, a non-true morality is arbitrary sentiments that really doesn't matter to anyone except the person holding them (and by extension those who agree with them).

Why are one persons sentiments arbitrary, but the creators is not? Why does the creator-given purpose have this special weight, that seems arbitrary to me.

Assissted human reasoning is reasoning that has had information arising from an external source, while unassissted human reasoning is attempts to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and create knowledge from ignorance.

Can it be assisted by other humans? By observations of non-human creatures? Because I have trouble understanding what the external source would be of it is not other humans.

 

[Fervent]

Or what we can convince our selves about. Even if someone have the power to force me to act against my morality I don't change my views because of that, so I still see the distinction between power and morality.

Oh? Seems an oversimplification, and a distraction from the actual point I was making.

What makes the creators purpose intrinsic? Why, should I or anyone accept that just because someone sees a purpose for us that would determined what is moral or not?

"Someone" is quite the stretch from a Creator, as if we are God's equal. God doesn't simply "see" a purpose for us, He is responsible for our existence and defines what our purpose is. Just as a human inventor decides the intended use of his invention, God as Creator has the prerogative to define our purpose.

These are not characteristics a creator must have. Reality could be started by a creator but then keep being defined by its constituents in the process of it existing as an example. There is nothing that says that a creator must be unchanging, or that the purpose it sees for someone is unchanging.

So now you think you have the right to define the Creator?

Why are one persons sentiments arbitrary, but the creators is not? Why does the creator-given purpose have this special weight, that seems arbitrary to me.

Because if there is no objectivity involved there is no basis for one person's sentiments to reflect something that has truth conditions. The Creator defines truth, both in what "is" and what "ought" to be.

Can it be assisted by other humans? By observations of non-human creatures? Because I have trouble understanding what the external source would be of it is not other humans.

Oh? Is it not clear that I am referring to special revelation from God? Humans assisting humans is just the blind leading the blind, "truth" by consensus.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Oh? Seems an oversimplification, and a distraction from the actual point I was making.

I think it shows that might (or what we can get away with) doesn't define morality

"Someone" is quite the stretch from a Creator, as if we are God's equal. God doesn't simply "see" a purpose for us, He is responsible for our existence and defines what our purpose is. Just as a human inventor decides the intended use of his invention, God as Creator has the prerogative to define our purpose.

I don't even agree that a human inventor decides the intended use of his invention. He uses it as he intends, someone else might use it another way. So now we are talking about God, ok why does God have the prerogative to define our purpose. In this discussion I see God as just another person, at least until it has been shown why God have any special weight in this discussion.

So now you think you have the right to define the Creator?

No, but there is nothing in the word Creator that implies all other characteristics you seem to place on it

Because if there is no objectivity involved there is no basis for one person's sentiments to reflect something that has truth conditions. The Creator defines truth, both in what "is" and what "ought" to be.

Does this follow automatically from the word Creator? Perhaps, what "is". But why would the creator define what "ought" to be.

Oh? Is it not clear that I am referring to special revelation from God? Humans assisting humans is just the blind leading the blind, "truth" by consensus.

What do we know about God that hasn't been postulated by humans?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Someone" is quite the stretch from a Creator, as if we are God's equal. God doesn't simply "see" a purpose for us, He is responsible for our existence and defines what our purpose is.

Even if I were to accept such an unevidenced being as a creator of the Universe, why would I grant it the definition of my "purpose". It wasn't even the proximate cause of my existence. (And I don't let the ones who are the proximate cause of my existence define my purpose, nor have they ever demanded to.)

Just as a human inventor decides the intended use of his invention, God as Creator has the prerogative to define our purpose.

As someone who has used inventions in ways beyond the intended purpose, I reject that analogy as obviously false.

So now you think you have the right to define the Creator?

You are.

Because if there is no objectivity involved there is no basis for one person's sentiments to reflect something that has truth conditions. The Creator defines truth, both in what "is" and what "ought" to be.

A "truth" defined by one being is not a truth, it is an opinion.

 

[Fervent]

I think it shows that might (or what we can get away with) doesn't define morality

How is an ability to resist compulsion by force a rebuttal to such a definition? All it shows is that might isn't absolute, it doesn't infringe on the notion that if there is no objective basis for "right" or "wrong" then it makes no difference, because there is no possibility to qualify it.

I don't even agree that a human inventor decides the intended use of his invention. He uses it as he intends, someone else might use it another way. So now we are talking about God, ok why does God have the prerogative to define our purpose. In this discussion I see God as just another person, at least until it has been shown why God have any special weight in this discussion.

The fact that you think God is "just another person" is the real crux of the issue, as if human beings are equivalent to a being with perfect knowledge, perfect intentions, etc. God has the pregative because God is God.

No, but there is nothing in the word Creator that implies all other characteristics you seem to place on it

Sure, but it should be obvious given the context that I am referring to an omni-being and not just some intermediary creator.

Does this follow automatically from the word Creator? Perhaps, what "is". But why would the creator define what "ought" to be.

Because the Creator defines what is true, period. There is no need for a Creator to draw an inference about what "ought" to be from what "is" so the is-ought problem doesn't apply to a Creator, because He is the one who is defining such matters. As I said earlier, the problem is an epistemic one because it submarines any attempt at constructing an argument that is valid since any moral argument will either insert the moral judgment in the premises or there will be no clear relationship between the premises and the conclusion. Now, if our only recourse is human understanding then the problem is most likely intractable because all of our knowledge, such that it is, comes from observations of a state of affairs so there's no legitimate way to draw moral inferences and any moral understanding we claim to have cannot be grounded in anything beyond pretending that the rightness or wrongness is just a brute fact.

What do we know about God that hasn't been postulated by humans?

This seems to be a question loaded with presuppositions which we do not share.

 

[Fervent]

Even if I were to accept such an unevidenced being as a creator of the Universe, why would I grant it the definition of my "purpose". It wasn't even the proximate cause of my existence. (And I don't let the ones who are the proximate cause of my existence define my purpose, nor have they ever demanded to.)

You think God needs your permission? Cute.

As someone who has used inventions in ways beyond the intended purpose, I reject that analogy as obviously false.

Good for you.

You are.

Am I?

A "truth" defined by one being is not a truth, it is an opinion.

Oh? That's quite the bold claim.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

How is an ability to resist compulsion by force a rebuttal to such a definition? All it shows is that might isn't absolute, it doesn't infringe on the notion that if there is no objective basis for "right" or "wrong" then it makes no difference, because there is no possibility to qualify it.

But it makes a difference, it informs my decisions regardless if it is qualified somehow externally.

The fact that you think God is "just another person" is the real crux of the issue, as if human beings are equivalent to a being with perfect knowledge, perfect intentions, etc. God has the pregative because God is God.

So the answer to why is God?

Sure, but it should be obvious given the context that I am referring to an omni-being and not just some intermediary creator.

You can have a final creator, without it having any intentions with its creation.

Because the Creator defines what is true, period. There is no need for a Creator to draw an inference about what "ought" to be from what "is" so the is-ought problem doesn't apply to a Creator, because He is the one who is defining such matters.

Seems arbitrary in the extreme. Why does a creator even define what is true? At most it would define what is, but there is not even a requirement that they would know what reality will be.

As I said earlier, the problem is an epistemic one because it submarines any attempt at constructing an argument that is valid since any moral argument will either insert the moral judgment in the premises or there will be no clear relationship between the premises and the conclusion. Now, if our only recourse is human understanding then the problem is most likely intractable because all of our knowledge, such that it is, comes from observations of a state of affairs so there's no legitimate way to draw moral inferences and any moral understanding we claim to have cannot be grounded in anything beyond pretending that the rightness or wrongness is just a brute fact.

I'm not a moral realist at all. But you invoking God or a Creator only asserts that morality is connected to telos as a brute fact.

This seems to be a question loaded with presuppositions which we do not share.

So it seems.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You think God needs your permission? Cute.

I don't grant it permission to set the meaning or purpose of my life. In you notions do you not think it grants us "free will"? Why should I surrender my free choice to set my purpose to some being that won't even show itself?

Good for you.

Am I?

It ain't anyone else here who is defining a creator. No one else seems to think it is real.

Oh? That's quite the bold claim.

If I told you that I define what is truth would you not think that "truth" was but an opinion? This is no different.

 

[Fervent]

But it makes a difference, it informs my decisions regardless if it is qualified somehow externally.

If its not qualified with some kind of external reference, it's arbitrary because there is nothing that separates it from being a true or false sentiment. It's just a feeling of some sort with nothing that makes it valid or invalid.

So the answer to why is God?

In a sense, does the clay have a right to tell the potter what should become of it?

You can have a final creator, without it having any intentions with its creation.

Sure, but that's not really relevant. That different kinds of creators are conceivable doesn't alter the characteristics of the one that is under discussion.

Seems arbitrary in the extreme. Why does a creator even define what is true? At most it would define what is, but there is not even a requirement that they would know what reality will be.

What is your basis for such a statement?

I'm not a moral realist at all. But you invoking God or a Creator only asserts that morality is connected to telos as a brute fact.

Yes, and I've recognized the epistemic issue in doing so. But the reason I don't see it as an issue is the brute fact is specifying a relationship between values not between facts and values. It solves the metaphysical problem by stating how there can be real. non-arbitrary moral values, though the epistemic one remains.

So it seems.

Yeah, and admittedly the de jure question and the de facto one are inseparable.

 

[Fervent]

I don't grant it permission to set the meaning or purpose of my life. In you notions do you not think it grants us "free will"? Why should I surrender my free choice to set my purpose to some being that won't even show itself?

I do think it grants us a limited freedom, but in cases such as yours probably just enough rope to hang yourself.

It ain't anyone else here who is defining a creator. No one else seems to think it is real.

And? How is other people's opinions on the matter relevant to whether I am defining a Creator?

If I told you that I define what is truth would you not think that "truth" was but an opinion? This is no different.

Nope, I'd think you were confused. But equating human beings, who must discern what is true, with a Cosmic being that creates reality is about the biggest category error one could make.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

If its not qualified with some kind of external reference, it's arbitrary because there is nothing that separates it from being a true or false sentiment. It's just a feeling of some sort with nothing that makes it valid or invalid.

Yes, and that seems to me what moral statements are. Pushing the question back a level such as saying moral good is acting in accordance with some telos solves nothing.

In a sense, does the clay have a right to tell the potter what should become of it?

Yes, if you have talking clay that with their own moral sentiments they can question the potter.

Sure, but that's not really relevant. That different kinds of creators are conceivable doesn't alter the characteristics of the one that is under discussion.

I would like to point out that you purposefully called it a Creator, not god or God or maximal being or something else until the last few posts.

What is your basis for such a statement?

Ah perhaps I see your objection, I said "at most". What I should have written is "that what it must entail is". Every thing else needs to be expounded upon. I was thinking of the word Creator, as in the someone that creates. Sure, etymological definitions are not the best arguments but to create something doesn't mean more than putting something into being to me. I don't see why omni- anything would follow from that.

Yes, and I've recognized the epistemic issue in doing so. But the reason I don't see it as an issue is the brute fact is specifying a relationship between values not between facts and values. It solves the metaphysical problem by stating how there can be real. non-arbitrary moral values, though the epistemic one remains.

I don't see moral statements as non-truth apt as a problem either, that just seem to be what they are to me.

Yeah, and admittedly the de jure question and the de facto one are inseparable.

By law and by fact? I must admit that you lost me there. I guess it a question about god-belief, but I'm not sure.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do think it grants us a limited freedom, but in cases such as yours probably just enough rope to hang yourself.

Hang myself? What's that got to do with setting ones own purpose?

And? How is other people's opinions on the matter relevant to whether I am defining a Creator?

Huh? Like I said you are definining creator for this discussion. I don't see any reason to think such a being could exist (a being that could create a universe), but I accept your definition as a hypothetical for discussion purposes.

Nope, I'd think you were confused. But equating human beings, who must discern what is true, with a Cosmic being that creates reality is about the biggest category error one could make.

There is nothing about "creating a universe" that grants the power to a being to define what is true.

 

[Bradskii]

That hardly answers my question...

A lot following this that serves no purpose in me trying to forumate an answer.

What is the pertinent difference?

I don't get this. I specifically said more than once that it was the lack of context. I'll repeat that:
IT'S THE LACK OF CONTEXT.

What context is missing that is present in the first question?

So you DO understand that it's a lack of context. And I literally listed many examples of it. I literally wrote them out for you. They are there so you can understand what was missing. Why on earth are you asking what they are when in the specific post to which you are replying it exp,ains what some of them are.

This conversation is going to end soon. We've done this dance before. I'll post something and you'll completely ignore it. It's getting to the point where I'll be asking a specific question and you can answer it or it will end.

Not to anyone but myself, and frankly what better justification is there than "God said it, so it must be true."?

If that's your argument for believing in absolute morality then so be it. The single question that requires a simple answer is on the horizon.

The only thing I've been debating is to point out that absent some objective basis there's no such thing as morality.

Then that is debating morality. You have a position on it and you are trying to put it forward. And failing, it must be said.

Bradskii, king of the strawman. No where did I say an act can be absent, simply that the moral character need not be inherent in the act to be objective.

No, it needs context. The question will arrive soon regarding this...

Nope, you seem to not realize I have answered your question by presenting Singer's thought experiment because there is no pertinent difference. The question is, why do you think these situations are different? What is the supposed missing context?

Again, it was explained in a lot of detail. This discussion will be ending soon if you continue this farce.

You think too highly of yourself.

Gosh, was that a judgement of me that you just made? I think it was. It was trying to explain that you have made no judgements of me? You need to take a day or two and regroup I think.

"Context" is not an answer, its a vague general statement that doesn't identify what's supposed to be the difference maker.

The difference is the context. I think I see that question approaching quite quickly...

Ah...so if I determine that it's right to kill infidels, then it is right to kill infidels? Seems to rob the concept of any meaning.

If you decide it's right then you have decided it's right. That's it. I just hope that you have some good arguments to back up your position. To, you know, debate it. 'Because my source says it's ok' is, as we have agreed, not acceptable.

Yours aren't? So what is your non-arbitrary way of determining the validity of a moral position? Is it purely your decision what is right or wrong, or is there some moral reality independent of what anyone believes to be right or wrong?

Again, I gave a list of means whereby we might determine it. And you have simply ignored them and asked the same question again.

This stops now. I'm up to the back teeth of me explaining my position and then have you asking me to explain my position. I've had enough of giving you my reasons and then you again asking me what my reasons are. There'll be no more of me telling you how I come to my decisions and then you asking me how I come to my decisions.

All you have offered (and as I said, we've done the dance before) is negativity. Nothing more that 'you are wrong' and you've presented nothing whatsoever to back up your own position (whatever it exactly might be).

There may be that one question arriving soon. I may post it later. I won't be interested in anything else you say unless you specifically answer it.