Moral absolutism as compared to the advancement of technology

[VirOptimus]

Of course they are. If they are not then tell us what invalid inferences are being employed?

You pose as someone who knows logic and philosophy, but a cursory reading of your posts demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. You just make counter-assertions that you never support, and then pat yourself on the back. The fact that you don't think those arguments are valid shows that you don't understand even the most elementary logical inferences.


Here are his arguments with the formal inferences identified:

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (1)
(1) If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist. {premise}
(2) Epistemic facts exist. {premise}
(3) So moral facts exist. {modus tollens; 1 & 2}
(4) If moral facts exist, then moral realism is true. {premise}
(5) So moral realism is true. {modus ponens, 3 & 4}

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (2)
1) epistemic realism is true; {premise}
2) if epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true; {premise}
c) hence moral realism is true. {modus ponens, 1 & 2}

Neither 1 or 2 is true or supported in the first.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Neither 1 or 2 is true or supported in the first.

Agreed. I think it can be rewritten as modus ponens.

1. Epistemic facts entail moral facts.
2. Epistemic facts
C. Moral facts.​

1) I don't know what an epistemic fact is let alone that they exist
2) The only way 1 is true is that epistemic facts is a subset of moral facts. a) if epistemic facts are a subset of moral facts and epistemic facts exists. (To describe an epistemic fact is to describe a moral fact.) Again, I don't know that epistemic facts are. I doubt anyone means that epistemic facts are always moral facts. b) If then, moral facts are a subset of epistemic facts, then premise 1 is no more valid than saying "if mammals exist, unicorns exist".

In a way, it's begging the question. To assume moral facts are a subset of epistemic facts is to assume their existence. To assume unicorns are a subset of mammals is to assume unicorns exist.

 

[zippy2006]

Neither 1 or 2 is true or supported in the first.

An unsupported premise does not an invalid argument make.

The argument might be unsound, but it certainly isn't invalid.

 

[FredVB]

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (1)
(1) If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
(2) Epistemic facts exist.
(3) So moral facts exist.
(4) If moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.
(5) So moral realism is true.

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (2)
1) epistemic realism is true;
2) if epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true;
c) hence moral realism is true.

But authority alone doesn't prove objective morality. People are moral agents and they can choose to defy authoirty. The law has authority over us and we can still choose to defy it.

But if people were not moral and rational agents then we would not know and understand the reasons and authority of these moral truths and the obligations that follow and this would mean nothing to us.

That is why when we come to know and understand a moral law just like we do with the legal laws it has authority over us by the fact that our conscience comes into conflict when we try to break that law. Our conscience either condemns or defends us.

BUt we can deny/defy these moral laws just like we defy legal laws and after a while we can rationalize untruths and convince ourselves we are doing nothing wrong. But we cannot avoid the fact that the truth comes out in some way or another and will convict us in the end.

If only physical reality is alone reality, morality is only a construct and subjective. Authority from any state is limited to that and the morality according to that does not hold to those who are apart from that or separate from that. If there is morality is yet more meaningful than that, there is more reality than physical existence.

 

[Estrid]

If only physical reality is alone reality, morality is only a construct and subjective. Authority from any state is limited to that and the morality according to that does not hold to those who are apart from that or separate from that. If there is morality is yet more meaningful than that, there is more reality than physical existence.

Huh?

 

[FredVB]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

No, morality does not progress with technology. With the progression of technology there is destruction ongoing to this world. And morality is no greater, at all. God actually hates this, as it was shown. And there is nothing of God's endorsement of civilization, God initially is shown against it. It will all collapse with coming crises from all the destruction.

Morality, which is real though not a physical reality ultimately, includes ethics for choices we have. God hates the destructiveness and our ethical choices, which we should make if morality really progressed, would include not having anything to do with the involvement in what is destructive to this earth.