Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
How so?
Well, there is no God-given "ought" - I´ll give you that.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.
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".)
If there is no God then there is nothing that tells us what we ought to do or be.
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?
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.
Why does causing pain to others oblige me to stop causing pain to others?
Yes, there is. We do. We see the world and decide how it ought to be.
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.
Because you don't like it when it happens to you.
Oh, so the golden rule? Why is the golden rule morally binding?
Are you serious?
Because of empathy and reason.
I have spelled it out numerous times already.
Fully. It's an invalid argument.
I've shown you the problems with your reasoning and you've failed to address them.
Yeah, and in the absence of proof for the existence a God, God´s alleged imperatives are also in the category "hypothetical".There could be hypothetical imperatives, but these are only hypothetically binding. This is usually dissatisfying for moral realists.
Says who?Because the creator has total authority over his creation.
How exactly am I morally obliged to help creation "work best"?His laws tell us how creation works best.
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?"):When the laws are transgressed then creation breaks down and life is destroyed.
Doesn´t follow.So they are categorically binding - you really are obliged to obey him because you owe him your very existence.
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.But they're also hypothetically binding - if you want to live and flourish in his world then you ought to obey him.
Well, I´ll try:I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you rephrase?
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?