Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[sarxweh]

Because morality deals with what we ought to do and the way that the world ought to be. Empathy and reason can tell us nothing about the way the world ought to be or what we ought to do.

Without oughtness, morality collapses;
Without God, oughtness collapses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because morality deals with what we ought to do and the way that the world ought to be. Empathy and reason can tell us nothing about the way the world ought to be or what we ought to do.

Why can't they? I could use empathy to understand that stealing from someone will cause them distress and pain. I can use reason to understand that a world with less stealing would be a world with less pain. Therefore, in the future we should discourage stealing. Seems like it works just fine to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Without God, oughtness collapses.

How so?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why can't they? I could use empathy to understand that stealing from someone will cause them distress and pain. I can use reason to understand that a world with less stealing would be a world with less pain. Therefore, in the future we should discourage stealing. Seems like it works just fine to me.

From a moral standpoint I totally agree with you. But from a logical standpoint your argument is invalid. It goes like this:

1. Stealing harms people
2. Less stealing would make a world with less harm and pain
3. Therefore we ought not steal (or positively: we ought to discourage stealing)

The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises. No amount of "is" statements can make an "ought". Why does causing pain to others oblige me to stop causing pain to others? What if I like causing pain to others? What if this is my goal? In that case I could just as easily say:

1. Stealing harms people
2. Less stealing means less harm
3. Therefore we should steal more

 

[Tree of Life]

How so?

If there is no God then there is nothing that tells us what we ought to do or be. There is no norm. All that exists is what we discover inside of creation. There is nothing above creation to tell us what we should be or do. There's just what there is.

But the burden of proof is on you. How can there possibly be any categorical imperatives without the existence of a divine lawgiver?

 

[quatona]

If there is no God then there is nothing that tells us what we ought to do or be. There is no "ought" if there is no God.

Well, there is no God-given "ought" - I´ll give you that.

But the burden of proof is on you. How can there possibly be any categorical imperatives without the existence of a divine lawgiver?[/quote]
Why would I have to take the laws of a divine being as binding - any more than that of any other self-announced authority?
Or the other way round: Why would I - if I felt like you, in that moral oughts depend on authoritative commands - be unable to do with anything short of a *divine* command?
(I could, by the same token, postulate the necessity for a METAGOD (a God who commands God to give commands to us) for there to be real "oughts" - and say that in the absence of a METAGOD there can´t be any "oughts".)

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, there is no God-given "ought" - I´ll give you that.

There could be hypothetical imperatives, but these are only hypothetically binding. This is usually dissatisfying for moral realists.

Why would I have to take the laws of a divine being as binding - any more than that of any other self-announced authority?

Because the creator has total authority over his creation. His laws tell us how creation works best. When the laws are transgressed then creation breaks down and life is destroyed. So they are categorically binding - you really are obliged to obey him because you owe him your very existence. But they're also hypothetically binding - if you want to live and flourish in his world then you ought to obey him.

Or the other way round: Why would I - if I felt like you, in that moral oughts depend on authoritative commands - be unable to do with anything short of a *divine* command?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you rephrase?

(I could, by the same token, postulate the necessity for a METAGOD (a God who commands God to give commands to us) for there to be real "oughts" - and say that in the absence of a METAGOD there can´t be any "oughts".)

God, by definition, is the supreme being, the creator and source of all other things. So the concept of a METAGOD doesn't really work.

 

[Loudmouth]

If there is no God then there is nothing that tells us what we ought to do or be.

Yes, there is. We do. We see the world and decide how it ought to be.

All that exists is what we discover inside of creation.

That would be something instead of nothing, now wouldn't it?

There is nothing above creation to tell us what we should be or do. There's just what there is.

What there is is something, not nothing.

But the burden of proof is on you. How can there possibly be any categorical imperatives without the existence of a divine lawgiver?

I already showed you that proof. You judge whether religions are moral or immoral. You place your own sense of morality above what others claim their gods command.

 

[Loudmouth]

From a moral standpoint I totally agree with you. But from a logical standpoint your argument is invalid. It goes like this:

1. Stealing harms people
2. Less stealing would make a world with less harm and pain
3. Therefore we ought not steal (or positively: we ought to discourage stealing)

The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises.

Are you serious?

Why does causing pain to others oblige me to stop causing pain to others?

Because you don't like it when it happens to you.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, there is. We do. We see the world and decide how it ought to be.

Yeah, you've pretty much got to settle with this. As you said in your previous post, your law is what's morally binding. You look at the world and whatever you think it ought to be, that's what it ought to be. But I don't really see how this is authoritative for anyone.

I already showed you that proof. You judge whether religions are moral or immoral. You place your own sense of morality above what others claim their gods command.

You've shown no such thing.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because you don't like it when it happens to you.

Oh, so the golden rule? Why is the golden rule morally binding?

What if my goal is to inflict as much pain on others as possible and to avoid others treating me the same way?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, so the golden rule? Why is the golden rule morally binding?

Because of empathy and reason.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you serious?

Fully. It's an invalid argument.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because of empathy and reason.

That's not an answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not an answer.

I have spelled it out numerous times already.

 

[Tree of Life]

I have spelled it out numerous times already.

I've shown you the problems with your reasoning and you've failed to address them. Should we just move on to a different topic?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fully. It's an invalid argument.

I completely disagree. When the same actions cause unwanted pain in yourself, then that is a valid reason not to do it to others. It is a valid argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've shown you the problems with your reasoning and you've failed to address them.

There are no problems to address.

Your own argument is "God is the law giver, therefore we ought to follow God's commands". It follows the same "ought from an is", and yet you think it is valid. How do you explain that?

 

[quatona]

There could be hypothetical imperatives, but these are only hypothetically binding. This is usually dissatisfying for moral realists.

Yeah, and in the absence of proof for the existence a God, God´s alleged imperatives are also in the category "hypothetical".

Because the creator has total authority over his creation.

Says who?

His laws tell us how creation works best.

How exactly am I morally obliged to help creation "work best"?

When the laws are transgressed then creation breaks down and life is destroyed.

Ok, I guess I am going to borrow from your previous argument ("Why does causing pain to others oblige me to stop causing pain to others? What if I like causing pain to others? What if this is my goal?"):
Why does destroying life oblige me to stop destryoing life? What if I like destroying life? What if this is my goal?"

So they are categorically binding - you really are obliged to obey him because you owe him your very existence.

Doesn´t follow.

But they're also hypothetically binding - if you want to live and flourish in his world then you ought to obey him.

If I want to live and flourish in this world I need to look at how the world works - no matter whether and by whom it has been created.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you rephrase?

Well, I´ll try:
For you (if I understand you correctly - but otherwise you whole line of reasoning doesn´t make any sense) the only way for there to be an "ought" is the command of a personal authority. (I do not agree with this authoritarean view on things anyway, but let´s just put this aside for a moment). And, of course, for such an authority-oriented person like you the most powerful entity is the greatest authority. If a God exists, God would be more powerful than anything in Its creation - so God would be the Highest Authority. However, in the absence of a God, you would have to go with the Highest Authority available in that reality: This authority would be the one to determine authoritative "oughts".

God, by definition, is the supreme being, the creator and source of all other things. So the concept of a METAGOD doesn't really work.

METAGOD, by definition, is the entity that created God. Thus, it´s defined as a Higher Authority than God. In the absence of a METAGOD God would only be a lesser authority.
So much for defining entities into existence in order to establish a "either it exists or there can be no 'ought' or morality at all. If you can do it, I can do it.
And then there will be next guy who postulates a SUPERMETAGOD.

 

[Tree of Life]

I completely disagree. When the same actions cause unwanted pain in yourself, then that is a valid reason not to do it to others. It is a valid argument.

Just because you personally consider something to be a valid reason for action doesn't mean that you've got a valid argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You're committing the Is/Ought Fallacy.