Moral Argument Syllogism

[bhsmte]

This entire thread is a straw man...

He posted a position he cannot defend, so instead he's pretending it's a position we hold and asking us to defend/attack it amongst ourselves.

I'll be unwatching this.

Desperation, is setting in.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Desperation, is setting in.

He seems to be spiraling farther and farther out of control.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one...

 

[bhsmte]

He seems to be spiraling farther and farther out of control.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one...

I sense a new user name, only a matter of time.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

In this thread we will give those indignant and concerned men who object to God sending a flood, a chance to explain what grounds they have for maintaining that it is objectively wrong to cause babies to die by being overtaken by a flood.

The fact that you even need to ask this should give you pause.

I don't think we need to appeal to "objective" morals in the way that you probably mean to understand this - although it's kind of hard to know as you don't seem to want to define your terms. Perhaps if you engaged on this point we could get somewhere.

 

[Davian]

They will be over here shortly with their banners and pickets saying "no more drowning of babies!"

Certainly not of those that don't deserve it. Other than that, carry on.

 

[Davian]

Ok. That's why I need the super hero atheists to come and save the day with their superhero powers of knowledge and weapons of science.

“Reason is a harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther

 

[Davian]

I will give your comrades time to wake up. I will return and expect to see everyone that was over in my other thread in here telling me why what God did was objectively wrong.

If they can't then they will need to tell me why their opinion should be my moral standard.

Indeed. How can you beat "anything goes, as long as you believe in my particular deity" as a foundation for morality?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The second premise of a particular formulation of the moral argument for the existence of God reads,

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

In this thread we will give those indignant and concerned men who object to God sending a flood, a chance to explain what grounds they have for maintaining that it is objectively wrong to cause babies to die by being overtaken by a flood.

I don't get what the purpose of this thread is.


In any case, I'ld say that I try to use an objective methodology to decide between right and wrong. But the only way I can do that is by taking on subjective premises. In a major nutshell, and to paraphrase Sam Harris, these premises are:
- best possible well-being for sentient beings: good
- worst possible suffering for sentient beings: bad

From there, you are able to "objectively" make moral decisions based on the information at your disposal. But at best, i'ld call that "pseudo-objective", since it still all boggles down to rather subjective, and perhaps even arbitrary, premises.

No, I most certainly don't see how the premise in your OP is correct or how it can be shown to be correct.

Especially not in context of the Judeo-Christian God as your bible is FILLED with practices that we today view as nothing short of cruel and barbaric, but yet were all condoned or even commanded by this god.

Our 21st century secular humanist moral compass is vastly superior to the morals exhibited by that bronze-age culture. Which is exactly what I would expect, by the way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That sounds like utilitarianism, DogmaHunter. I dont like how it may view some peoples well being over others, because that implies some have a morwal duty to be brushed aside, which is anti-life. Ok, situations may arise, but as a principle its to be avoided..

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I sense a new user name, only a matter of time.

And then the dishonest denying of said new user name...

 

[DogmaHunter]

That sounds like utilitarianism, DogmaHunter.

Myeah, I don't really care what "label" you wish to put on it.

The "methodology" I shared is the only way I know of to get to a somewhat "objective" morality.

"objective" to me means free of emotions or personal preferences.
In that sense, it boggles down to "here are the facts, so here is the conclusion".

And the only requirement is a solid premise in which one recognises that suffering is bad and well-being is good. If one can't agree to such a premise, then the idea of "morality" is meaningless imo.

I dont like how it may view some peoples well being over others

I didn't say that.
I said "sentient beings". I didn't say that the well-being of person X is more important then the well-being of person Y.

, because that implies some have a morwal duty to be brushed aside, which is anti-life. Ok, situations may arise, but as a principle its to be avoided..

It's a good thing then, that I didn't argue for such a principle.

However, moral dilemma's are very real and sometimes there simply is no "correct" answer... Sometimes, one is left to choose for the lesser of two evils...

How are you going to make a decision, if not by choosing the lesser of two evils (which translates into maximizing the well-being for the most amount of people while trying to minimize the amount of suffering)?

Morality and moral decision making is anything but a black and white world. Which, imo, is also the reason that the idea that an "objective morality" is complete nonsense.

An example of "objective morality" is "lying is ALWAYS wrong".
But it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do. Like when an SS officer asks you where a jewish family is hiding. Lying at that moment, is equal to saving lives.

 

[Lukamu]

An example of "objective morality" is "lying is ALWAYS wrong".
But it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do. Like when an SS officer asks you where a jewish family is hiding. Lying at that moment, is equal to saving lives

Lying at that moment is still wrong. You did not consider "remain silent" as an option. Christians believe in objective morality, and suffering can sometimes be the result. For example, when Jesus replied to Pilate that he was the king of the Jews. He could have lied to escape from the oncoming suffering that he foreknew, but he told the truth.

"objective" to me means free of emotions or personal preferences.
In that sense, it boggles down to "here are the facts, so here is the conclusion".

The problem with the "here are the facts" argument is that we never have all the facts - our worldview is quite limited. When people define their own morality, they are often looking at the details and cannot see the big picture, i. e., the past, present, and future of God and the human race. Although if you can come up with another situation where lying is the only moral thing to do, I'd like to hear it.

-Lukamu

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An example of "objective morality" is "lying is ALWAYS wrong".
But it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do. Like when an SS officer asks you where a jewish family is hiding. Lying at that moment, is equal to saving lives.

Yes indeed; it seems that even if we forsake The Solzhenitsyn Principle (“And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to take part in the lie, not to support deceit. Let the lie come into the world, even dominate the world, but not through me.”) and its implications of negative responsibility (are you responsible for known hurt that will result from you not lying?) in favour of the austere peaks of Kant's Kingdom of Ends (Formula of Humanity, and Formula of Universal Law), we can find an interpretation to allow reasonable exceptions (given a two-level, 'ideal' and 'practical' system of morals). See C.M. Korsegaard - The Right To Lie: Kant on Dealing with Evil.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if you can come up with another situation where lying is the only moral thing to do, I'd like to hear it.

Even in the Kantian view, an argument can be made that it is permissable to lie to frustrate a coercer or deceiver, whose means involve you as a hapless tool to some end, and so fail to respect your capability as a rational agent capable of independent choice - i.e. a human being (see Korsegaard, above). Whether lying is the only moral thing to do is more a consequence of the particular moral philosophy one espouses...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lying at that moment is still wrong. You did not consider "remain silent" as an option.

Because that would get yourself tortured and killed, which is just stupid and yet again needless loss of life and/or well-being...

How can you stand there and say that it would be "more moral" to have yourself tortured to death or have a jewish family send to an extermination camp as opposed to telling the gestapo "hey, I don't know...."

I mean, seriously....

Christians believe in objective morality, and suffering can sometimes be the result.

Then the word "morality" becomes meaningless.

For example, when Jesus replied to Pilate that he was the king of the Jews. He could have lied to escape from the oncoming suffering that he foreknew, but he told the truth.

I call that dumb.

The problem with the "here are the facts" argument is that we never have all the facts

Which is exactly why morality is a dynamic thing that changes as we learn more.
It's a good thing.

- our worldview is quite limited. When people define their own morality, they are often looking at the details and cannot see the big picture, i. e., the past, present, and future of God and the human race.

My "big picture" doesn't include unevidenced religious figures and "faith based" nonsense. I stick to verifiable facts.

The problem with people who get their morality from a bronze age book is that they will have a bronze age morality. I'll stick to a 21st century moral compass, thanks.

Although if you can come up with another situation where lying is the only moral thing to do, I'd like to hear it.
-Lukamu

I already gave you one.
You considering that saying "I don't know where the jews are" is more evil then getting yourself or others tortured or killed is not really an argument against the point I made.

In fact, it just makes my point. It shows just how bloody cruel and stupid it can be to draw your morals from a religion in dogmatic ways.

Good luck with that.

 

[Lukamu]

Because that would get yourself tortured and killed, which is just stupid and yet again needless loss of life and/or well-being...

How can you stand there and say that it would be "more moral" to have yourself tortured to death or have a jewish family send to an extermination camp as opposed to telling the gestapo "hey, I don't know...."

I mean, seriously....



Then the word "morality" becomes meaningless.



I call that dumb.



Which is exactly why morality is a dynamic thing that changes as we learn more.
It's a good thing.



My "big picture" doesn't include unevidenced religious figures and "faith based" nonsense. I stick to verifiable facts.

The problem with people who get their morality from a bronze age book is that they will have a bronze age morality. I'll stick to a 21st century moral compass, thanks.



I already gave you one.
You considering that saying "I don't know where the jews are" is more evil then getting yourself or others tortured or killed is not really an argument against the point I made.

In fact, it just makes my point. It shows just how bloody cruel and stupid it can be to draw your morals from a religion in dogmatic ways.

Good luck with that.

Well, you have an opinion anyway. When you said, "it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do," I thought you might have more than one example to support your opinion. So far all you've given is a hypothetical situation from 70+ years ago. Do you have something a little more recent, perhaps?

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, you have an opinion anyway. When you said, "it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do," I thought you might have more than one example to support your opinion. So far all you've given is a hypothetical situation from 70+ years ago. Do you have something a little more recent, perhaps?

Either always is always or it isn't. Even one example is good enough to show the latter.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, you have an opinion anyway. When you said, "it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do," I thought you might have more than one example to support your opinion. So far all you've given is a hypothetical situation from 70+ years ago. Do you have something a little more recent, perhaps?

When I was a small child my great grandmother was in a nursing home. Her daughter, my grandmother, had recently died after a long illness. The family decided not to tell my great grandmother because they feared the shock would kill her. The next time we visited the nursing home, my great grandmother asked me specifically how my grandmother was. At first I didn't respond, but she kept asking, becoming more upset as she asked. I finally said what I was told to say by my mother. I replied "She's ok. She's at home sleeping."

Given the fact that keeping silent would have tipped my great grandmother off (she was an intelligent woman), and given that even the doctors agreed she shouldn't know about my grandmother's death due to her own failing health and the shock it would be to her, the only moral thing to do in my mind was to lie to her.

And yes, this example was 40+ years age, but that really doesn't make a difference, now does it...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, you have an opinion anyway. When you said, "it is very easy to imagine a situation where lying is the only moral thing to do," I thought you might have more than one example to support your opinion.

I only require one example to make my point.
And I used an example that seemed to be so mega-obvious that I expected nobody to argue against it. I guess I was wrong about that. I don't see the point in giving you more examples if you can't even agree to this one.

Apparantly, you think saying "I don't know" when you actually do know to be "more evil" then to send people to certain death or torture chambers. Great.

I don't know how to respond to that. I can only question why I would discuss morality with a person who thinks like that.

So far all you've given is a hypothetical situation from 70+ years ago.

It's not hypothetical at all. PLENTY of people lied to the gestapo about having jews hidden away in their basement. Today, we call those people HEROES.

Do you have something a little more recent, perhaps?

I do. But as previously said, I see no point in bringing it up.
I used the nazi / jews example because, again, it seems to be mega-obvious. If you can't agree with the mega-obvious, what point is there to discuss more nuanced every-day-type scenario's?

 

[EatingPie]

“Reason is a harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther

Hi.

Irony! I think it's great! ' The correct context of this quote reverses your intention, and ends up referring to you.

Now, I don't fully agree with Luther, but I do believe the truth should prevail.

In the same collection, "Table Talk" he states:
----
CCXCIV. [The Question Number]

[Question:] Why do Christians make use of their natural wisdom and understanding,
seeing it must be set aside in matters of faith, as not only not
understanding them, but also as striving against them?

Answer: The natural wisdom of a human creature in matters of faith,
until he be regenerate and born anew, is altogether darkness, knowing
nothing in divine cases. But in a faithful person, regenerate and
enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through the Word, it is a fair and
glorious instrument, and work of God: for even as all God's gifts,
natural instruments, and expert faculties, are hurtful to the ungodly,
even so are they wholesome and saving to the good and godly.
----

This addresses the very quote you have above. The "reason" he speaks of in your quote is not an all-encompassing term, but specifically the "reason" of "natural" people -- more bluntly, unsaved/non-Christians. Instead, he calls reason "glorious," but only in the hands of the "faithful" (Christians). BTW, I do not completely agree with Luther in this context, but as I said, truth should prevail.

So, the irony... You directed Luther's quote at a (claimed) Christian, but it actually refers to you, the "Ignostic."

-Pie