Favorite arguments!

[MedicMan]

Note: I've been arguing this in another thread, but it seems appropriate to drop it here as well, at the point this thread has reached

If local customs from all over the world share some identicalities, why are these instances not objective? If every single culture in the world judges that it is wrong, say, to murder in cold blood, then can we not be justified in saying that it is universally wrong (and therefore objectively wrong) to kill in cold blood? When Newton discovered gravity, did he think, "Everyone on this planet is held to the ground by a force that appears to be the same the world over. However, these could be several different, local forces." No, he realised, quite correctly, that gravity is universal and therefore objective; i.e. he reasoned that universality <=> objectivity. No scientist would argue that the laws of science that they predict are subjective, but that they are objective because they apply universally to the entire world.

Well, then, surely a particular moral principle that is held by every community on this planet is a universal moral principle, and therefore an objective moral principle? For if three people had all discovered gravity in different ways, would they have discovered three separate forces? Definitely not! Similarly, even though different communities may have different motivations for outlawing certain actions the end result is the same - the action is outlawed. A tribal chief says, "I will not allow murder in my village because if my people are allowed to kill whoever they like then the village will die out," and a Church leader says, "Murder is wrong because it displeases God," they have both arrived at the same conclusion - murder is wrong. And since this then becomes universally true, since every community in the world reasons that murder-in-cold-blood is wrong, by the same principle that we established gravity's objectivity we may establish the objectivity of the moral wrongness of murder-in-cold-blood.

Murder in cold blood is universally wrong => Murder in cold blood is objectively wrong

 

[EverlastingMan]

Common ancestor. Even evolutionists figure we all probably came from a single group of people.

 

[Lisa0315]

Note: I've been arguing this in another thread, but it seems appropriate to drop it here as well, at the point this thread has reached

If local customs from all over the world share some identicalities, why are these instances not objective? If every single culture in the world judges that it is wrong, say, to murder in cold blood, then can we not be justified in saying that it is universally wrong (and therefore objectively wrong) to kill in cold blood? When Newton discovered gravity, did he think, "Everyone on this planet is held to the ground by a force that appears to be the same the world over. However, these could be several different, local forces." No, he realised, quite correctly, that gravity is universal and therefore objective; i.e. he reasoned that universality <=> objectivity. No scientist would argue that the laws of science that they predict are subjective, but that they are objective because they apply universally to the entire world.

Well, then, surely a particular moral principle that is held by every community on this planet is a universal moral principle, and therefore an objective moral principle? For if three people had all discovered gravity in different ways, would they have discovered three separate forces? Definitely not! Similarly, even though different communities may have different motivations for outlawing certain actions the end result is the same - the action is outlawed. A tribal chief says, "I will not allow murder in my village because if my people are allowed to kill whoever they like then the village will die out," and a Church leader says, "Murder is wrong because it displeases God," they have both arrived at the same conclusion - murder is wrong. And since this then becomes universally true, since every community in the world reasons that murder-in-cold-blood is wrong, by the same principle that we established gravity's objectivity we may establish the objectivity of the moral wrongness of murder-in-cold-blood.

Murder in cold blood is universally wrong => Murder in cold blood is objectively wrong

So, does this support a universal law established by God, or not?

 

[Asimov]

Note: I've been arguing this in another thread, but it seems appropriate to drop it here as well, at the point this thread has reached

If local customs from all over the world share some identicalities, why are these instances not objective? If every single culture in the world judges that it is wrong, say, to murder in cold blood, then can we not be justified in saying that it is universally wrong (and therefore objectively wrong) to kill in cold blood? When Newton discovered gravity, did he think, "Everyone on this planet is held to the ground by a force that appears to be the same the world over. However, these could be several different, local forces." No, he realised, quite correctly, that gravity is universal and therefore objective; i.e. he reasoned that universality <=> objectivity. No scientist would argue that the laws of science that they predict are subjective, but that they are objective because they apply universally to the entire world.

Well, then, surely a particular moral principle that is held by every community on this planet is a universal moral principle, and therefore an objective moral principle? For if three people had all discovered gravity in different ways, would they have discovered three separate forces? Definitely not! Similarly, even though different communities may have different motivations for outlawing certain actions the end result is the same - the action is outlawed. A tribal chief says, "I will not allow murder in my village because if my people are allowed to kill whoever they like then the village will die out," and a Church leader says, "Murder is wrong because it displeases God," they have both arrived at the same conclusion - murder is wrong. And since this then becomes universally true, since every community in the world reasons that murder-in-cold-blood is wrong, by the same principle that we established gravity's objectivity we may establish the objectivity of the moral wrongness of murder-in-cold-blood.

Murder in cold blood is universally wrong => Murder in cold blood is objectively wrong

Murder is objectively wrong because it's defined as wrong.

 

[MedicMan]

It establishes that, if there is universal law then there must be a God to have put it in place, and that God is the only way for there to be a universal law.

I guess my post was more out of context than I first thought. I can continue to copy from the other thread though if interested?

 

[Lisa0315]

It establishes that, if there is universal law then there must be a God to have put it in place, and that God is the only way for there to be a universal law.

I guess my post was more out of context than I first thought. I can continue to copy from the other thread though if interested?

That is what I thought you were saying. I just wanted to be sure.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Murder is objectively wrong because it's defined as wrong.

What is right and wrong? Where did they originate?

Lisa

 

[TeddyKGB]

If local customs from all over the world share some identicalities, why are these instances not objective? If every single culture in the world judges that it is wrong, say, to murder in cold blood, then can we not be justified in saying that it is universally wrong (and therefore objectively wrong) to kill in cold blood?

If we have to look at cultures (or societies, or individuals) - aka subjects - for our data, then we will get a subjective data set by definition. That does not mean that some moral rule is not objective; it means that we can not discover objectivity by querying subjects.

When Newton discovered gravity, did he think, "Everyone on this planet is held to the ground by a force that appears to be the same the world over. However, these could be several different, local forces." No, he realised, quite correctly, that gravity is universal and therefore objective; i.e. he reasoned that universality <=> objectivity. No scientist would argue that the laws of science that they predict are subjective, but that they are objective because they apply universally to the entire world.

I sure hope a scientist would argue that. She should know that scientific laws are only as 'objective' as the set of observations on which they are based.

Newtonian gravitation, as it turns out, is not universal. It failed to explain the orbit of Mercury, and it required instantaneous action, in conflict with relativity's c-speed limit.

Well, then, surely a particular moral principle that is held by every community on this planet is a universal moral principle, and therefore an objective moral principle?

Why the community level? What if every community was democratic, and in each one only 51% of the populace agreed with your hypothetical principle?

For if three people had all discovered gravity in different ways, would they have discovered three separate forces? Definitely not! Similarly, even though different communities may have different motivations for outlawing certain actions the end result is the same - the action is outlawed. A tribal chief says, "I will not allow murder in my village because if my people are allowed to kill whoever they like then the village will die out," and a Church leader says, "Murder is wrong because it displeases God," they have both arrived at the same conclusion - murder is wrong.

But your tribal chief is practicing moral utilitarianism while your church leader appeals to moral authority. Moral objectivity (right for right's sake) is compatible with neither of these.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I know we're mostly atheists here, but what's your favorite argument for the existence of God? Don't tell us why it's wrong, either, it'll be like a puzzle! I'll post mine later.

Also, don't post anything wherein you secretly define atheism as the belief that no one believes in God. It's way too soon and won't be funny.

"What's the alternative?"

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

It establishes that, if there is universal law then there must be a God to have put it in place, and that God is the only way for there to be a universal law.

I don't think it can be sufficiently demonsrated that if something is universal it must be objective. Even if something is objective, that doesn't mean God must have put it into place. Admittedly, if God exists, then there is objective morality. But if there is objective morality that doesn't mean God exists (logical fallcy: affirming the consequent).

peace

 

[Lisa0315]

I don't think it can be sufficiently demonsrated that if something is universal it must be objective. Even if something is objective, that doesn't mean God must have put it into place. Admittedly, if God exists, then there is objective morality. But if there is objective morality that doesn't mean God exists (logical fallcy: affirming the consequent).

peace

Your logic is good. One of the reasons I enjoy discussing things with non-believers is because it teaches me to see both sides of things. Our (Christian) logic can easily be biased by our faith. That doesn't mean we are wrong... . It does mean that we must allow for faith to be illogical. It is indeed the foolishness of the cross that we believe in.

Lisa

 

[gwenmead]

Some of my personal favorites:

"How can you observe the beauty in the world/the face of my baby/the perfection of nature/insert random wonderful thing here> and say that there is no god??"

"The universe exists. It must have been created. Since it was created, therefore there must be a creator, just like with <paintings/houses/insert random manmade object here>. Therefore there is a god."

"Because the <Bible/Quran/Bhagavad Gita/Iliad/insert random religious work here> says so."

Really, though, probably my ultimate favorite is something along the lines of "because I say so". In the end I think that's what so many of the assertions about god boil down to.

 

[EverlastingMan]

Sorry to pick this back up from two pages back...

His original argument that the injustice in the world means that there is no god can only be used against concepts of a god that are both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I think you're saying that it isn't sufficient to take out, say, polytheism, and I agree with that.

Aye polytheism or any other single god that isn't omnipotent and just.

The analogy isn't mine, and no, it's not a great analogy. But then, Lewis is a bad theologian.

Well, true. I think you'll agree with me though that analogies are necessary.
I'm not sure why you think getting accustomed to being dry is different from no longer feeling dry.[/quote]
Well you're right. There is no difference between the two, but you seemed to be saying that as soon as we forget we are dry, we basically aren't. Really, though, I hardly remember what we have been fussing over, and it appears that both of us were unclear. Since, we are both starting to agree with each other.

But if you do believe what you say, then you must also say that the fish does in fact feel wet, and, if we are to stick with Lewis's (faulty) analogy, then we do not need to first experience justice to understand injustice, nor vice versa.

My main problem with the analogy is that, by the nature of sense perception, the implication is that we can understand neither good nor evil independently, but only together.

Eh, while I'm still pretty darn certain that is just one of the ways of looking at the analogy, is it really that important? He did have another analogy in there anyway. I concede the point mate. (Besides which I'm rather sleepy.)

You are half right. His argument hinges on the assumption that sense perception works in the same way as the understanding, in that we must experience both a thing and its opposite in order to experience either of them.. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that the understanding works in the same way as sense perception in this manner.

I think he's saying that our perceptions indicate something. They point somewhere, but don't actually go there.

Just giving what I got.

And a good show too.

 

[JohnLocke]

It is readily apparent to all men, that there are thoughts, which arising in the consciousness give rise to other thoughts which of themselves may be recognized as both rational and streaming from the previous thought. Such thoughts may be unique and idiopathic or otherwise, and yet in all cases it appears that most of these thoughts recognized as rational may themselves be used as the substrate for yet more rational thoughts and so and so forth such that the limits of time and inclination are reached far before the end of such thoughts, so that they may be honestly construed as persistent. And yet it is also clear that there are thoughts that may be recognized as irrational thoughts, that may also give rise to other irrational thoughts or even the same irrational thought as happens in the persistent impulsion. Thus it may be observed by all men everywhere that there are at least two forces at work in the consciousness of men, the Rational and the Irrational, and that both of these forces operate in the consciousness, seemingly at all times, though, it must be admitted that at certain times one or other force seems to be paramount.
If we then conceive of the consciousness as being a compilation, orientation, storage and arrangement of thoughts, then it is clear that we are composed of both Rational and Irrational thoughts, that both thoughts also have the tendency to breed both their likeness and their opposite, though in differing number upon differing occasions. And so it is clear, that there being no Rational reason for the ordering of thoughts to be Irrational, that the Irrational force that operates upon the consciousness of men must be separate from that which orders the Ration, for it is hardly Rational to expect a Rational process to yield Irrational results.
Now some of the less Enlightened have taken this Irrational force to be the body or ignorance or the base instincts of man, but I hold true to the premises that such Irrational force is rather the soul. It is, in fact, not reason that sets us apart, but Irrationality. The proof of which is clear from the Book of Genesis, it is only Man that fell from Grace. And as we all know that Reason is a great means to the Truth, and we notice that infrequency with which animals are afflicted with such Fallen conditions as suicide, drug addiction, depression, sloth, etc. It is quite clear that it is the Irrational process that separates us from the Divine, and it is exactly that process over which the Divine and the Satanic fight, and thus may most accurately be called the SOUL.

Now having established that all men have a Soul, by individual and direct observation, there remains but the proof of the OverSoul, being God. This is readily identified by construing the similarity of the Irrational Soul with the conditions ascribed by the Good Book.

Q.E.D.

In paraphrase.

 

[MedicMan]

Where did you get that from, John?? Looks very interesting, and something that may be3 very useful when I take my philosophy exams in June!

 

[JohnLocke]

MedicMan,

It is a paraphrase and update of Rene DesCartes Ontological Proof of God using a bit of Hume, a couple of Existentialist theologians (whose names, God forgive me, escape me at the moment), and the MicroGenetic Method of Psychological Observation, Measurement relative to cognition.

Good luck on Exams!

Cheers!

 

[The Nihilist]

MedicMan,

It is a paraphrase and update of Rene DesCartes Ontological Proof of God using a bit of Hume, a couple of Existentialist theologians (whose names, God forgive me, escape me at the moment), and the MicroGenetic Method of Psychological Observation, Measurement relative to cognition.

Good luck on Exams!

Cheers!

Is it your own position? If it is, can you give an example of what you take to be an irrational thought, because the legitimacy of the argument is going to have to do with that. Some thoughts we can arrive at without the use of reason, but rather, as a result of preferance. For example, we may think Saddam Hussein had WMDs not because that is where the evidence led, but because we don't like him. At the same time, no thought we think is completely irrational, because we cannot conceive of a think that is contradictory. We cannot conceive of a square circle, or any other such thing. Therefore, all of our thoughts and concepts are fundamentally ruled by reason.
And then there are kind of a lot of unsubstantiated claims. The biggest problem that I see, and I think the claim on which your argument is going to live or die, is that there is no rational reason for irrationality. Can you seriously not think of one? When one touches a hot thing without realizing it, he immediately draws back without even realizing that he has touched a hot thing; the reaction is instinctual, if you wish to call it that, but if that is what you wish to call it, then it is purely that and not the product of our rational processes. For while the slow process of reasoning would lead us to withdraw our hand eventually, it is our baser instincts that protect us most efficiently.
Also, there's this weird claim to authority, in which you or the author just kind of assert that you are more enlightened than those with whom you disagree. It's probably better to shy away from that kind of thing, it cuts into the strength of your argument.

 

[JohnLocke]

Is it your own position? If it is, can you give an example of what you take to be an irrational thought, because the legitimacy of the argument is going to have to do with that. Some thoughts we can arrive at without the use of reason, but rather, as a result of preferance. For example, we may think Saddam Hussein had WMDs not because that is where the evidence led, but because we don't like him. At the same time, no thought we think is completely irrational, because we cannot conceive of a think that is contradictory. We cannot conceive of a square circle, or any other such thing. Therefore, all of our thoughts and concepts are fundamentally ruled by reason.
And then there are kind of a lot of unsubstantiated claims. The biggest problem that I see, and I think the claim on which your argument is going to live or die, is that there is no rational reason for irrationality. Can you seriously not think of one? When one touches a hot thing without realizing it, he immediately draws back without even realizing that he has touched a hot thing; the reaction is instinctual, if you wish to call it that, but if that is what you wish to call it, then it is purely that and not the product of our rational processes. For while the slow process of reasoning would lead us to withdraw our hand eventually, it is our baser instincts that protect us most efficiently.
Also, there's this weird claim to authority, in which you or the author just kind of assert that you are more enlightened than those with whom you disagree. It's probably better to shy away from that kind of thing, it cuts into the strength of your argument.

Recovering Philosopher:

First, I'm not sure, but the "weird claim to authority" was more in trying to replicate the style of certain Enlightenment thinkers, in short paraphrase, than an assertion that I, JohnLocke, were more enlightened than those with whom I disagree.

Second, on irrational thoughts. For this part of the argument I was thinking more of "random" or "errant" thoughts, such as would be the case when thinking about whether or not the evidence supported the stockpiling of WMD by Sadaam Hussein, your current "train of thought" was "derailed" by the sudden imposition in the "consciousness space" of Kelly Clarkson's second to final American Idol episode. I am thinking that one would be very hard pressed to find any logical connection between the previous train of thought and that which supplanted it. In this context the Kelly Clarkson thought is irrational. While it is definitionally impossible to conceive of a square circle (though, I hear the expression often enough in reference to Boxing, for example), I suspect that you would claim that any circularity of the object I was denominating "square" would disqualifying it, by definition, for being a "square." (Forgive the fragment). By contrast, we can think thoughts that do not follow rational or local process, such as when jealousy intrudes and a person is "certain" of the infidelity of their partner based on completely innocent "evidence" that no person not so afflicted would consider evidence of infidelity.

Third, the reflex action is not conscious, and thus is outside the scope of my particular argument.

Is there any rational reason for irrationality? I would think these things would be definitionally mutually exclusive. For if there were a rational reason for a thought, it would by definition be rational, for it is the nature and character of an irrational thought that no rational thought undergirds it.

I would also contest your "we cannot conceive of a thin(g) that is contradictory. Ever experienced hypothermia and the cold that burns? what about all of the creatures of myth and literature that routinely violate the laws of physics and biology as we know them? We can regularly conceive of things which are contradictory to the "laws" that we know about the universe. As I mentioned before, it seems that your point relies on a kind of definitional sophistry in the same way that my definitions of irrational and rational thought. But practically speaking, humankind has demonstrated the ability to think of the impossible on regular basis.

Is it my point of view? Somewhat. I believe that there is a force of irrationality in that which I understand to be the consciousness. I am not entirely convinced that it is intrinsic to the self. Chaos theory, cascading causality still have my head a twirl.

Final point, give credit to instincts, they may be awfully limited in scope, but they are truly masters of their domain.

Cheers!

 

[The Nihilist]

Recovering Philosopher:

First, I'm not sure, but the "weird claim to authority" was more in trying to replicate the style of certain Enlightenment thinkers, in short paraphrase, than an assertion that I, JohnLocke, were more enlightened than those with whom I disagree.

Second, on irrational thoughts. For this part of the argument I was thinking more of "random" or "errant" thoughts, such as would be the case when thinking about whether or not the evidence supported the stockpiling of WMD by Sadaam Hussein, your current "train of thought" was "derailed" by the sudden imposition in the "consciousness space" of Kelly Clarkson's second to final American Idol episode. I am thinking that one would be very hard pressed to find any logical connection between the previous train of thought and that which supplanted it. In this context the Kelly Clarkson thought is irrational. While it is definitionally impossible to conceive of a square circle (though, I hear the expression often enough in reference to Boxing, for example), I suspect that you would claim that any circularity of the object I was denominating "square" would disqualifying it, by definition, for being a "square." (Forgive the fragment). By contrast, we can think thoughts that do not follow rational or local process, such as when jealousy intrudes and a person is "certain" of the infidelity of their partner based on completely innocent "evidence" that no person not so afflicted would consider evidence of infidelity.

Third, the reflex action is not conscious, and thus is outside the scope of my particular argument.

Is there any rational reason for irrationality? I would think these things would be definitionally mutually exclusive. For if there were a rational reason for a thought, it would by definition be rational, for it is the nature and character of an irrational thought that no rational thought undergirds it.

I would also contest your "we cannot conceive of a thin(g) that is contradictory. Ever experienced hypothermia and the cold that burns? what about all of the creatures of myth and literature that routinely violate the laws of physics and biology as we know them? We can regularly conceive of things which are contradictory to the "laws" that we know about the universe. As I mentioned before, it seems that your point relies on a kind of definitional sophistry in the same way that my definitions of irrational and rational thought. But practically speaking, humankind has demonstrated the ability to think of the impossible on regular basis.

Is it my point of view? Somewhat. I believe that there is a force of irrationality in that which I understand to be the consciousness. I am not entirely convinced that it is intrinsic to the self. Chaos theory, cascading causality still have my head a twirl.

Final point, give credit to instincts, they may be awfully limited in scope, but they are truly masters of their domain.

Cheers!

I will answer this more generally later, because I have little time. When I said we cannot think contradictions, I meant that we cannot think logical contradictions, such as a thing that both is and is not blue. You know, in line with Aristotle's Law of Noncontradiction.
Also, let me express my relief that you are not as arrogant as the enlightenment philosophers you mimic.

 

[Emmy]

Dear RecoveringPhilosopher, without God, we would be creatures of nature, be here, get older, and wither away: only bones and dust. Thank God for BEING. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.