From Morality to God

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I fully expect one to evaluate those that disagree with that one against one's own standards. By my standards, to do so without proper engagement is wrong.

When you say that something is wrong, you are presupposing a moral norm. Welcome to premise 1!
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Prove it.

My morals are my own and are based on my subjective experience.

Thus far, your premise 1 and premise 2 are rejected.

The work has already been done in the OP. If you may reject them without comment then there's not much I can do to engage with your posts.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
All norms are descriptive.

No they aren't. This is just a matter of fact. You're ignoring human intentionality in a really bizarre way. Humans are perfectly capable of deciding that something ought to be the case without observing that it is the case. A parent can institute an entirely novel norm in the household: no television allowed for the children. There need not be any precedent for this, there need not be any pattern it is modeled after. It is possible for the parent to do this even if every one of his friends and family allow television for children. He has instituted a norm, "a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior."

Not all norms are descriptive. This is true even in less obvious cases. Laws are prescriptive norms, not descriptive norms, as ToL has pointed out with regard to the speed limit. The mental gymnastics required to ignore this fact are excessive.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No they aren't. This is just a matter of fact. You're ignoring human intentionality in a really bizarre way. Humans are perfectly capable of deciding that something ought to be the case without observing that it is the case. A parent can institute an entirely novel norm in the household: no television allowed for the children. There need not be any precedent for this, there need not be any pattern it is modeled after. It is possible for the parent to do this even if every one of his friends and family allow television for children. He has instituted a norm, "a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior."

Not all norms are descriptive. This is true even in less obvious cases. Laws are prescriptive norms, not descriptive norms, as ToL has pointed out with regard to the speed limit. The mental gymnastics required to ignore this fact are excessive.
Gee whiz, fine! People create "norms". No need to assume things you make up though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Gee whiz, fine! People create "norms". No need to assume things you make up though.

Ok so you're conceding that moral activity supposes some kind of prescriptive norm. That's all premise 1 is saying. How would you engage with premise 2? You say that "people create norms", so I'm guessing that you believe that any prescription is totally artificial. I think the problem you run into here is that you have no way of evaluating relative (or man made) norms. There is no way to evaluate, for example, the Aryan Paragraph. There's no way to say that it is good, bad, just, unjust, wise, or unwise. Are you willing to live with that?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Ok so you're conceding that moral activity supposes some kind of prescriptive norm. That's all premise 1 is saying.
No, premise one says that I pre-suppose a norm that's already there. I say we create them.
I think the problem you run into here is that you have no way of evaluating relative (or man made) norms. There is no way to evaluate, for example, the Aryan Paragraph. There's no way to say that it is good, bad, just, unjust, wise, or unwise. Are you willing to live with that?
First, I want to point out that this is a blatant appeal to emotion. "Are you willing to live with that?" is the standard "argumentation" when it comes to morality, but it's fallacious.

Second, there absolutely is a way to evaluate it: I hate it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tinker Grey
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Gee whiz, fine! People create "norms". No need to assume things you make up though.

Okay, good!

Honestly I don't think it's possible for a norm to be both descriptive and prescriptive in a strict sense. Describing how things already are and prescribing how things should be in the future are distinct and mutually exclusive acts of the mind. For example, a law to limit speed to 55 mph would never be enacted unless people were going faster than 55 mph. The purpose of a law is to change a descriptive norm in favor of a different prescriptive norm.

Anyway, that's beyond what is necessary since you have already conceded that prescriptive norms exist. :D
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No, premise one says that I pre-suppose a norm that's already there. I say we create them.

I don't mean to say in premise 1 that these norms are necessarily true. Only that we have some norm in mind when we make moral statements. When someone says: "Abortion is not wrong" or "all women have a right to a safe and inexpensive abortion", I believe they are wrong, but they are still presupposing some norm when they make these statements.

First, I want to point out that this is a blatant appeal to emotion. "Are you willing to live with that?" is the standard "argumentation" when it comes to morality, but it's fallacious.

It's just pointing out the implications of your view that you may contradict yourself.

Second, there absolutely is a way to evaluate it: I hate it.

So a kind of emotivism? When we say that something is good, we mean that we like it? When we evaluate the Aryan Paragraph, asking whether or not it is just, we are really asking whether or not we like it?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Okay, good!

Honestly I don't think it's possible for a norm to be both descriptive and prescriptive in a strict sense. Describing how things already are and prescribing how things should be in the future are distinct and mutually exclusive acts of the mind. For example, a law to limit speed to 55 mph would never be enacted unless people were going faster than 55 mph. The purpose of a law is to change a descriptive norm in favor of a different prescriptive norm.
The speed limit on Main St. is 30mph (descriptive). The speed limit on Main St. should be 30mph (prescriptive) and it is.
Anyway, that's beyond what is necessary since you have already conceded that prescriptive norms exist. :D
I've never said that people don't prescribe behavior, of course they do all the time. I disagree with the use of the word "norm" because I think it's misleading, but whatever. As long as you just mean a principle and nothing else, I'll work with that.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I don't mean to say in premise 1 that these norms are necessarily true. Only that we have some norm in mind when we make moral statements. When someone says: "Abortion is not wrong" or "all women have a right to a safe and inexpensive abortion", I believe they are wrong, but they are still presupposing some norm when they make these statements.
What norm is pre-supposed before the norm "all women have a right to a safe and inexpensive abortion" is created by people?
It's just pointing out the implications of your view that you may contradict yourself.
Nope, it's an appeal to consequences/emotion fallacy.
So a kind of emotivism? When we say that something is good, we mean that we like it? When we evaluate the Aryan Paragraph, asking whether or not it is just, we are really asking whether or not we like it?
It can at least be evaluated in that manner. I don't think it can be evaluated in an objective sense, no, that's what you want to prove. But you said we can't evaluate it at all, and that's false. Even from a Biblical perspective, when you say something is good, you're saying "this is something God likes" and when you say something is evil, you're saying "this is something that God dislikes". So why should I think you're evaluating things on a level above likes and dislikes?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The speed limit on Main St. is 30mph (descriptive).

This is a description of a prescription.

The speed limit on Main St. should be 30mph (prescriptive) and it is.

The conjunction proves my point. There are two things here: a prescription and a description. They are joined by a conjunction.

To describe and to prescribe are different verbs. We could try to take an ambiguous piece of syntax, a sign that reads, "<= 55 mph." One might ask whether the sign means that this is what normally happens on the road, or whether the sign means that one is not allowed to exceed 55 mph. Apparently it could mean either. Could it mean both? I don't think so, and even if you argued that it means both you would be arguing that one sign has two meanings, not that the two meanings are equivalent.

I've never said that people don't prescribe behavior, of course they do all the time.

Okay.

I disagree with the use of the word "norm" because I think it's misleading, but whatever. As long as you just mean a principle and nothing else, I'll work with that.

Looking at the Cambridge, Webster's, and Oxford dictionaries along with the Online Etymology Dictionary, I don't think so. The word derives from the Latin word for a carpenter's square and signifies a rule or standard. It's not intrinsically prescriptive, but it is also not merely descriptive. It's not merely a descriptive or coincidental pattern, but an intentional pattern. To my mind the derived adjective 'normative' makes this more clear (Cambridge, Webster's, Oxford).
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
1. Whenever we engage in moral activity we presuppose a moral norm. By moral activity I mean moral discourse, moral evaluation, and the like. When we say that "Brionna Taylor deserves justice", "Black Lives Matter!", "stealing is wrong", or similar statements we are engaging in these things. All of this presupposes a moral norm. Whenever we make a moral evaluation we suppose that there is some moral standard of judgment out there that tells us what's right and wrong and we are appealing to that.

When I say, for example, that "the fridge is broken - it ought not to be freezing the butter" I am appealing to a norm (a teleological norm). How do I know that it ought not be freezing the butter? I simply look at the manufacturer's guide to find out how the fridge ought to be working. The same happens in moral evaluation.

2. Relative norms depend upon absolute norms. Whenever we engage in moral activity we are actually presupposing not just any norm, but an absolute norm. Countries write laws and impose them on their citizens. Laws are a kind of relative norm because they are always subject to evaluation at a higher level. Just because something is a law, does not mean that it's good, just, or wise. We may always ask of any law: "Is this a good law? Is this a just law?" We can all think of example of unjust laws (Jim Crow laws, for example). But in order for us to evaluate any relative norm (like a law), there must be some absolute norm. An absolute norm is one that is not subject to evaluation at a higher level. We can ask: "Is this law good?" because there's something above the law whereby we may evaluate the law. Perhaps it's the constitution. Maybe when we ask: "Is this law good?" we are asking if it's constitutional. But then we may also ask: "Is our constitution good and just?" On and on this goes until we arrive at some absolute norm that cannot be evaluated at a higher level. If there is no such norm, we could never evaluate any relative norms at all. It would make no sense to ask: "Is this law good?"

3. Norms can only arise in personal contexts. Norms are only ever imposed by people. All relative norms that we know of are personal in nature. Behind every norm is a person or people who impose that norm. The fridge has a manufacturer that says how the fridge ought to work. The speed limit is imposed by a body of people. A nation's laws are imposed by people. Household rules are written and imposed by people. Every norm we can think of has a person or people standing behind it who have authority. It's very difficult to imagine an impersonal norm. What allegiance do we owe to the laws of physics, for example?

4. An absolute norm could only come from an absolute person. A norm that is not subject to evaluation at a higher level could only come from a person who is not subject to evaluation at a higher level - an absolute person. When we are talking about an absolute person, we are talking about something like God.

5. Therefore, whenever we engage in moral activity, we presuppose God's existence. If God does not exist there could be no absolute norms and thus no norms at all and all moral activity would be without meaning. Yet we find moral activity very meaningful. When we engage in it, we presuppose that God exists even if we resist this idea. We might simultaneously reject belief in God and accept belief in God while doing this.

@Tree of Life

Are you planning on addressing post #31?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums