Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

Yes, and that seems to me what moral statements are. Pushing the question back a level such as saying moral good is acting in accordance with some telos solves nothing.

It provides a standard to use as a benchmark, which we can use to compare our observations to that benchmark. If, as you assert, morals are just feelings then what makes a moral judgment different from the feelings associated with them? When is disgust just disgust, and when is it moral disgust? How do you determine what sentiments qualify as moral, and what are just plain opinions?

Yes, if you have talking clay that with their own moral sentiments they can question the potter.

And you determined this, how?

I would like to point out that you purposefully called it a Creator, not god or God or maximal being or something else until the last few posts.

Yes, because Creator is the office that is most relevant.

Ah perhaps I see your objection, I said "at most". What I should have written is "that what it must entail is". Every thing else needs to be expounded upon. I was thinking of the word Creator, as in the someone that creates. Sure, etymological definitions are not the best arguments but to create something doesn't mean more than putting something into being to me. I don't see why omni- anything would follow from that.

While a creator is only someone who creates, a Creator(note the capital) implies that we are speaking of deity. Now, there are many concepts of what a god entails, but only one concept that is worthy of being called God. So while the word Creator emphasizes the role of God as originator, it is simply a point of emphasis and the suite of attributes necessary for the supreme God are implied.

I don't see moral statements as non-truth apt as a problem either, that just seem to be what they are to me.

Ok...but how are you making evaluations of what moral statements are or aren't without them being subject to truth-conditions? How did you determine what it means to be moral?

By law and by fact? I must admit that you lost me there. I guess it a question about god-belief, but I'm not sure.

De jure tends to refer to justification, which is to say that the justification of each of our positions depends on what is true in fact. If, as I surmise, God has directly intervened in history then I am justified in my trust of His revelation, but if He has not then you are justified in your notion that God is nothing but a human construct.

 

[o_mlly]

The unbelievers will not relent: Psalm 14:1. Paul's instruction remains true as this thread demonstrates: 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.

 

[Fervent]

A lot following this that serves no purpose in me trying to forumate an answer.

Ok

I don't get this. I specifically said more than once that it was the lack of context. I'll repeat that:
IT'S THE LACK OF CONTEXT.

That doesn't answer my question, because "context" is a poorly defined generality and I asked for specifics. What context do you think is missing?

So you DO understand that it's a lack of context. And I literally listed many examples of it. I literally wrote them out for you. They are there so you can understand what was missing. Why on earth are you asking what they are when in the specific post to which you are replying it exp,ains what some of them are.

You listed out inanitys that don't show a pertinent difference. Why do you think those things change the moral decision?

This conversation is going to end soon. We've done this dance before. I'll post something and you'll completely ignore it. It's getting to the point where I'll be asking a specific question and you can answer it or it will end.

Cool, though I haven't ignored anything you've posted. It's just that most of what you do that supposedly passes for argument is insist that your position is correct and return to the same already addressed point.

If that's your argument for believing in absolute morality then so be it. The single question that requires a simple answer is on the horizon.

Then that is debating morality. You have a position on it and you are trying to put it forward. And failing, it must be said.

No, it needs context. The question will arrive soon regarding this...

Again, it was explained in a lot of detail. This discussion will be ending soon if you continue this farce.

Gosh, was that a judgement of me that you just made? I think it was. It was trying to explain that you have made no judgements of me? You need to take a day or two and regroup I think.

The difference is the context. I think I see that question approaching quite quickly...

If you decide it's right then you have decided it's right. That's it. I just hope that you have some good arguments to back up your position. To, you know, debate it. 'Because my source says it's ok' is, as we have agreed, not acceptable.

Again, I gave a list of means whereby we might determine it. And you have simply ignored them and asked the same question again.

This stops now. I'm up to the back teeth of me explaining my position and then have you asking me to explain my position. I've had enough of giving you my reasons and then you again asking me what my reasons are. There'll be no more of me telling you how I come to my decisions and then you asking me how I come to my decisions.

This is exactly the problem. You simply try to re-explain your position when it has already been countered, rather than responding to the counter. Which does nothing to forward your argument, and you seem to be frustrating yourself because you fail to understand that your supposed points have been addressed and it is encumbent upon you to reply, not simply re-explain what you have already argued.

All you have offered (and as I said, we've done the dance before) is negativity. Nothing more that 'you are wrong' and you've presented nothing whatsoever to back up your own position (whatever it exactly might be).

There may be that one question arriving soon. I may post it later. I won't be interested in anything else you say unless you specifically answer it.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok

That doesn't answer my question, because "context" is a poorly defined generality and I asked for specifics. What context do you think is missing?

You listed out inanitys that don't show a pertinent difference. Why do you think those things change the moral decision?

Cool, though I haven't ignored anything you've posted. It's just that most of what you do that supposedly passes for argument is insist that your position is correct and return to the same already addressed point.




This is exactly the problem. You simply try to re-explain your position when it has already been countered, rather than responding to the counter. Which does nothing to forward your argument, and you seem to be frustrating yourself because you fail to understand that your supposed points have been addressed and it is encumbent upon you to reply, not simply re-explain what you have already argued.

Nothing worth a response. No arguments for your position offered whatsoever.

 

[Fervent]

Hang myself? What's that got to do with setting ones own purpose?

You asked about free will, which I stated wasn't absolute.

Huh? Like I said you are definining creator for this discussion. I don't see any reason to think such a being could exist (a being that could create a universe), but I accept your definition as a hypothetical for discussion purposes.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. You assert that I'm defining God, but I'm just working with what I have discerned. Your estimation only matters to you.

There is nothing about "creating a universe" that grants the power to a being to define what is true.

So literallly creating what is true doesn't require a being to define what is true. Uh huh. So says the all-knowing Hans Blaster.

 

[Fervent]

Nothing worth a response. No arguments for your position offered whatsoever.

Criticising your position doesn't require me forwarding an argument of my own.

 

[Bradskii]

Criticising your position doesn't require me forwarding an argument of my own.

Hey, there's no need to point out that you don't need to have to put forward an argument. That is all too apparent. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Your MO is just that, to simply criticise the opposing view.

So how do I reply to a post that offers nothing to to argue against? Well, I'll just point out that problem and hope that at some point you'll offer something positive. Otherwise... I have better things to do.

 

[Fervent]

Hey, there's no need to point out that you don't need to have to put forward an argument. That is all too apparent. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Your MO is just that, to simply criticise the opposing view.

Where criticism is due, I criticize. If your position can only respond to criticism by repetition and insisting that it is the default, then it must be weak.

So how do I reply to a post that offers nothing to to argue against? Well, I'll just point out that problem and hope that at some point you'll offer something positive. Otherwise... I have better things to do.

You could reply by responding to the criticisms with something that actually addresses them rather than just trying to re-explain something that has been countered as if just stating it again is gong to change anything.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It provides a standard to use as a benchmark, which we can use to compare our observations to that benchmark. If, as you assert, morals are just feelings then what makes a moral judgment different from the feelings associated with them? When is disgust just disgust, and when is it moral disgust? How do you determine what sentiments qualify as moral, and what are just plain opinions?

They are much more alike than they are different. To tell the truth I don't even know if there are any substantive difference, it is just different ways of feeling good or bad. Eating tasty food feels good but it is a slightly different good than the good feeling waking after sleeping in. In the same vein doing somethings feel morally good and doing others feel morally bad.

And you determined this, how?

If it can voice its opinion it can question the potter. The potters view is irrelevant, for whether or not the potter can be questioned.

Yes, because Creator is the office that is most relevant.

While a creator is only someone who creates, a Creator(note the capital) implies that we are speaking of deity.

Not to me, I thought it was shorthand for the creator of the universe.

Now, there are many concepts of what a god entails, but only one concept that is worthy of being called God.

That seems like something as a simple assertion.

So while the word Creator emphasizes the role of God as originator, it is simply a point of emphasis and the suite of attributes necessary for the supreme God are implied.

You'll have to spell them out to me, and justify them if you want use them in the discussion, that is if you want me to care about them.

Ok...but how are you making evaluations of what moral statements are or aren't without them being subject to truth-conditions? How did you determine what it means to be moral?

Feeling! I feel good when I help old ladies over the road, and I felt bad when I shoplifted as a kid. I have very few habits I feel bad about nowadays.

De jure tends to refer to justification, which is to say that the justification of each of our positions depends on what is true in fact. If, as I surmise, God has directly intervened in history then I am justified in my trust of His revelation, but if He has not then you are justified in your notion that God is nothing but a human construct.

We are straying way into apologetics territory here: "If, as I surmise, God has directly intervened in history then I am justified in my trust of His revelation", If the conditional is true, how does that justify trust in Gods relevation? Are they logically linked? Could a deceitful God intervene in history, and lie in its revelation?

 

[Bradskii]

Where criticism is due, I criticize. If your position can only respond to criticism by repetition and insisting that it is the default, then it must be weak.

You could reply by responding to the criticisms with something that actually addresses them rather than just trying to re-explain something that has been countered as if just stating it again is gong to change anything.

Nothing worth a response...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I said, all that book learnin' yet you can't even put forward a position on the differences that you see between objective and relative morality. Except to say 'Go read a book'.

You can't blame a guy for wanting to defray the onset of dementia as much as possible, stepping foot by foot on into old age as we do ....

.................... so yeah, GO READ A BOOK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a complete waste of time (both yours and, more importantly, mine).

Your repetitive hubris is a waste of time for both of us, especially since we've already done this Subjective vs. Objective Morality do si do in the past, and if I recall correctly, we've done it more than once.

Besides, talking to you feels like I'm talking to one of my grandfathers. I might as well be arguing with a stone wall

 

[o_mlly]

The atheists have two arguments in this thread to offer against acts which are always immoral. One, since 2021, is still trying to conjure up a contorted argument that rape can be moral. The second one is the Genghis Khan defense (Genghis, do you not think that raping and pillaging is bad?) to simply reply, "I don't think so". At least the second one may be true.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You asked about free will, which I stated wasn't absolute.

The discussion was the choosing of ones own purpose rather than having it imposed by a divine dictator on the stance that "they created everything". It was not a general statement about free will.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. You assert that I'm defining God, but I'm just working with what I have discerned. Your estimation only matters to you.

This is one of those discussions that will only go dumb places. You have been asserting there is a god. I don't find that plausible, *but* for the purposes of discussion I will operate under the hypothetical assumption that there is one. I am only not acceding to a future claim of "victory" by assertion when a claim of "so you do think there is a god" is potentially made.

So literallly creating what is true doesn't require a being to define what is true. Uh huh.

No. Let's go through this little hypothetical...

Suppose there is a creator god that creates a universe. It then claims that "The universe was not created". Which is true? That the creator god *did* create the universe, or that the creator god *did not* create the universe?

It is true that either the Universe was created by a god or it was not created by a god. At this point we cannot know for certain which is true. You think it was created by a god and I do not. But neither state of belief or unbelief makes it so. If our beliefs or assessments are in conflict with the true state of the Universe's origin we are just wrong. Believing or not does not make it so. Likewise we could assert to know that it was true or false, but that does not make it so either. In my "created universe" hypothetical, the creator god could *lie* about reality (knowing it to be false) but that would not change the facts. The fact (created or not) is *independent* of any belief or claim of knowledge, even the "creator" could be wrong or lying.

So says the all-knowing Hans Blaster.

You wish you knew as much as I.

 

[Fervent]

They are much more alike than they are different. To tell the truth I don't even know if there are any substantive difference, it is just different ways of feeling good or bad. Eating tasty food feels good but it is a slightly different good than the good feeling waking after sleeping in. In the same vein doing somethings feel morally good and doing others feel morally bad.

So then why call some feelings moral? What is the distinction supposed to identify?

If it can voice its opinion it can question the potter. The potters view is irrelevant, for whether or not the potter can be questioned.

The ability to ask a question does not imply the right.

Not to me, I thought it was shorthand for the creator of the universe.

Well, sorry for the confusion. For me, it was simply a way of emphasis of a particular role.

That seems like something as a simple assertion.

It's a statement about analytic truth, because its a matter of definition which is not subject to argument.

You'll have to spell them out to me, and justify them if you want use them in the discussion, that is if you want me to care about them.

I don't particularly care if you care about them. My interest in this disccussion isn't really to defend my particular way of dealing with morality, simply to highlight that so long as there isn't some objective standard to morality then the only rational response is nihilism. Everything else just reeks of desparation.

Feeling! I feel good when I help old ladies over the road, and I felt bad when I shoplifted as a kid. I have very few habits I feel bad about nowadays.

So feeling good lighting a cat on fire makes it a moral action?

We are straying way into apologetics territory here: "If, as I surmise, God has directly intervened in history then I am justified in my trust of His revelation", If the conditional is true, how does that justify trust in Gods relevation? Are they logically linked? Could a deceitful God intervene in history, and lie in its revelation?

That certainly could be the case, but I don't really consider it for the same reason I don't really spend much time thinking about a deceitful God messing with my memories, my sense perceptions, empirical information, or anything else really. If such hypotheticals were true, then I couldn't trust anything. So perhaps I should turn the hypothetical around on you?

 

[Fervent]

Nothing worth a response...

What a worthwhile post, thanks for responding in order to convey your disinterest. I was waiting with baited breath.

 

[Fervent]

Besides, talking to you feels like I'm talking to one of my grandfathers. I might as well be arguing with a stone wall

Yeah, the interactions between he and I have made one thing very clear to me. He doesn't seem to understand what an argument requires, and is convinced by poorly constructed ones.

 

[Fervent]

The discussion was the choosing of ones own purpose rather than having it imposed by a divine dictator on the stance that "they created everything". It was not a general statement about free will.

You asked why you would give up the free will given to you to submit to God's purposes. The sheer arrogance that it takes to think you know better than an all-knowing being and are on equal footing is instructive, though.

This is one of those discussions that will only go dumb places. You have been asserting there is a god. I don't find that plausible, *but* for the purposes of discussion I will operate under the hypothetical assumption that there is one. I am only not acceding to a future claim of "victory" by assertion when a claim of "so you do think there is a god" is potentially made.

The lady doth protest too much

No. Let's go through this little hypothetical...

Suppose there is a creator god that creates a universe. It then claims that "The universe was not created". Which is true? That the creator god *did* create the universe, or that the creator god *did not* create the universe?

The "hypothetical" isn't worth considering, nor is it an argument of any sort since the only way such a scenario is possible is in your imagination.

It is true that either the Universe was created by a god or it was not created by a god. At this point we cannot know for certain which is true. You think it was created by a god and I do not. But neither state of belief or unbelief makes it so. If our beliefs or assessments are in conflict with the true state of the Universe's origin we are just wrong. Believing or not does not make it so. Likewise we could assert to know that it was true or false, but that does not make it so either. In my "created universe" hypothetical, the creator god could *lie* about reality (knowing it to be false) but that would not change the facts. The fact (created or not) is *independent* of any belief or claim of knowledge, even the "creator" could be wrong or lying.

We certainly could, but what is this hypothetical supposed to be accomplishing exactly?

You wish you knew as much as I.

Nah, I'm quite content knowing nothing.

 

[Bradskii]

I might as well be arguing with a stone wall

Let me know when you actually produce an argument for absolute morality (I'll note that you've agreed that you've not produced one yet). I'll be keen to read it.

It'll be a first in this thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, the interactions between he and I have made one thing very clear to me. He doesn't seem to understand what an argument requires, and is convinced by poorly constructed ones.

He also doesn't have much memory retention. If he did, he'd remember where he's already put a bullet through my motivation back in the first twenty posts of this thread. Fortunately, I'm not obligated to put up with his repetitive trolling tactics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You asked why you would give up the free will given to you to submit to God's purposes. The sheer arrogance that it takes to think you know better than an all-knowing being and are on equal footing is instructive, though.

No, I just stated that it wasn't the prerogative of a "creator" to define the "purpose" of a sentient being. One of your presuppositionalist claims.

The lady doth protest too much

Not this nonsense again. I don't believe in your god, not one tiny bit. Don't bother claiming that I do, again.

The "hypothetical" isn't worth considering, nor is it an argument of any sort since the only way such a scenario is possible is in your imagination.

We certainly could, but what is this hypothetical supposed to be accomplishing exactly?

I hoped that you might be able to understand how being a "creator" isn't sufficient to defining what is true. Alas, I have failed to put it into a form that you could grasp.

Nah, I'm quite content knowing nothing.

It must be bliss.