Is morality objective, even without God?

[Fervent]

It isn't. It's only my personal opinion. Others are free to agree or not as they see fit.

Don't be facetious. If I hold to a moral position it's true as far as I am concerned. I have decided that it's true. You've been told.

Which of these statements are true? Is it just your personal opinion and others are free to disagree as they see fit, or is it true and something that others should agree with you on?

 

[Bradskii]

Opinions don't require arguments. So either way, no argument is necessary.

So opinions emerge from...out of nowhere?

If morals are subjective, then those morals are not factually true but simply the subjective opinion of one person.

Yes. I think you're starting to understand.

So are morals factual statements, that require arguments and evidence or are they subjective opinions that are relative?

They are subjective opinions that require arguments in order to be formed.

See, that's the whole thing. If morals are relative, then they can't be true or false. They're just opinions.

That's right. You are definitely getting it. If I say that something is morally true, then it is my opinion that I'm expressing.

You've decided that it's right, and so that makes it true.

For me, of course.

Since you've decided that its true, it must be true.

No, it's true as far as I am concerned. Someone else's opinion might be to think that it's false. That's what makes it relative.

But what are the facts and evidence its based on?

Depends on the problem. The number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals (unless you intend shooting them).

You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the is-ought problem.

If I think something IS wrong then I think that we OUGHT not to do it.

A premise is something that a conclusion follows from, you say that your moral opinions aren't just arbitrary opinions and are based on arguments. So I presume you have premises for those arguments. So field a couple and let's see if they hold.

Premise 1: Alcohol can have a negative affect on decision making and motor skill.
Premise 2: Driving a car needs constant decision making and motor skills.
Conclusion: Therefore one shouldn't drive under the influence of alcohol.

Well, if it's just my opinion then why do I need any argument at all? Its not factual, it's just a subjective opinion isn't it? Or do you not understand the difference between fact and opinion?

Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. Which are based on facts. AKA evidence. AKA premises.

Right. So morality need not depend on any facts.

No, you need some facts on which to base your opinion.

Because if I believe its right, then its right. Because its relative, and I decide what is right and wrong. Or is there such a thing as relative truth to you?

Moral truth is relative. You shouldn't beat a child for being naughty. That's my opinion. Factual truth objective. If you beat a child, then the child will come to harm. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.

What possible argument could be had, it's subjective not objective isn't it?

No, the arguments are objective. They're the premises above. My opinion on the conclusion is subjective.

So it doesn't make sense to talk about it in terms of truth or falsity, because subjective opinions aren't factual statements. So what are these mysterious facts and evidence you've based your moral opinions on?

See the premises above for an example.

 

[Bradskii]

Which of these statements are true? Is it just your personal opinion and others are free to disagree as they see fit, or is it true and something that others should agree with you on?

You literally quoted my answer. Then asked the question. How did you manage to do that?

 

[Fervent]

So opinions emerge from...out of nowhere?

There's opinions, and there are beliefs. Beliefs are things that one holds are true on the basis of facts and arguments, opinions are matters of personal preference.

Yes. I think you're starting to understand.

Starting to understand what? You believe that morals are subjective, that belief may derive from facts and opinions but isn't really relevant to the discussion.

They are subjective opinions that require arguments in order to be formed.

Do you really not understand what an opinion is? Or do you think all of your personal preferences are based on some kind of argumentation?

That's right. You are definitely getting it. If I say that something is morally true, then it is my opinion that I'm expressing.

And since it is your opinion, it can be disregarded in the same way your opinion that chocolate is the best ice cream can be discarded. It's your opinion, so the only person it really matters to is yourself. It's just your preference, nothing more.

For me, of course.

Yeah.

No, it's true as far as I am concerned. Someone else's opinion might be to think that it's false. That's what makes it relative.

So what exactly does it mean that it is "true" if not objectively true regardless of personal opinion?

Depends on the problem. The number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals (unless you intend shooting them).

Any moral problem will do.

If I think something IS wrong then I think that we OUGHT not to do it.

But if that's just your opinion, then what you think is and isn't wrong has no value to me. If I think something is right, and you think its wrong, I don't really care because you're just telling me that your personal opinion. Unless you think you create truth for me when you decide something is wrong.

Premise 1: Alcohol can have a negative affect on decision making and motor skill.
Premise 2: Driving a car needs constant decision making and motor skills.
Conclusion: Therefore one shouldn't drive under the influence of alcohol.

There's a missing element to that argument. It doesn't matter if both premises are true, because its unclear how they are related to the conclusion. It's a non-sequitor.

Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. Which are based on facts. AKA evidence. AKA premises.

No. Facts are objective. Beliefs are evaluative, and are based on facts and evidence. Opinions are matters of personal preference. Beliefs can influence opiniions, but opinions don't require evaluative operations. Did I really just have to explain to you what an opinion is?

No, you need some facts on which to base your opinion.

No, because an opinion is a preference. Facts don't matter, just my preference.

Moral truth is relative. You shouldn't beat a child for being naughty. That's my opinion. Factual truth objective. If you beat a child, then the child will come to harm. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.

Yes. Glad you've got that sorted out. Now where's the connection between the two?

No, the arguments are objective. They're the premises above. My opinion on the conclusion is subjective.

Arguments are arguably objective, but the conclusion shouldn't be a matter of opinion but based on whether the argument is 1)valid and 2)sound. Validity is usually pretty easy to determine because its formal, but soundness can get pretty sticky. But your argument is neither valid nor sound since its conclusion doesn't follow from the premises but instead comes out of nowhere.

See the premises above for an example.

You mean the premises that aren't clearly related to the conclusion? Your argument is essentially like this:
Premise 1: Turtles are usually green
Premise 2: Ducks can fly
Conclusion: We shouldn't hurt animals

 

[Bradskii]

Arguments are arguably objective, but the conclusion shouldn't be a matter of opinion but based on whether the argument is 1)valid and 2)sound. Validity is usually pretty easy to determine because its formal, but soundness can get pretty sticky. But your argument is neither valid nor sound since its conclusion doesn't follow from the premises but instead comes out of nowhere.

I'll address this, but only this. I'm repeating myself ad nauseum and your responses make little or no sense. So:

Premise 1: Alcohol can have a negative affect on decision making and motor skill.
Premise 2: Driving a car needs constant decision making and motor skills.
Conclusion: Therefore one shouldn't drive under the influence of alcohol.

Premise 1 is a fact. It's a given. Alcohol affects your brain in regard to decision making and motor skills. It's why people make the decision to jump off a ferry when they're drunk. It's why people fall over when they're smashed.

Premise 2 is likewise a fact. You need to decide on speed, you need to decide what others are likely to do on the road, you have to decide when and how severely you brake in wet conditions and you need to carefully thread a couple of tones of machinery at speed through crowded conditions with clearances measured in centimetres.

Premise 1 affects Premise 2 in a negative way. You end up making bad decisions and you don't drive as carefully as you would when sober.

Conclusion: Don't drink and drive. Now that's an opinion that's generally accepted in almost all countries by all sensible people. The amount that you can drink before driving will change depending on different opinions.

Now is it applicable in all circumstances? In my opinion no. So after a few drinks last Saturday I moved my car about 5m off the front of my drive so my nephew could move his car.

There ya go. Lots of facts, lot's of premises. A conclusion and an opinion based on all of that.

 

[Neogaia777]

The difficulty/problem here, concerning morality and what is supposedly right or else wrong for anyone, etc, is people thinking they get to decide that for themselves, etc, and that's what makes something right, or else wrong for them, etc, because that is false, and is a lie, etc. No one decides what is right or else wrong for themselves at any time, etc, regardless of what they might think or feel about it, or think is either right or else wrong for them at any given time, etc.

What decides what is right or else wrong for you is always other people or another authority that you are right now under always, etc, and whether or not you broke their rules and/or laws, and whether they (not you) think you are gulity of breaking certain rules or laws, or should be tried or stand trail as being possibly guilty of certain crimes, etc, and that's what determines what is either right or else wrong for every single individual person always, etc, and this will depend on what kind of authority you are under during the times and days and age in which you are living, etc, and that is what decides is either right or else wrong for you always, or whether you are gulity or not of certain crimes, and you don't ever get to decide this for yourself ever, etc.

But one might ask themself if right and/or wrong, and maybe also moral/immoral, might maybe be two different things maybe, etc. But the time/age/day and place and society in which you live will always decide what is either right or else wrong for you always either way, etc. And while we are here, we are all always subject to those kinds of authorities, and must go by what they say and must be subject to them always, etc, while we are still here always, etc, and different societies have and make many different laws/rules for themself at different times that we all must obey or follow or go by, or else face the consequences for certain things that are considered by that leadership/society to be certain crimes, etc.

And how you will be judged in the afterlife will depend on the laws and/or rules there, etc. If most of the people standing in the afterlife with you thought a thing was bad or evil or wrong, then you will probably be put into a process of being judged for that wrong or bad or evil or crime, etc. And how that will go for you will be based on if there are some circumstances that will be presented that will change other people's hearts or minds, etc, or else it will probably be decided that you are most definitely guilty of the crime, etc. And how that will go for you from there will probably also be based on/determined by/decided by any circumstances presented that might make the jury either go harder or else lighter on your crime, etc. And how that will go for you in the end will ultimately be decided or determined by God, as to where you will go in the end ultimately for any said right or else wrongs, or any of your crimes, etc. But you will first be judged by a jury of your peers for such said crimes. We never get to decide that for ourselves ever, but it is always another entity that always decides/determines that for us always, etc.

So it's completely pointless to think about what you might think is either right or else is wrong for yourself, because it ultimately doesn't ever matter what you think about this as it pertains to your own self ever in your own mind, etc. But instead you must ultimately think about how God and/or others are going to judge it, as it's ultimately the only way it's really only ever going to be judged/determined ever, and it doesn't matter what/how you might think/feel about it when it comes down to your own judgment of your own self ever, in your own mind.

It is my belief that in the judgement after this, that God is going to change the jury's mind many, many times, with a lot of things/evidence that the jury didn't know, but that will completely knock their socks off every single time, but also that this will not happen with all of the cases, every single time, etc.

I suspect that most of that wanting to decide what is right or else wrong for your own self is mostly only evil most of the time anyways, as it seems to be all about just only wanting to consider just only your own self as the only one truly 100% innocent, but everyone else as evil, or 100% completely gulity of everything always, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Fervent]

I'll address this, but only this. I'm repeating myself ad nauseum and your responses make little or no sense. So:

Premise 1: Alcohol can have a negative affect on decision making and motor skill.
Premise 2: Driving a car needs constant decision making and motor skills.
Conclusion: Therefore one shouldn't drive under the influence of alcohol.

Premise 1 is a fact. It's a given. Alcohol affects your brain in regard to decision making and motor skills. It's why people make the decision to jump off a ferry when they're drunk. It's why people fall over when they're smashed.

Premise 2 is likewise a fact. You need to decide on speed, you need to decide what others are likely to do on the road, you have to decide when and how severely you brake in wet conditions and you need to carefully thread a couple of tones of machinery at speed through crowded conditions with clearances measured in centimetres.

Premise 1 affects Premise 2 in a negative way. You end up making bad decisions and you don't drive as carefully as you would when sober.

Conclusion: Don't drink and drive. Now that's an opinion that's generally accepted in almost all countries by all sensible people. The amount that you can drink before driving will change depending on different opinions.

Now is it applicable in all circumstances? In my opinion no. So after a few drinks last Saturday I moved my car about 5m off the front of my drive so my nephew could move his car.

There ya go. Lots of facts, lot's of premises. A conclusion and an opinion based on all of that.

The issue isn't whether the premises are true, but whether the premises being true necessarily leads to the conclusion. A valid argument requires that the premises naturally lead to the conclusion on their own, it's not a subjective question. If the premises are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion is certain. An argument must be valid to be sound, so we need not even consider whether the premises are true or false if the premises on their own do not clearly lead to the conclusion. What you did was go fact-fact-value. What you've demonstrated is you don't understand what a good deductive argument is and are convinced by poorly constructed ones.

 

[Neogaia777]

And since some think it, or think about it sometimes, or sometimes think about it quite a bit sometimes, I'm going to talk about it a little bit at this time.

God in the OT was God the Holy Spirit, and He didn't always know everything, or was not fully omniscient, but only the Highest One, the One whom Jesus referred to as his and our Father most of the time, was the only One who only always is/ever always was, ever always that High, or was the only One who was/always has been 100% fully omniscient.

But God in the OT was responsible for specially creating/making Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden, and they were a specially created species/race of humans who did not have to go through the process of natural evolution, and He did this around 6000 years ago or so, in some smaller area/region in the region of Mesopotamia somewhere, etc. They were meant to eventually spread their influence/garden and rule over all other humans of the earth as a ruling class that would be or stay 100% pure, and that would create perfection/paradise for all other species/races in and with just a little bit of time, or with given just a little bit of time, etc. Obviously, things didn't go as planned, and God in the OT/God the Holy Spirit had to try to do his best to change/modify/update His plans after Adam and Eve's disobedience many, many, many times, etc.

This backstory is to explain what He was trying to do in the OT. He wanted a perfect Kingdom with a ruling class that would rule over/lead all others at the time. And that would be sin free, and that would make the whole earth into a perfect, sin-free, forever and ever, everlasting Kingdom or paradise, etc. And this is what He was trying to restore or bring us back to in the OT, which is why all the strict rules/punishments of death a lot of the time in the OT, and attempted entire elimination of some other species/races in the OT sometimes. He knew of the plan of Jesus Christ from the beginning always, but wasn't wanting to have to enact it, etc, a command/word for Him that came from the Father, shown in how He tried or tested Abraham with Abraham's son Issac, etc, but was not wanting to have to do it, or even expecting to ever have to do it, until He had done or had tired everything else first at the time.

It's still the plan now, but it falls to Jesus Christ to enact it or cause or make it happen now when he returns, and we seem to have confirmation that Jesus Christ's efforts were already 100% successful 2000 years ago, but are not meant to be fully enacted or carried out or fulfilled until a future time and date sometime, etc.

God Bless

 

[Neogaia777]

And since some think it, or think about it sometimes, or sometimes think about it quite a bit sometimes, I'm going to talk about it a little bit at this time.

God in the OT was God the Holy Spirit, and He didn't always know everything, or was not fully omniscient, but only the Highest One, the One whom Jesus referred to as his and our Father most of the time, was the only One who only always is/ever always was, ever always that High, or was the only One who was/always has been 100% fully omniscient.

But God in the OT was responsible for specially creating/making Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden, and they were a specially created species/race of humans who did not have to go through the process of natural evolution, and He did this around 6000 years ago or so, in some smaller area/region in the region of Mesopotamia somewhere, etc. They were meant to eventually spread their influence/garden and rule over all other humans of the earth as a ruling class that would be or stay 100% pure, and that would create perfection/paradise for all other species/races in and with just a little bit of time, or with given just a little bit of time, etc. Obviously, things didn't go as planned, and God in the OT/God the Holy Spirit had to try to do his best to change/modify/update His plans after Adam and Eve's disobedience many, many, many times, etc.

This backstory is to explain what He was trying to do in the OT. He wanted a perfect Kingdom with a ruling class that would rule over/lead all others at the time. And that would be sin free, and that would make the whole earth into a perfect, sin-free, forever and ever, everlasting Kingdom or paradise, etc. And this is what He was trying to restore or bring us back to in the OT, which is why all the strict rules/punishments of death a lot of the time in the OT, and attempted entire elimination of some other species/races in the OT sometimes. He knew of the plan of Jesus Christ from the beginning always, but wasn't wanting to have to enact it, etc, a command/word for Him that came from the Father, shown in how He tried or tested Abraham with Abraham's son Issac, etc, but was not wanting to have to do it, or even expecting to ever have to do it, until He had done or had tired everything else first at the time.

It's still the plan now, but it falls to Jesus Christ to enact it or cause or make it happen now when he returns, and we seem to have confirmation that Jesus Christ's efforts were already 100% successful 2000 years ago, but are not meant to be fully enacted or carried out or, fulfilled until a future time and date sometime, etc.

God Bless

Would you not have tried everything else you could have first?

"I want you to give birth to a son, through a human being, who would be your one and only, and who would be of your very own fiber/essence, and your very own being, etc, and then I want you to sacrifice him or kill him as an offering to me, etc, etc, etc."

Please keep in mind that we don't know how much information about this that the God the Father specifically chose to tell God the Spirit specifically, etc, or what He chose to include, or else leave out of it completely, etc, but we can know for sure that He knew this part of it for sure, etc, otherwise we probably would not have Abraham and Issac, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Would you not have tried everything else you could have first?

"I want you to give birth to a son, through a human being, who would be your one and only, and who would be of your very own fiber/essence, and your very own being, etc, and then I want you to sacrifice him or kill him as an offering to me, etc, etc, etc."

Please keep in mind that we don't know how much information about this that the God the Father specifically chose to tell God the Spirit specifically, etc, or what He chose to include, or else leave out of it completely, etc, but we can know for sure that He knew this part of it for sure, etc, otherwise we probably would not have Abraham and Issac, etc.

God Bless.

This could have also maybe been an "in case you fail" kind of thing maybe, etc. Again, none of knows how much (and what) information was disclosed to God the (Holy) Spirit, and what also wasn't disclosed to God the (Holy) Spirit by God the Father from the very beginning, etc.

I suspect God the (Holy) Spirit knew absolutely nothing of failure until He decided to make a specially created race of beings/class of humans made in "His own likeness and image" and came up with the plans with them/surrounding them that He did, etc.

Which could have also been an eventual command of the Father as well maybe, or might have been an idea of His own making maybe, etc. None of us does or can know for sure in that area, etc.

But we can know that He didn't know everything, and that God the Father didn't tell Him everything right away, etc.

God Bless.

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah...I know. To understand what that meant....both Adam and Eve must have known that the transgression of what is forbidden is morally bad

Self-evident ... how could a reasonable person hold otherwise?

It's a fun story though.

The Truth in the story is substantive, beneath the form of the text, infallible and eternal.

However, we may instruct children or the ignorant about the moral norms of our societies...but rarely do we punish them with utter separation.

God did not punish us with utter separation. Alienation as a medicinal is useful in bringing about at-one-ment ... as we see He did in the New Testament.

The ignorance of a moral norm is entirely expected in children, foreigners, and anyone outside of a particular sub-group of social peers which hold vastly different moral norms....like a criminal gang for example. Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them before they typically get judged so severely as god did Adam and Eve.

That's almost exactly the Adam and Eve story:

1. "Newcomers to the group get the norms explained to them"
2. They willfully disobey the norms (important step excluded above)
3. Then they suffer the effects of their disobedience

If they were truly ignorant of morality....and expected to behave morally....then they should have been given the fruit first before any explanation was made.

In the story there are two trees in the garden. Adam and Eve were first given the fruit of the tree of life then follows the explanation.

Instead, they were punished for understanding.

They were not punished for understanding. They alienated themselves from God through their free act of disobedience.

Right...and it's not exactly clear if they would have believed or chosen differently if they were able to understand in some way before the fruit was eaten.

If they would have chosen differently had they understood good and evil....perhaps then they were made in the image of god. But I have a hard time seeing the good in the exile punishment of the completely ignorant.

Made in God's image means, unlike the brute animals, Adam and Eve possessed both reason and free will. Having reason, they were not completely ignorant. Having free will, they were open to sin.

Mankind was never completely exiled from God. The Old Testament provides the evidence.

After one reads the rest of the story, in the New Testament, through the God-man Jesus Christ, atonement is complete.

This is a tough one. Let's avoid discussion of your idea of God's relationship with time. Let's leave it as something incomprehensible....because if there was a moment the universe was created, then surely what preceded it was a moment that god was alone without any universe of his making. This alone marks a passage of time without any universe or something to consider the change of to mark it.

Well, science claims to comprehend the relationship. Neither time, nor space, nor matter can physically exist independently of the others. So, there is no passage of time before God created the universe. So, God in eternity necessarily exists outside time.

This seems like an unnecessary and very roundabout way to achieve an end that an omnipotent god wouldn't have to take.

God wills to be intimate with those made in His image. But mankind likewise needs to freely will the same. We are slow learners. The story is not completely over for you and me so stay tuned.

 

[Neogaia777]

This could have also maybe been an "in case you fail" kind of thing maybe, etc. Again, none of knows how much (and what) information was disclosed to God the (Holy) Spirit, and what also wasn't disclosed to God the (Holy) Spirit by God the Father from the very beginning, etc.

I suspect God the (Holy) Spirit knew absolutely nothing of failure until He decided to make a specially created race of beings/class of humans made in "His own likeness and image" and came up with the plans with them/surrounding them that He did, etc.

Which could have also been an eventual command of the Father as well maybe, or might have been an idea of His own making maybe, etc. None of us does or can know for sure in that area, etc.

But we can know that He didn't know everything, and that God the Father didn't tell Him everything right away, etc.

God Bless.

There were probably things that were given to Jesus Christ from and by God the Father, that God the (Holy) Spirit didn't know about, or didn't get to fully find out about, until Jesus probably, etc. And also probably afterward, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

There were probably things that were given to Jesus Christ from and by God the Father, that God the (Holy) Spirit didn't know about, or didn't get to fully find out about, until Jesus probably, etc. And also probably afterward, etc.

God Bless.

Or there was no God the Holy Spirit/God in the OT, and He was made up by men, and Jesus is a liar, and nothing in the Bible is true, and it's a made up book, full of made up myths and legends, and miracles and miraculous happenings, etc, etc, etc, if you still choose to believe that, etc. To each their, or his or her own I guess, etc.

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

Or there was no God the Holy Spirit/God in the OT, and He was made up by men, and Jesus is a liar, and nothing in the Bible is true, and it's a made up book, full of made up myths and legends, and miracles and miraculous happenings, etc, etc, etc, if you still choose to believe that, etc.

Even if all of the above was true... and the stories are all man made, would you really change? Is your commitment to your core beliefs so weak that you'd stop loving your neighbor... stop having faith in faith? Or is your devotion to such things deeper than just some stories in a book?

Maybe the purpose of the book isn't to stand as proof, but simply to stand as inspiration. For some it's an inspiration to judge and condemn, and for others it's an inspiration to love and forgive. Maybe in the end it's not so much about the nature of the book... it's about the nature of the person reading it...

For all of the laws and all of the prophets hangeth on these two commands... they don't hang on whether Adam and Eve were real or not.

 

[Neogaia777]

Even if all of the above was true... and the stories are all man made, would you really change? Is your commitment to your core beliefs so weak that you'd stop loving your neighbor... stop having faith in faith?

No.

Or is your devotion to such things deeper than just some stories in a book?

Way deeper than that, etc. But I have way more than enough ample evidence for me to believe these things, etc. And I also don't think Jesus Christ was decieved, or didn't know the truth, or was lying as well, etc.

Maybe the purpose of the book isn't to stand as proof, but simply to stand as inspiration. For some it's an inspiration to judge and condemn, and for others it's an inspiration to love and forgive. Maybe in the end it's not so much about the nature of the book... it's about the nature of the person reading it...

I don't think you necessarily have to believe everything I believe in order to be saved, etc. If anything, just keep some of these things tucked away in your back pocket as another possible interpretation or take, ok. You don't have to buy or believe all of this that I believe overnight, and you might not have to ever, ok. For now just hang onto it as another possible possibility or possible interpretation, ok. You more than likely don't have to believe all that I believe about it to be even a true follower of Jesus Christ, and/or be saved, ok. This is mainly just for those who truly want to fully know God, and want to know the whole full story, etc.

For all of the laws and all of the prophets hangeth on these two commands... they don't hang on whether Adam and Eve were real or not.

You don't necessarily have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to even be a true follower of Jesus Christ, and/or be saved, etc. Just keep these things in your back pocket, or tucked away for awhile somewhere, etc. These things are mainly only for those people who truly want to know the whole full story, and/or know their God, etc. I don't think it's absolutely necessary/essential to salvation or to even be a true believer/follower of Jesus Christ right now currently, etc. I'm just putting it out there as a possibility, etc. I am still open to a more metaphorical non-literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, but am going with this one right now currently until this one can be disproven right now currently, etc.

So just relax, ok, and breathe, ok, you're fine, ok. I think what you have right now could be a very good beginning, or a good start, ok.

And as for me, you are actually kind of serving to me as a reminder for me myself to not leave, or forsake, or abandon the elementary things, which are essential to salvation, ok. And I sometimes need a reminder of that with all of the rest of this that I am right now getting, ok. So, don't worry, you're fine, ok, and you have a very good beginning, ok. Build or start building a foundation on what you right now have or know, believe in and follow Jesus Christ in the best way you right now know how, or can, and grow and develop in that, and you'll be just fine, ok.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

The issue isn't whether the premises are true, but whether the premises being true necessarily leads to the conclusion. A valid argument requires that the premises naturally lead to the conclusion on their own, it's not a subjective question. If the premises are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion is certain. An argument must be valid to be sound, so we need not even consider whether the premises are true or false if the premises on their own do not clearly lead to the conclusion. What you did was go fact-fact-value. What you've demonstrated is you don't understand what a good deductive argument is and are convinced by poorly constructed ones.

If you don't think that having reduced motor skills and decision making is relevant to driving, then you won't get the same conclusion. I really didn't think that adding a third premise was necessary:

Premise 3: We don't want people driving with reduced motor skills and decision making.

You can accept the first two and reject that one if you like. It's the only way to reject the conclusion. So there you have the facts as I have stated them. If you reject any of them then your opinion about drinking and driving will be different to mine. As I have been saying, you form an opinion from evidence that has been presented. From the facts of the matter. In this case put forward as an argument. If you personally think that the argument isn't valid, or isn't strong enough then you'll decide that. And you wouldn't have to ask God.

So, did you decide if it's valid or not?

 

[Fervent]

If you don't think that having reduced motor skills and decision making is relevant to driving, then you won't get the same conclusion. I really didn't think that adding a third premise was necessary:

A third premise isn't necessary, what is necessary is for the premises to have a clear relationship with the conclusion such that if they are true then the conclusion must be true. Deductive logic gives us certainty if we can prove that the argument is valid and sound, which iis to say it doesn't commit a formal fallacy and the premises are true. The problem is, most of the time when we think we've got a sound argument all we've done is commit petitio principii. But the formal fallacy your argument commits is the non-sequitor, which could be fixed by structuring it as:

P1) If driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents, then it is immoral to drive drunk.
P2) Driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents
C: Therefore, it is immoral to drive drunk

This one appears validly constructed, but its actually either not valid or not sound because the only way I could justify P1 is if I already knew C meaning I have begged the question(formally invalid), or I have an unjustified premise.

Premise 3: We don't want people driving with reduced motor skills and decision making.

This is closer to creating a relationship because now it's value-laden, but then who's "we" when did "our" wants come to determine what is morally true?

You can accept the first two and reject that one if you like. It's the only way to reject the conclusion. So there you have the facts as I have stated them. If you reject any of them then your opinion about drinking and driving will be different to mine. As I have been saying, you form an opinion from evidence that has been presented. From the facts of the matter. In this case put forward as an argument. If you personally think that the argument isn't valid, or isn't strong enough then you'll decide that. And you wouldn't have to ask God.

I don't need to reject any of them, because the relationship between the premise and the conclusion isn't apparent so it doesn't matter if they are true or not. Validity in deductive logic isn't a matter of opinion, it's a formal issue. If the argument is constructed in the wrong way, it's not valid. And whether or not it is constructed correctly depends on if there is a formal fallacy present, of which there are only a small number that are fairly well known. So if I can identify the formal fallacy, then I determine that the argument isn't valid as an objective statement not simply my opinion. Formal logic has rules, and breaking those rules renders the argument invalid.

So, did you decide if it's valid or not?

I determined it wasn't valid. The rules of logic decided.

 

[Bradskii]

A third premise isn't necessary, what is necessary is for the premises to have a clear relationship with the conclusion such that if they are true then the conclusion must be true. Deductive logic gives us certainty if we can prove that the argument is valid and sound, which iis to say it doesn't commit a formal fallacy and the premises are true. The problem is, most of the time when we think we've got a sound argument all we've done is commit petitio principii. But the formal fallacy your argument commits is the non-sequitor, which could be fixed by structuring it as:

P1) If driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents, then it is immoral to drive drunk.
P2) Driving drunk increases the likelyhood of accidents
C: Therefore, it is immoral to drive drunk

This one appears validly constructed, but its actually either not valid or not sound because the only way I could justify P1 is if I already knew C meaning I have begged the question(formally invalid), or I have an unjustified premise.

It's not even wrong. I have no idea why you constructed that.

This is closer to creating a relationship because now it's value-laden, but then who's "we" when did "our" wants come to determine what is morally true?

I didn't make a moral determination. Where did that come from? And I would have thought it was a given fact that we don't want people driving with reduced decision making and motor skills. You really want to question that? Well, change it to:

Driving with reduced decision making and motor skills will cause more accidents.

Now, do you want me to add another explaining why there is less 'value' in that?

You are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Fervent]

It's not even wrong. I have no idea why you constructed that.

I constructed that to give an example of a formally valid argument, or at least one that appears formally valid. Do you see how there is a clear relationship in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true? We don't have to decide whether we agree with deductive arguments, we have to see if they make formal errors or are based on unjustified premises.

I didn't make a moral determination. Where did that come from? And I would have thought it was a given fact that we don't want people driving with reduced decision making and motor skills. You really want to question that? Well, change it to:

I thought you were finally understanding the nature of the is-ought problem. Moral conclusions must be drawn from moral premises. What something is like tells us nothing about what it's supposed to be like.

Driving with reduced decision making and motor skills will cause more accidents.

Ok...so what's the moral principle that tells us that these factual statements in some way can be combined into a statement of right and wrong?

Now, do you want me to add another explaining why there is less 'value' in that?

Value-laden premises would be required for a moral argument. So we want value-statements somewhere in the premises so that the relationship between the factual statement and the moral statement is recognizable.

You are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm really not. In fact I woudn't say I'm arguing at all, I'm trying to explain.

 

[Bradskii]

I constructed that to give an example of a formally valid argument...

I'd already done that. We didn't need you proposing a nonsensical argument. And I'm being generous in calling it that. It had the conclusion in the first premise...it was a mess.

I thought you were finally understanding the nature of the is-ought problem. Moral conclusions must be drawn from moral premises. What something is like tells us nothing about what it's supposed to be like.

I wasn't making a moral argument. Just showing you that if premises are correct then it leads to a conclusion. Just think of the IS OUGHT to be an IF THEN. IF we want to reduce accidents we THEN have to reduce drink driving.

Ok...so what's the moral principle that tells us that these factual statements in some way can be combined into a statement of right and wrong?

I wasn't making a moral argument.

Value-laden premises would be required for a moral argument. So we want value-statements somewhere in the premises so that the relationship between the factual statement and the moral statement is recognizable.

Well, wasn't it lucky I wasn't making a moral argument.