How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Neutral Observer]

How can you be sure of the existence of your own mind? In order to say that your mind exists you need to presuppose the truth of logic and reason that allow you to come to the conclusion that your mind is the only one that you can be sure that exists. So now that has three things existing, the truth of logic reason, it's correspondence to reality around you which you can be sure of and your mind. But do you see the problem? There's no justification for the authoritative use of the reason he's used to come to this conclusion and it makes his premise self-refuting and unable to be proven.

This simply demonstrates that you don't understand epistemological solipsism, which I'll admit is perfectly reasonable. It's not a philosophy that one encounters very often. Hence your misunderstanding is justified. If this were a different thread, in an actual philosophy forum, I might take the time to explain it to you.

When he reasons for his position he presuppose the existence and truth of logical laws and also he presupposes that it's true that laws of logic correspond to existence around him in order to say why his position is true. He is without any ability to provide a reason as to why they are true or why his use of reason & logic is authoritative to claim that it is in fact true he can only be sure of the existence of his own mind.

Yes, I do presuppose the existence of logical laws as demonstrated by the existence of myself and the reality around me. Where we disagree is that I would argue that my existence is both integral to, and a completely natural extension of those logical laws. In other words, absent their expression in me and the reality around me, those logical laws have no existence of their own.

You argue that I exist only because those logical laws exist. I would argue that they exist only inasmuch as I exist. The logical laws don't give rise to reality, instead they're an integral part of it. Think of it like the trinity, wherein one person of the trinity can't be said to have given rise to the others, instead each is an integral part of the whole. It's inaccurate to argue that they're three distinct and separable things, with one having given rise to the others. That simply isn't the case. And I would argue that this is true both in the case of the trinity and in the case of reality, the underlying source and the manifestation thereof are simply two inseparable attributes of one collective whole.

Thus, as a solipsist, I would argue that when I say "I AM", that underlying source with its logical laws is by default included in that proclamation. I am that underlying source made conscious. I am those logical laws made self aware, I am not simply a thing that those logical laws created, I am the logical laws.

So the "objective foundation for morality" is not just an objective foundation for morality, but an objective foundation for existence. Therefore morals are just like anything else and the truth of them & their justification comes from the same source that you allows you to reason inductively.

Okay, with my solipsistic view of reality somewhat explained, morality isn't a fixed and immutable thing, it's simply the standard by which we measure our own personal sense of right and wrong, and it has no objective existence outside of that. As far as some underlying 'logical source' is concerned there's no such thing as right and wrong, other than how that sense of right and wrong is manifested in us.

The problem, as I see it, is that we've misdefined morality. It's not, 'what's right and wrong' rather it's 'the sense of what's right and wrong'. And that sense of what's right and wrong isn't immutable. You have chosen to define it as an objective truth when it isn't, it's a subjective truth. You then take this misdefinition and use it to refute the idea of subjective morality.

Subjective morality does have the unfortunate consequence of restricting the authority of moral judgments to only those spheres in which it has the power to enforce those judgments. Whether that be within the individual or within a society. This may not align with your chosen worldview of objective morality but as you've said, "just keep asking yourself the question "why is this true?" to any of your beliefs and then keep asking that question to the answers you get."... perhaps you should heed your own advice.

Absent a clear and definitive definition of right and wrong morality is destined to be subjective. And although you've been asked for such a definition many times, you refuse to offer one. I'm going to take this as evidence that you don't have one, and that my premise that morality is subjective is correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This simply demonstrates that you don't understand epistemological solipsism, which I'll admit is perfectly reasonable. It's not a philosophy that one encounters very often. Hence your misunderstanding is justified. If this were a different thread, in an actual philosophy forum, I might take the time to explain it to you.



Yes, I do presuppose the existence of logical laws as demonstrated by the existence of myself and the reality around me. Where we disagree is that I would argue that my existence is both integral to, and a completely natural extension of those logical laws. In other words, absent their expression in me and the reality around me, those logical laws have no existence of their own.

You argue that I exist only because those logical laws exist. I would argue that they exist only inasmuch as I exist. The logical laws don't give rise to reality, instead they're an integral part of it. Think of it like the trinity, wherein one person of the trinity can't be said to have given rise to the others, instead each is an integral part of the whole. It's inaccurate to argue that they're three distinct and separable things, with one having given rise to the others. That simply isn't the case. And I would argue that this is true both in the case of the trinity and in the case of reality, the underlying source and the manifestation thereof are simply two inseparable attributes of one collective whole.

Thus, as a solipsist, I would argue that when I say "I AM", that underlying source with its logical laws is by default included in that proclamation. I am that underlying source made conscious. I am those logical laws made self aware, I am not simply a thing that those logical laws created, I am the logical laws.



Okay, with my solipsistic view of reality somewhat explained, morality isn't a fixed and immutable thing, it's simply the standard by which we measure our own personal sense of right and wrong, and it has no objective existence outside of that. As far as some underlying 'logical source' is concerned there's no such thing as right and wrong, other than how that sense of right and wrong is manifested in us.

The problem, as I see it, is that we've misdefined morality. It's not, 'what's right and wrong' rather it's 'the sense of what's right and wrong'. And that sense of what's right and wrong isn't immutable. You have chosen to define it as an objective truth when it isn't, it's a subjective truth. You then take this misdefinition and use it to refute the idea of subjective morality.

Subjective morality does have the unfortunate consequence of restricting the authority of moral judgments to only those spheres in which it has the power to enforce those judgments. Whether that be within the individual or within a society. This may not align with your chosen worldview of objective morality but as you've said, "just keep asking yourself the question "why is this true?" to any of your beliefs and then keep asking that question to the answers you get."... perhaps you should heed your own advice.

Absent a clear and definitive definition of right and wrong morality is destined to be subjective. And although you've been asked for such a definition many times, you refuse to offer one. I'm going to take this as evidence that you don't have one, and that my premise that morality is subjective is correct.

I think you may be confusing moral subjectivity with moral relativism. You might also be confusing different forms of Subjectivity.

I don't think anyone is truly a complete epistemic solipsist. There are a lot of lonely, single males though, running around socially untethered in the world ...

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Yes, I do presuppose the existence of logical laws as demonstrated by the existence of myself and the reality around me. Where we disagree is that I would argue that my existence is both integral to, and a completely natural extension of those logical laws. In other words, absent their expression in me and the reality around me, those logical laws have no existence of their own.

You argue that I exist only because those logical laws exist. I would argue that they exist only inasmuch as I exist. The logical laws don't give rise to reality, instead they're an integral part of it.

My argument was that you presuppose the truth of them without any justification or ability to justify it. You don't just presuppose logic and reason, you presuppose the truth or reliability of them and their correspondence to nature without any reason as to why they are authoritative. You argue that your existence is integral to logic and reason yet in order to do so you rely upon the truth of logic and reason. If you cease to exist, yes your perception of the way the world functions ceases too, but existence does not stop functioning according to those immaterial laws or the things they represent. Regardless, even if they exist solely within you, they still exist. So to say that just because something exists within you and therefore it doesn't exist is incoherent. When you say "have no existence of their own" you are meaning exist as matter, but I would argue it exists independent of whether or not you believe it because in order to form any argument whatsoever you rely upon it and assume it exists by necessity.

Think of it like the trinity, wherein one person of the trinity can't be said to have given rise to the others, instead each is an integral part of the whole. It's inaccurate to argue that they're three distinct and separable things, with one having given rise to the others. That simply isn't the case. And I would argue that this is true both in the case of the trinity and in the case of reality, the underlying source and the manifestation thereof are simply two inseparable attributes of one collective whole.

It's not inaccurate to argue that they're three distinct and separable things. The persons are distinct, God is one in being and three in person. But I understand the point you're trying to convey.

Thus, as a solipsist, I would argue that when I say "I AM", that underlying source with its logical laws is by default included in that proclamation. I am that underlying source made conscious. I am those logical laws made self aware, I am not simply a thing that those logical laws created, I am the logical laws.

In order to make these claims in any way you need to have a reason as to why they are true or rather why you believe them to be true. Stop and think for a second, you're thinking in accordance with established patterns within existence, this modus operandi to existence functions independent of you or belief in them and without them your beliefs have no structure. Existence has no structure. Now I understand that you believe that the structure is perceived, and not actually existing or real, but in order to make that very argument you have presupposed the truth and existence of the logical laws in order to reason.

A simple way to disprove these claims you've made in the above reply is to ask you a simple question, if you are indeed the logical laws made self aware and they have no existence, why do laws of logic function in they way they do and not another way? Why is it instead of looking up during the day and knowing I'll see the sun if the sky is clear through inductive reasoning, that I instead of seeing the sun I know that I will see a green hamburger in place of it? How could you possible justify reasoning from what you've experienced to what you haven't if the inherent truth for inductive reasoning is your existence?
Inductive reasoning is just ONE problem, it's essentially incompatible babble to deny the existence of an independent modus operandi to existence when you rely upon that structure to make true these thoughts you've written down here. Because if it's not independent then why are you arguing with me? There's nothing to say that your system of logic is uniform to mine.

The problem, as I see it, is that we've misdefined morality. It's not, 'what's right and wrong' rather it's 'the sense of what's right and wrong'. And that sense of what's right and wrong isn't immutable. You have chosen to define it as an objective truth when it isn't, it's a subjective truth. You then take this misdefinition and use it to refute the idea of subjective morality.

It is immutable if God is immutable

Subjective morality does have the unfortunate consequence of restricting the authority of moral judgments to only those spheres in which it has the power to enforce those judgments. Whether that be within the individual or within a society.

Absent a clear and definitive definition of right and wrong morality is destined to be subjective. And although you've been asked for such a definition many times, you refuse to offer one. I'm going to take this as evidence that you don't have one, and that my premise that morality is subjective is correct.

Again you've missed every point I've tried to make. I have never made the claim that objective morals exist, though I absolutely believe they do, I have always made the claim that correct or authoritative morals don't exist independent of a transcendent source see:

The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference. If you were to take it I couldn't argue against it, I could only disagree on other basis's like philosophy & etc.

All "moral truths" assume other morals in order to give the proposed morality justification.

Within your worldview your very foundations here for saying "it's good morality has evolved to embrace justice" don't exist. That's the point. You're determining things to be good and bad without any justification.

My whole post was about the authoritativeness of morality within a secular systematic

My problem isn't with the different perspectives as to what morals are right and wrong, my problem is the claiming of moral right or wrongs under a self refuting subjective morality

This ^ has, was and always will be my position. I know that in order to claim a correct morality or authoritative morality I need to have a transcendent source.

perhaps you should heed your own advice.

How do you think I started on the path to becoming a Christian? Without Creatio ex Nihilo all you have is an infinite regression of causation that in order to 'solve' it, it leads you to perpetually kick the can down road. You can't outrun your Self-Existent God, He's the only option you're ever going to have as long as matter came into being (the expansion of space [big bang], motion, subsistence of matter & etc).

[Edit: Phrasing]

 

[Neutral Observer]

I think you may be confusing moral subjectivity with moral relativism.

That's not just possible, that's probably quite likely.

You might also be confusing different forms of Subjectivity.

Again quite likely.

I don't think anyone is truly a complete epistemic solipsist.

Yeah, it's difficult to find anyone who fits neatly into a predefined philosophical niche. But I'm certainly comfortable in mine, and beyond finding the ultimate truth what more could I ask for? I'm content.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, with my solipsistic view of reality somewhat explained, morality isn't a fixed and immutable thing, it's simply the standard by which we measure our own personal sense of right and wrong, and it has no objective existence outside of that. As far as some underlying 'logical source' is concerned there's no such thing as right and wrong, other than how that sense of right and wrong is manifested in us.

The problem, as I see it, is that we've misdefined morality. It's not, 'what's right and wrong' rather it's 'the sense of what's right and wrong'. And that sense of what's right and wrong isn't immutable. You have chosen to define it as an objective truth when it isn't, it's a subjective truth. You then take this misdefinition and use it to refute the idea of subjective morality.

Yes. Our sense of it (our conscience is you like) is what dictates our actions. And we all spend an inordinate amount of time trying to justify this wooly 'it doesn't feel right' with something more concrete. People seem to need morality to have more weight. To be more authorative. When generally it's simply what works. Or what worked in an evolutionary sense.

But I'll spare the details. They aren't necessary. You don't need to know how satellite technology works to make a phone call...

 

[gaara4158]

There are no uninterpreted facts, you rely on logical laws in order to make evidence, evidence. In fact if there is no authoritative use of reason then why did you even bother typing out the rest of your argument?


Data within empiricism is interpreted according to the logical framework of empiricism. You exclude things as 'evidence' according to logical laws. Ergo you need a justification for said logical laws as to why they are authoritative.

It's literally just epistemology bro

I’m not a fan of the presuppositionalist’s dialogue tree. You are not the first here to try to run presup and you won’t be the last, but it never works out for anyone involved. I’m not going to run in circles with you. If you won’t address the core issue being that your main hurdle is to reject empiricism without first employing it to reach step 2, your Answer-Deity, we’re done here. Presuppositionalism is the lowest form of apologetics, and this isn’t the right sub forum for it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I’m not a fan of the presuppositionalist’s dialogue tree. You are not the first here to try to run presup and you won’t be the last, but it never works out for anyone involved. I’m not going to run in circles with you. If you won’t address the core issue being that your main hurdle is to reject empiricism without first employing it to reach step 2, your Answer-Deity, we’re done here. Presuppositionalism is the lowest form of apologetics, and this isn’t the right sub forum for it.

Refute the points made against your position instead of dismissing them because you're "not a fan". I'm not trying to "run presup", all of my thoughts are in my own words and I'm not simply parroting information.

Also I don't need to reject Empiricism and in fact I accept it and I also accept that all worldviews are circular therein. I rely upon reason to comprehend God from step 1, which is why I [Edit: specifically] ask for a justification for an authoritative use of reason after that step 1. That's not a presuppositional argument I've ever heard from someone else in the wild and while it is presuppositional in nature it's a question you have to answer under empiricism in order to say why any logical reasoning you use is authoritative in any way.

I'm not doing apologetics either, I'm arguing against a philosophical framework because it's incoherent. It can't account for basic things like inductive reasoning, whereas a form of Empiricism in submission to Christian Theism actually has weight. I'm arguing philosophically not within the realm of apologetics. But if you want to terminate the discussion then go ahead, nobody is stopping you and you don't need to announce it or declare that the discussion is done. It's not like we were in dialogue for long.

[Edit: spelling and the clarification of the argument with the addition of specifically]

 

[gaara4158]

There are no uninterpreted facts, you rely on logical laws in order to make evidence, evidence. In fact if there is no authoritative use of reason then why did you even bother typing out the rest of your argument?


Data within empiricism is interpreted according to the logical framework of empiricism. You exclude things as 'evidence' according to logical laws. Ergo you need a justification for said logical laws as to why they are authoritative.

It's literally just epistemology bro

You don’t seem to be comprehending what I’m telling you. Logics are sets of rules defining relationships between the words we use to form meaningful expressions. For example, a married bachelor cannot exist not because of some authority forbidding bachelors to marry, but because once the bachelor marries he is no longer a bachelor, by definition. It’s not a matter of authority, it’s a matter of definition. You don’t need to justify the proclamation that there can be no married bachelors any more than you need to justify the use of language itself. You asking me to justify my trust in logic to make comprehensible proclamations reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic is.

You’re trying to undermine the claim that rationalism and empiricism are reliable tools for uncovering absolute infallible truths about transcendent reality when no rational empiricist would make such a claim. Rather, rationality and empiricism are tools whose usefulness we measure against their ability to reliably explain past observations and predict further observations. Conclusions drawn are always provisional and subject to revision upon collection of further data and interpretation.

So far your objections have been focused on the lack of any binding authority justifying the usage of the tools described above, but I hope I have helped you understand how their use is self-justifying by what they allow us to accomplish. There is no God-shaped hole in these paradigms, as you presuppositionalist types seem to imagine.

I don’t debate long with presups, so if you don’t pick a different angle to critique my overarching thesis in this thread stating that no objective basis for morality is necessary for people to understand morality as a pro social code to live by, I’ll not be responding any further.

 

[gaara4158]

When I said "It ain't," I wasn't making an empirical claim, gaara. It was a rational one.

Well, you seemed to imply earlier that it was an unthinkable conclusion that people might disagree on what’s right and wrong and have no mutually-recognized authority to resolve their conflict. Now it’s not so scary? If you say so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, you seemed to imply earlier that it was an unthinkable conclusion that people might disagree on what’s right and wrong and have no mutually-recognized authority to resolve their conflict. Now it’s not so scary? If you say so.

I don't think I've ever said it's unthinkable that people may disagree on morality. Where is it that you think I've implied this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You don’t seem to be comprehending what I’m telling you. Logics are sets of rules defining relationships between the words we use to form meaningful expressions. For example, a married bachelor cannot exist not because of some authority forbidding bachelors to marry, but because once the bachelor marries he is no longer a bachelor, by definition. It’s not a matter of authority, it’s a matter of definition. You don’t need to justify the proclamation that there can be no married bachelors any more than you need to justify the use of language itself. You asking me to justify my trust in logic to make comprehensible proclamations reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic is.

You’re trying to undermine the claim that rationalism and empiricism are reliable tools for uncovering absolute infallible truths about transcendent reality when no rational empiricist would make such a claim. Rather, rationality and empiricism are tools whose usefulness we measure against their ability to reliably explain past observations and predict further observations. Conclusions drawn are always provisional and subject to revision upon collection of further data and interpretation.

So far your objections have been focused on the lack of any binding authority justifying the usage of the tools described above, but I hope I have helped you understand how their use is self-justifying by what they allow us to accomplish. There is no God-shaped hole in these paradigms, as you presuppositionalist types seem to imagine.

I don’t debate long with presups, so if you don’t pick a different angle to critique my overarching thesis in this thread stating that no objective basis for morality is necessary for people to understand morality as a pro social code to live by, I’ll not be responding any further.

And by which angle do YOU think we all live and think and 'act morally'? By a Nietzschean hued version of evolutionary psychology?

 

[gaara4158]

And by which angle do YOU think we all live and think and 'act morally'? By a Nietzschean hued version of evolutionary psychology?

Our sense of morality is probably partially ingrained by our sense of empathy and partially imparted by the culture we grow up in. As a communal species, a sense of morality focused on pro-social behavior was surely instrumental to our survival early in our evolution. As far as I can tell, it continues to serve us well despite institutional efforts to undermine and fracture our sense of community.

I don't think I've ever said it's unthinkable that people may disagree on morality. Where is it that you think I've implied this?

It was at the bottom of one of your longer replies to me, a rhetorical “now what?” Here:

No legitimacy whatsoever? Well...............now we know we're all just making up our own forms of legitimacy. Now what?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our sense of morality is probably partially ingrained by our sense of empathy and partially imparted by the culture we grow up in. As a communal species, a sense of morality focused on pro-social behavior was surely instrumental to our survival early in our evolution. As far as I can tell, it continues to serve us well despite institutional efforts to undermine and fracture our sense of community.

I don't place all that much 'faith' in Evolutionary Psychology and whatever assumptions about 'moral' thinking some may deign to assume it implies. There is something to it, but EP isn't the whole ball of moral wax, nor should anyone assume that it is.

I, on the other hand, will take up with the "institutional" rather than the instrumental view of Ethics and morality. And I know one thing, I'm sure as heck not going to assimiliate the modern notions of "morality" which non-Christians attempt to use or by which they'll seek to politically ply to me.

Yep! I'm not going to bow to the reigning paradigm. Why? Because unlike so many, I'm rational and educated and I'll continue to ride along my own Christian path. If secular folks don't like how I think, that's just too bad! In fact, what I'm saying here most especially is reflected in what I said in another thread recently and I'll continue to hold to it here just as I did there, and in similar fashion and for similar reasons:

TransAge

On what basis do you evaluate what has merit and what doesn't? If the standard on which you consider things meritorious is based on survival then in order to do so you unfoundedly ascribe (assume) value to human life. Who's preference would be correct and why if it's based on merit anyway? How...

www.christianforums.com

It was at the bottom of one of your longer replies to me, a rhetorical “now what?” Here:

Right. It was rhetorical because I think your assertion about there being "no legitimacy" that extends from a Transdendent source for augmenting our concepts of 'moral authority' is garbage.

Sure, on the epistemological level, I can't prove it to you any more than Kant can, but on the logically implied level where metaphysical structures are needed for further substantiation of anything called "moral authority," the theistic Christian view has substance which you apparently don't understand as yet. Kant understood it. You don't. You apparently want your Nietzschean style moral "stars" instead.

Moreover, without a Transcendent consideration, we're all left with 'choosing' between competing notions/frames about moral conduct. Guess what happens in a world where ethical plurality rules?

I'll give you a hint: it won't result in peace despite the fact that each person claims some measure of "morality."

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You don’t seem to be comprehending what I’m telling you. Logics are sets of rules defining relationships between the words we use to form meaningful expressions. For example, a married bachelor cannot exist not because of some authority forbidding bachelors to marry, but because once the bachelor marries he is no longer a bachelor, by definition. It’s not a matter of authority, it’s a matter of definition.

If this is the case it would reduce logic to a social construct that is different with every society and every language. If there are no logical laws representative of the modus operandi of existence, then we should be able to see differences amongst cultures who have different logical laws and by what metric would their different logical laws be considered true? how would you measure them and according to what?. If it is true that Logics are rules defining relationships between words, then please tell me how you exactly came to that concusion? because it seems to me like you're assuming a different definition in order to make this argument. How is it you're able to know that your definition of logic between words is uniform to mine?

Your definition of logic is ridiculous and it doesn't speak to scope and breadth of logic in any way, if logical laws were as you say your argument is literally void as there is nothing to say that it's correct because it's not independant of you or I and it's not universal. The idea of self-justification that you later speak about assumes some kind of authoritative background that allows it to things to be justified. You've essentially made logic like a facade of a reality, dressing it up as something it's not.

[Edit: And on what basis can you claim that Empiricism is self-justifying? In order to do so you make a claim that needs to be justified as it can't be experienced that Empiricism is self justifying because you can't experience the future and you can't reason from what you have experienced to what you haven't within the schema. I don't need to undermine the dogma, it does it on it's own assumed claims about reality. Also the idea of usefulness is also assumed. On what basis can you claim something to be useful within empiricism?

Every argument you've made refutes your very own definition of logic and assumes universal independent logical laws. In fact to make that very argument you assume them.]

 

[Bradskii]

Because unlike so many, I'm rational and educated...

We're just thankful that you are here...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We're just thankful that you are here...

... yes, I figured that you'd adapt to my presence here sooner or later. As a bonus for your stroking of my narcissistic ego, I decided to offer you the following gifts of knowledge:

Evolutionary Psychology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

​

How Valid Is Evolutionary Psychology?

How a caricature of human nature leads evolutionary psychology astray.

www.psychologytoday.com

​

Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary Psychology

Some evolutionary psychologists have trumpeted claims about how the human mind evolved that other scholars take issue with. Here is how the evidence shapes up

www.scientificamerican.com

You're welcome!

 

[gaara4158]

If this is the case it would reduce logic to a social construct that is different with every society and every language. If there are no logical laws representative of the modus operandi of existence, then we should be able to see differences amongst cultures who have different logical laws and by what metric would their different logical laws be considered true? how would you measure them and according to what?. If it is true that Logics are rules defining relationships between words, then please tell me how you exactly came to that concusion? because it seems to me like you're assuming a different definition in order to make this argument. How is it you're able to know that your definition of logic between words is uniform to mine?

Your definition of logic is ridiculous and it doesn't speak to scope and breadth of logic in any way, if logical laws were as you say your argument is literally void as there is nothing to say that it's correct because it's not independant of you or I and it's not universal. The idea of self-justification that you later speak about assumes some kind of authoritative background that allows it to things to be justified. You've essentially made logic like a facade of a reality, dressing it up as something it's not.

[Edit: And on what basis can you claim that Empiricism is self-justifying? In order to do so you make a claim that needs to be justified as it can't be experienced that Empiricism is self justifying because you can't experience the future and you can't reason from what you have experienced to what you haven't within the schema. I don't need to undermine the dogma, it does it on it's own assumed claims about reality. Also the idea of usefulness is also assumed. On what basis can you claim something to be useful within empiricism?

Every argument you've made refutes your very own definition of logic and assumes universal independent logical laws. In fact to make that very argument you assume them.]

You’re clearly bent on finding a way to declare naturalistic arguments self-defeating, and unfortunately it’s preventing you from engaging my arguments as presented. I have enough experience with your type to know that you will never stray from the script, which is why I warned you earlier to pick another angle of critique and I’m really sorry you didn’t do that. I’m going to walk away from this one as I have neither the time nor the inclination to enter a very repetitive dialogue with someone who doesn’t want to understand me. I have that enough with my toddler, and there I enjoy it more.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't place all that much 'faith' in Evolutionary Psychology and whatever assumptions about 'moral' thinking some may deign to assume it implies. There is something to it, but EP isn't the whole ball of moral wax, nor should anyone assume that it is.

I, on the other hand, will take up with the "institutional" rather than the instrumental view of Ethics and morality. And I know one thing, I'm sure as heck not going to assimiliate the modern notions of "morality" which non-Christians attempt to use or by which they'll seek to politically ply to me.

Yep! I'm not going to bow to the reigning paradigm. Why? Because unlike so many, I'm rational and educated and I'll continue to ride along my own Christian path. If secular folks don't like how I think, that's just too bad! In fact, what I'm saying here most especially is reflected in what I said in another thread recently and I'll continue to hold to it here just as I did there, and in similar fashion and for similar reasons:

TransAge

On what basis do you evaluate what has merit and what doesn't? If the standard on which you consider things meritorious is based on survival then in order to do so you unfoundedly ascribe (assume) value to human life. Who's preference would be correct and why if it's based on merit anyway? How...

www.christianforums.com

Right. It was rhetorical because I think your assertion about there being "no legitimacy" that extends from a Transdendent source for augmenting our concepts of 'moral authority' is garbage.

Sure, on the epistemological level, I can't prove it to you any more than Kant can, but on the logically implied level where metaphysical structures are needed for further substantiation of anything called "moral authority," the theistic Christian view has substance which you apparently don't understand as yet. Kant understood it. You don't. You apparently want your Nietzschean style moral "stars" instead.

Moreover, without a Transcendent consideration, we're all left with 'choosing' between competing notions/frames about moral conduct. Guess what happens in a world where ethical plurality rules?

I'll give you a hint: it won't result in peace despite the fact that each person claims some measure of "morality."

Identifying the true ontology of morality isn’t about establishing peace, although I suppose you could make an argument for a noble lie.

However - the big, red, bouncy problem that emerges as soon as you try to tie morality to something Transcendent is you’ve created a tautology. Things aren’t good because of the benefits they have to humanity or society at large, but simply because they’re on a “nice” list, and things aren’t bad because of the harm they cause, but simply because they’re on the “naughty” list. “Good” loses all meaning under this paradigm. Moreover, it leaves wide open the question as to why morality matters at all. Sure, you’ve extracted some moral proclamations from a source you believe is objective and transcendent, but why should anyone care? I think if we’re truly looking to understand the nature of morality, it is wisest to look at why we care about morality in the first place and work backward from there. So, why do we care?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Identifying the true ontology of morality isn’t about establishing peace, although I suppose you could make an argument for a noble lie.

However - the big, red, bouncy problem that emerges as soon as you try to tie morality to something Transcendent is you’ve created a tautology. Things aren’t good because of the benefits they have to humanity or society at large, but simply because they’re on a “nice” list, and things aren’t bad because of the harm they cause, but simply because they’re on the “naughty” list. “Good” loses all meaning under this paradigm. Moreover, it leaves wide open the question as to why morality matters at all. Sure, you’ve extracted some moral proclamations from a source you believe is objective and transcendent, but why should anyone care? I think if we’re truly looking to understand the nature of morality, it is wisest to look at why we care about morality in the first place and work backward from there. So, why do we care?

I'm going to leave you be and let you figure out how much of what you've just said in this post is all too easily susceptible to the Fallacy of Incredulity. Because, it should be obvious with some thoughtful, and being that I know that you're an intelligent guy, you should be able to figure it out on your own.

 

[Neutral Observer]

I'm going to leave you be and let you figure out how much of what you've just said in this post is all too easily susceptible to the Fallacy of Incredulity. Because, it should be obvious with some thoughtful, and being that I know that you're an intelligent guy, you should be able to figure it out on your own.

Unfortunately I'm not an intelligent guy, so you're going to have to explain to me how @gaara4158's previous post falls under the category of a Fallacy of Incredulity.