AP students question #one

[Ana the Ist]

You're making my point here. "Right" being a matter of opinion is a contradiction in terms. You can tell if an inch is a "right" inch by measuring it against a ruler, an external standard. If an inch is just whatever my or your opinion is, then there's really no such thing as an inch.

Now I see the problem... and quite frankly, I can't believe I'm going to need to explain this to you...

The word "right" has multiple definitions...

One of them is "factually correct".

One of them is "morally good".

These aren't the same thing.

You'll freak out when you look it up...but it can also refer to a direction that's essentially the opposite of "left"! I bet all this time you thought when someone said "turn right" you thought they wanted you to choose the correct path!

It's a simple mistake, don't beat yourself up over it.

 

[Cearbhall]

You're making my point here. "Right" being a matter of opinion is a contradiction in terms. You can tell if an inch is a "right" inch by measuring it against a ruler, an external standard. If an inch is just whatever my or your opinion is, then there's really no such thing as an inch.

No, the whole point is that we don't agree with that definition. That's the objective definition, not the sole meaning of the word. We don't believe that a ruler exists, so since the word exists, it clearly means something else. Humans made up the word to refer to whatever we believe is morally correct, whether we think it's subjective or objective.

 

[Chany]

You're making my point here. "Right" being a matter of opinion is a contradiction in terms. You can tell if an inch is a "right" inch by measuring it against a ruler, an external standard. If an inch is just whatever my or your opinion is, then there's really no such thing as an inch.

The difference is that God would be the author of reality and you and I would be merely interpreters. As such, He's the prescriber of morality which is a very important part of our reality.

Sorry if I'm not good at explaining my position. Maybe you can try and explain yours. Without appeal to any supernatural standard, can you tell me how a thing can be wrong? Often the problem of evil is broken down into natural and man-made, so for examples I'll ask about one of each, but you can discuss anything you want. 1) Why is it wrong for an earthquake to kill humans? and 2) Why is it wrong for one human to steal money from another?

God commands that it is wrong to steal money. That's nice. So what?

He made reality, yes. However, there is a clear difference between moral laws and physical laws. I must adhere to the laws of physics, however I may desire to do otherwise. Moral law, however, can easily be broken. It is obviously of a different nature than physical law.

When we talk about right actions, we refer to actions that go towards the good (whatever that is). However, why is something the good? God made reality and dictates that stealing is wrong is a part of that reality. However, what actually gives him the power to dictate right and wrong? By what law of nature or authority does he proscribed right and wrong?

 

[Chesterton]

Now I see the problem... and quite frankly, I can't believe I'm going to need to explain this to you...

The word "right" has multiple definitions...

One of them is "factually correct".

One of them is "morally good".

These aren't the same thing.

You're very close to getting it, it's just slightly out of grasp. Try looking up the Greek word "orthodox". If it's not factually correct that it's wrong to steal, then it's not wrong to steal. ¿Verdad?

You'll freak out when you look it up...but it can also refer to a direction that's essentially the opposite of "left"! I bet all this time you thought when someone said "turn right" you thought they wanted you to choose the correct path!

It's a simple mistake, don't beat yourself up over it.

I come from a seafaring tribe. I only know port and starboard.

No, the whole point is that we don't agree with that definition. That's the objective definition, not the sole meaning of the word. We don't believe that a ruler exists, so since the word exists, it clearly means something else. Humans made up the word to refer to whatever we believe is morally correct, whether we think it's subjective or objective.

If we don't agree what words mean, there isn't any use talking about the ideas they represent, is there?

God commands that it is wrong to steal money. That's nice. So what?

He made reality, yes. However, there is a clear difference between moral laws and physical laws. I must adhere to the laws of physics, however I may desire to do otherwise. Moral law, however, can easily be broken. It is obviously of a different nature than physical law.

Yes they're different. One type of law you can choose whether to obey, the other you have to.

When we talk about right actions, we refer to actions that go towards the good (whatever that is). However, why is something the good? God made reality and dictates that stealing is wrong is a part of that reality. However, what actually gives him the power to dictate right and wrong? By what law of nature or authority does he proscribed right and wrong?

God is the Law. You, Chany, can be the Law when you create your own universe. Sorry if you don't like the hierarchy inherent in this reality.

But neither you or Ana answered my question about how anything can be wrong in a godless universe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're very close to getting it, it's just slightly out of grasp. Try looking up the Greek word "orthodox". If it's not factually correct that it's wrong to steal, then it's not wrong to steal. ¿Verdad?.

Nope...you're still using two different contexts as if they were the same. They aren't.

"If it's not factually correct...."

"...then it's not wrong to steal."

In the second part of your quote, the word "wrong" doesn't refer to a "fact" it refers to a moral "opinion".

Entiende?

If you wanted to rewrite your statement correctly, then it would look like...

"If it's not factually wrong to steal...then it's not factually wrong to steal."

Which would be redundant, I admit, but at least correct. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate its factually wrong to steal (hint, you can't...even if we assume a god as part of the equation)...that doesn't mean that I wouldn't really get a giggle out of watching you try.

 

[Chany]

Yes they're different. One type of law you can choose whether to obey, the other you have to.

God is the Law. You, Chany, can be the Law when you create your own universe. Sorry if you don't like the hierarchy inherent in this reality.

But neither you or Ana answered my question about how anything can be wrong in a godless universe.

When I discuss the term "good" and "right", they are not to be taken as subjective declarations. They are things inherent; for example, unnecessary harm is often seen as a wrong. According to your definition, God can dictate that unnecessary harm is a good, regardless of the effects or the quality of the act involved. I don't see how it can be a law of the universe if no one has to follow it and that the only justification is that might makes right.

Why is God the Law? By the very use of the two words, you've established that there is a distinction between the two concepts. Why can't I have law without God?

Again, by what authority does God dictate that something is wrong or right? I reject your conclusion. I could never be the author of good and evil, even in a world I made. I could declare certain things evil or good, but that doesn't make them actually evil or good.

 

[Chesterton]

Nope...you're still using two different contexts as if they were the same. They aren't.

"If it's not factually correct...."

"...then it's not wrong to steal."

In the second part of your quote, the word "wrong" doesn't refer to a "fact" it refers to a moral "opinion".

Entiende?

From Merriam-Webster:

right -

: morally or socially correct or acceptable
: agreeing with the facts or truth : accurate or correct
: speaking, acting, or judging in a way that agrees with the facts or truth
　
opinion -

: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing
: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert

If you wanted to rewrite your statement correctly, then it would look like...

"If it's not factually wrong to steal...then it's not factually wrong to steal."

Which would be redundant, I admit, but at least correct. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate its factually wrong to steal (hint, you can't...even if we assume a god as part of the equation)...that doesn't mean that I wouldn't really get a giggle out of watching you try.

I'm still waiting for my chance to giggle. You're asking me to do what I asked you and Chany to do couple of posts ago, and neither of you have attempted to answer.

When I discuss the term "good" and "right", they are not to be taken as subjective declarations. They are things inherent; for example, unnecessary harm is often seen as a wrong. According to your definition, God can dictate that unnecessary harm is a good, regardless of the effects or the quality of the act involved. I don't see how it can be a law of the universe if no one has to follow it and that the only justification is that might makes right.

The other poster Cearbhall says they are subjective declarations. Maybe the two of you should figure that out first before we talk further. But no, that is not according to my definition. I didn't say "God makes the law", I said "God is the Law". The Law is inherent in His nature. Goodness is what He is.

Why is God the Law? By the very use of the two words, you've established that there is a distinction between the two concepts. Why can't I have law without God?

No, I didn't make a distinction, I made an equation. The word "is" is like an equal sign (=).

Again, by what authority does God dictate that something is wrong or right? I reject your conclusion. I could never be the author of good and evil, even in a world I made. I could declare certain things evil or good, but that doesn't make them actually evil or good.

I don't know anything about you, but if you've ever had children or pets, you probably sort of did make laws. And the kids and pets probably didn't like them or understand the reasons for them.

 

[Cearbhall]

The other poster Cearbhall says they are subjective declarations. Maybe the two of you should figure that out first before we talk further.

Everyone has a different idea of how morality is constructed. That's the point. It's not a dichotomy. "Right" refers to whatever you believe is morally correct, regardless of who you identify as the authority on this matter. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Ana the Ist]

From Merriam-Webster:

right -

: morally or socially correct or acceptable
: agreeing with the facts or truth : accurate or correct
: speaking, acting, or judging in a way that agrees with the facts or truth
　
opinion -

: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing
: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert



I'm still waiting for my chance to giggle. You're asking me to do what I asked you and Chany to do couple of posts ago, and neither of you have attempted to answer.

Awesome! You looked it up! Let's do some example sentences just so we're all clear here...in the order you listed them for morality.

1. Morally, this is the right thing to do.
2. Is 4 the right answer to 2+2?
3. You're doing your math the right way.

So you'll notice pretty quickly that the big difference in these three possible definitions is that only two of them refer to something that can be factually proven...the first does not. It's the first that we're using. You should also note that we could write it like this...

1. Morally, this is the good thing to do.

The sentence hasn't lost any meaning, yet when we use the word good instead of right, pretty much everyone realizes that good is a relative term...my guess is that it will be less confusing for folks like yourself.

What question did you ask that I didn't answer? It's possible I missed it... just give me a page and post number.

Edit-remember back when you said this?

"Because without God, you're only saying "like" and "dislike", which are different from saying "right" and "wrong".

Do you at least now realize you were using the wrong definitions to "right" and "wrong"? You cannot show me that something is morally "right" the same way that I can show you that 4 is the "right" answer to 2+2...do you get it now?

 

[Chesterton]

Awesome! You looked it up! Let's do some example sentences just so we're all clear here...in the order you listed them for morality.

1. Morally, this is the right thing to do.
2. Is 4 the right answer to 2+2?
3. You're doing your math the right way.

So you'll notice pretty quickly that the big difference in these three possible definitions is that only two of them refer to something that can be factually proven...the first does not. It's the first that we're using. You should also note that we could write it like this...

1. Morally, this is the good thing to do.

The sentence hasn't lost any meaning, yet when we use the word good instead of right, pretty much everyone realizes that good is a relative term...my guess is that it will be less confusing for folks like yourself.

The sentence has changed meaning. FYI, that often happens to sentences when you swap out words which aren't synonyms.

What question did you ask that I didn't answer? It's possible I missed it... just give me a page and post number.

Last paragraph of post #60.

Edit-remember back when you said this?

"Because without God, you're only saying "like" and "dislike", which are different from saying "right" and "wrong".

Do you at least now realize you were using the wrong definitions to "right" and "wrong"? You cannot show me that something is morally "right" the same way that I can show you that 4 is the "right" answer to 2+2...do you get it now?

You're right, without referring to the supernatural I don't think I can show something is right or wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The sentence has changed meaning. FYI, that often happens to sentences when you swap out words which aren't synonyms.



Last paragraph of post #60.



You're right, without referring to the supernatural I don't think I can show something is right or wrong.

I don't see how you can show something to be factually morally right or wrong even with an appeal to a supernatural standard...but you're welcome to try.

Even though I changed the word right to good...it carries the same meaning in that context...unless you're going to argue that something could be morally bad or evil and still right. Im guessing that's a can of worms you're not willing to start eating.

Are you referring to this question?

"Without appeal to any supernatural standard, can you tell me how a thing can be wrong? "

Do mean factually wrong? 2+2=5
Do you mean morally wrong? I would use words to tell you lol.
Do you mean factually morally wrong? You can't demonstrate that even with an appeal to a supernatural standard.

This goes back to when I asked you what god has to do with it. You keep making a claim that god somehow solves this problem of not being able to show for a fact that something is wrong. I understand you take god's word for it...but that doesn't prove a thing. Certainly not the way I can prove 2+2=4 to anyone regardless of their views on god. Since you're not going to be able to show these things factually...it's always going to be a matter of opinion, whether you appeal to the supernatural or not.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't see how you can show something to be factually morally right or wrong even with an appeal to a supernatural standard...but you're welcome to try.

Even though I changed the word right to good...it carries the same meaning in that context...unless you're going to argue that something could be morally bad or evil and still right. Im guessing that's a can of worms you're not willing to start eating.

Each post of yours is getting more can-of-wormier. I'm not even sure if you know what you're saying now.

Are you referring to this question?

"Without appeal to any supernatural standard, can you tell me how a thing can be wrong? "

Yes.

Do you mean morally wrong? I would use words to tell you lol.

Yes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Each post of yours is getting more can-of-wormier. I'm not even sure if you know what you're saying now.



Yes.



Yes.

Ok...I'll bite, give me a situation with as much context as possible...I'll tell you if I believe it is morally wrong or right.

And of course I know what I'm saying...do you?

 

[Chesterton]

Ok...I'll bite, give me a situation with as much context as possible...I'll tell you if I believe it is morally wrong or right.

And of course I know what I'm saying...do you?

I provided two situations in the post, which I've already had to remind you of. Take your Alzheimer's meds, dude!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I provided two situations in the post, which I've already had to remind you of. Take your Alzheimer's meds, dude!

You responded to more than just me in that post...just fyi I don't read your responses to other people. It's nothing personal, I just don't care.

Since your "earthquake" question makes zero sense...I'm guessing you mean this...

"Why is it wrong for one human to steal money from another?"

In this broad context, I can't really answer....it's just too generalized. It sounds like an ideal, not a real situation. Provide some context. Why is the person stealing? Is he stealing money that he believes is wrongly taken from him? Is he robbing some blind beggar to feed a drug addiction? What are the consequences?

Provide some context. It's a lazy question otherwise.

 

[Chesterton]

You responded to more than just me in that post...just fyi I don't read your responses to other people. It's nothing personal, I just don't care.

Since your "earthquake" question makes zero sense...I'm guessing you mean this...

"Why is it wrong for one human to steal money from another?"

In this broad context, I can't really answer....it's just too generalized. It sounds like an ideal, not a real situation. Provide some context. Why is the person stealing? Is he stealing money that he believes is wrongly taken from him? Is he robbing some blind beggar to feed a drug addiction? What are the consequences?

Provide some context. It's a lazy question otherwise.

Sorry, I'm not really an authority on why people might steal. Maybe 'cause they want money? Or it's fun? Or for revenge? It's irrelevant. If you can't answer, just stop posting about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I'm not really an authority on why people might steal. Maybe 'cause they want money? Or it's fun? Or for revenge? It's irrelevant. If you can't answer, just stop posting about it.

I'm not asking you to be an authority...I'm asking for a context. Put on your big boy pants and think of one. If you won't, I'll give you both an example of when I think it's right and when I think it's wrong to steal money.

It's not that I can't answer, it's that your question bears no frame of reference to reality.

 

[Connect]

What course are you talking about? The kids asked these questions. There's no AP Philosophy course. The College Board presents religion in a sufficiently neutral and objective light, based on my experiences in two AP history courses.

Hello Cearbhall,

My brother in law is an English teacher at a H.S. And he called they his AP students. I think it is Turing into an apologetics discussion. He has not gotten back to me since the first meeting they had.

 

[Cearbhall]

Hello Cearbhall,

My brother in law is an English teacher at a H.S. And he called they his AP students. I think it is Turing into an apologetics discussion. He has not gotten back to me since the first meeting they had.

Ah, that's interesting. I wonder what they're reading in AP Lang./Lit. that led to this discussion.

Thanks!