"Ought"

[Archaeopteryx]

I made several claims. Which do you disagree with and why?

See the one highlighted in bold. It is in need of further justification.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But from whence come these obligations if God does not exist?

As Gordon Wright (dismissively) noted: "There is a subjective "ought" which is meaningless and merely whining."

Subjective oughts are the only ones that exist. My subjective ought is the only one I have. How could I think anything other than what I think?

 

[anonymous person]

See the one highlighted in bold. It is in need of further justification.

In the absence of God, a male of the homo sapien species has no obligation to refrain from taking another of the same species and forcefully copulating with it.

Do you disagree with this statement?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the absence of God, a male of the homo sapien species has no obligation to refrain from taking another of the same species and forcefully copulating with it.

Do you disagree with this statement?

I pointed out that you haven't justified this claim. I see no reason to assume that moral propositions must appeal to supernatural forces.

 

[anonymous person]

As Gordon Wright (dismissively) noted: "There is a subjective "ought" which is meaningless and merely whining."

Subjective oughts are the only ones that exist. My subjective ought is the only one I have. How could I think anything other than what I think?

God's Divine Commands which are His (subjective) commands constitute our moral obligations and duties since He is the competent moral authority to whom we are obligated.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God's Divine Commands which are His (subjective) commands constitute our moral obligations and duties since He is the competent moral authority to whom we are obligated.

Does that answer your question?

How is competence here defined?

 

[Dave-W]

When I think of morality, I think of human wellbeing, and the actions of the God described in the Bible are as far from that form of morality as I can imagine.

Well, maybe your imagination needs a bit of stretching.

 

[Eudaimonist]

True. It implies the person saying that is putting their own opinion above everyone else, including God.

It may mean recognizing that what one should do isn't a matter of anyone's opinions, including God's, and especially your opinion of what God wants.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

I pointed out that you haven't justified this claim. I see no reason to assume that moral propositions must appeal to supernatural forces.

It is either God to whom we are morally obligated or natural processes acting upon matter. The first is a competent moral authority who is essentially Good. The later is inanimate matter being acted upon by certain forces in nature.

But we are not obligated to rocks or atoms or stardust or chemical compounds. We are obligated to a conscious mind back of it all that has a design and a purpose toward which nature is tending.

Now if you want to accuse me of creating a false dichotomy, you will need to offer a third alternative such as moral platonism which is fraught through with problems.

Or you can say that there are no moral obligations at all. But if you say that then you lose the right to argue that Yahweh ought to have done or not done thus and so.

 

[anonymous person]

It may mean recognizing that what one should do isn't a matter of anyone's opinions, including God's, and especially your opinion of what God wants.


eudaimonia,

Mark

We are only obligated to persons who are in a position to have authority over us and who can hold us accountable. We are not obligated to matter or natural forces for they have no capacity to hold us accountable or to issue moral prescriptions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is either God to whom we are morally obligated or natural processes acting upon matter.

What? Where are you getting that from, and why are these the only two options?

But we are not obligated to rocks or atoms or stardust or chemical compounds.

Who says that we are?

We are obligated to a conscious mind back of it all that has a design and a purpose toward which nature is tending.

Again, false dichotomy. God is not the only conscious mind.

Now if you want to accuse me of creating a false dichotomy, you will need to offer a third alternative such as moral platonism which is fraught through with problems.

Even if moral platonism is fraught with problems (and I'm not a moral platonist), that would still be another possible option, and you are still erecting a false dichotomy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave-W]

It may mean recognizing that what one should do isn't a matter of anyone's opinions, including God's,

God's opinion is the ONLY one that really matters. And He certainly has an opinion on what everyone should or should not do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We are only obligated to persons who are in a position to have authority over us and who can hold us accountable.

So you claim, but I don't see any reasons why this is so. I see no connection between moral obligations and authorities, or between moral obligations and accountability.

What leads to you conclude this?

We are not obligated to matter or natural forces for they have no capacity to hold us accountable or to issue moral prescriptions.

Who is saying this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

God's opinion is the ONLY one that really matters.

I don't see why that should be the case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is either God to whom we are morally obligated or natural processes acting upon matter. The first is a competent moral authority who is essentially Good. The later is inanimate matter being acted upon by certain forces in nature.

1. False dichotomy.
2. How is competence here defined?

But we are not obligated to rocks or atoms or stardust or chemical compounds. We are obligated to a conscious mind back of it all that has a design and a purpose toward which nature is tending.

Of course we are not obligated to "rocks or atoms or stardust or chemical compounds." This is a strawman.

Now if you want to accuse me of creating a false dichotomy, you will need to offer a third alternative such as moral platonism which is fraught through with problems.

It is a false dichotomy. Morality concerns agents, not "rocks or atoms."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God's opinion is the ONLY one that really matters. And He certainly has an opinion on what everyone should or should not do.

1. Why?
2. How do we learn of "God's opinion"?

 

[Dave-W]

2. How do we learn of "God's opinion"?

Read the bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Read the bible.

Why? Why shouldn't I read the Quran or the Book of Mormon for "God's opinion"?

 

[anonymous person]

Let me be very clear what my point is. Richard Taylor, an ethicist remarks,

A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.

Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason, pp. 83-4.

Now if anyone here disagrees with this then they need to explain to me to whom we are morally obligated to and why we are obligated to them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let me be very clear what my point is. Richard Taylor, an ethicist remarks,

A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.

Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason, pp. 83-4.

Now if anyone here disagrees with this then they need to explain to me to whom we are morally obligated to and why we are obligated to them.

You just copied and pasted this from Reasonable Faith. I recall other members who would often do this (Elioenai26, Jeremy E Walker, Joshua260). Do they happen to be friends of yours?