The Moral Argument (revamped)

[durangodawood]

....There are only two sources for such "Objective values" platonism, or God.....

Thats denied by the article you provided:

"It (Moral Absolutism) holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source."

See why I ask the people making the case rather than asking google?

 

[Uber Genius]

Wow that definition is all over the place.

Who knew my whole naturalistic argument here was a moral absolutist position too!

Yes. That is a great point that many will miss.

Platonism in some fashion just suggests that universal forms are responsible for everything in our world, including horses, stars, people, our ability to think about math, and even the number 2 exists.

So it is not a popular inference but it is available.

In the OP article, at the bottom of section 5 the author says:

"Perhaps the strongest non-theistic alternative would be some form of ethical non-naturalism, in which one simply affirms that the claim that persons have a special dignity is an a priori truth requiring no explanation. In effect this is a decision for a non-theistic form of Platonism.

The proponent of the argument may well agree that claims about the special status of humans are true a priori, and thus also opt for some form of Platonism. However, the proponent of the argument will point out that some necessary truths can be explained by other necessary truths. The theist believes that these truths about the special status of humans tell us something about the kind of universe humans find themselves in. To say that humans are created by God is to say that personhood is not an ephemeral or accidental feature of the universe, because at bottom reality itself is personal (Mavrodes 1986)."

I did a quick search to identify a scholar who defended "atheistic moral platonism," but was not able to find one. I know some exist and will try and find an example that goes into some depth so you can explore this inference to the origin of objective moral values.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes. That is a great point that many will miss.

Platonism in some fashion just suggests that universal forms are responsible for everything in our world, including horses, stars, people, our ability to think about math, and even the number 2 exists.

So it is not a popular inference but it is available.

In the OP article, at the bottom of section 5 the author says:

"Perhaps the strongest non-theistic alternative would be some form of ethical non-naturalism, in which one simply affirms that the claim that persons have a special dignity is an a priori truth requiring no explanation. In effect this is a decision for a non-theistic form of Platonism.

The proponent of the argument may well agree that claims about the special status of humans are true a priori, and thus also opt for some form of Platonism. However, the proponent of the argument will point out that some necessary truths can be explained by other necessary truths. The theist believes that these truths about the special status of humans tell us something about the kind of universe humans find themselves in. To say that humans are created by God is to say that personhood is not an ephemeral or accidental feature of the universe, because at bottom reality itself is personal (Mavrodes 1986)."

I did a quick search to identify a scholar who defended "atheistic moral platonism," but was not able to find one. I know some exist and will try and find an example that goes into some depth so you can explore this inference to the origin of objective moral values.

Oh man, if youre going to hold a total faith position like "atheistic moral platonism", why not just go the extra step and put a friendly (Jesus) face on it? I mean, it should require zero additional exertion.

My argument for naturalistic morality is basically: morals describe the behaviors that naturally make individuals most satisfied and preserve the group, based on the sort of beings/species we naturally are. There's no appeal at all to any "outside" force or standard.

 

[Uber Genius]

Thats denied by the article you provided:

"It (Moral Absolutism) holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source."

See why I ask the people making the case rather than asking google?

Sorry. Article was sloppy. Platonism and God are the only two sources for objective moral duties.

Nature of humanity is absurd. This would be category of reference to the nature of subjects, which would be an argument for moral relativism or perhaps try and bail out and suggest evolutionary moral determinism.

Point is, "If moral duties are objective feature of the universe, what is their grounding?"

- Nature of humanity is not a ground of OBJECTIVE.

At best it could explain why we have the false perception that morals are objective.

Which is also why we should do more than 30-seconds of research. Hoist on my own petard by breaking my own rule for research, good catch.

Further, we should look for scholarly sites like:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

WorldWideScience

ERIC - Education Resources Information Center

https://scholar.google.com/

 

[Tinker Grey]

My argument for naturalistic morality is basically: morals describe the behaviors that naturally make individuals most satisfied and preserve the group, based on the sort of beings we naturally are. There's no appeal at all to any "outside" force or standard.

Exactly. And as a member of species, the impulse that evolution imposes on my responses feels external and hence our feeling that morality is 'objective'.

 

[Uber Genius]

Oh man, if youre going to hold a total faith position like "atheistic moral platonism", why not just go the extra step and put a friendly (Jesus) face on it? I mean, it should require zero additional exertion.

Platonism is not argued by total faith.

Christian claims are based on 24 or so sound arguments for theism and a handful of arguments for the Christian inference regarding theism. They are cumulative and may or may not be compelling based on various factors and assessments.

 

[durangodawood]

....- Nature of humanity is not a ground of OBJECTIVE......

My strong sense is that the nature of humanity absolutely is objective, in that its open to shared scrutiny the way any other domain of animal behavior is.

I think the wise know this and have couched their collective observations in the great scriptures of enduring wisdom traditions.

 

[Uber Genius]

Exactly. And as a member of species, the impulse that evolution imposes on my responses feels external and hence our feeling that morality is 'objective'.

So William Lane Craig is sympathetic to the theory of evolution just not to naturalism. He is also the biggest proponent of the moral argument for God.

So how one knows truths is different then how one grounds whether something exists or not. The first description is known as epistemology, the second, ontology.

On Naturalism we would have a defeater, but that is a completely different conversation.

However, the best example of a philosopher arguing against the premise that objective moral values exist in the fashion you do is Michael Ruse. I enjoy his work and perhaps you might find much in common.

So it could be the case that God uses evolution to produce homo sapiens and that as a function of their larger brains they are able to perform rational functioning that has its basis in things like Pythagorean theorems, and the foundational laws of logic, which are all classified as immediate knowledge, or intuitions that seem always true and impossible to falsify, also known as self-evident truths of which even atheistic philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Ayn Rand belief exist objectively.

This is more formally known as a category error.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My strong sense is that the nature of humanity absolutely is objective, in that its open to shared scrutiny the way any other domain of animal behavior is.

I think the wise know this and have couched their collective observations in the great scriptures of enduring wisdom traditions.

I agree with this. BTW, I wonder what you were quoting when you quoted me. I don't think that text shows up in my post.

 

[Uber Genius]

My argument for naturalistic morality is basically: morals describe the behaviors that naturally make individuals most satisfied and preserve the group, based on the sort of beings/species we naturally are. There's no appeal at all to any "outside" force or standard.

See post #77 to see why many Atheist moral philosophers reject this position as false!

 

[durangodawood]

...Nature of humanity is not a ground of OBJECTIVE.....

My strong sense is that the nature of humanity absolutely is objective, in that its open to shared scrutiny the way any other domain of animal behavior is.

I think the wise know this and have couched their collective observations in the great scriptures of enduring wisdom traditions.

(Darn it... gotta go to work and stop thinking about big things)

 

[durangodawood]

I agree with this. BTW, I wonder what you were quoting when you quoted me. I don't think that text shows up in my post.

Oops I screwed something up and was actually quoting Super Genius.

 

[Uber Genius]

My strong sense is that the nature of humanity absolutely is objective, in that its open to shared scrutiny the way any other domain of animal behavior is.

I think the wise know this and have couched their collective observations in the great scriptures of enduring wisdom traditions.

(Darn it... gotta go to work and stop thinking about big things)

This is not what "Objective" means!

This is an equivocation.

Objective simply means without reference to subjects.

Moral values are either outside of humans or not.

If outside of humans in their ontology, their existence that is, then they are said to be "Objective moral values."

If a function of human culture or evolution then they are relative or subjective (a function of subjects).

"the nature of humanity absolutely is objective," doesn't even intersect with the discussion of whether morals exist objectively.

At best it would espouse that moral perception is a function of the "Nature of humanity." This claim is an epistemic claim about what people know, not whether objective moral values exist, and is known in logic as a category error.

We are interested in ontic claims here,

not epistemic claims.

 

[createdtoworship]

So you think all those examples are false?
OK
So, whats your source from where you gain such certainty on this topic?

that would be reversing the burden of proof, a fallacy. Let me explain:
Shifting the Burden of Proof

many people shift the burden of proof, even Christians.

that’s why we must all appeal to common logic, and honesty. We don't learn to think rationally by general classwork, we must train our minds to be rational.

It’s a discipline we must undergo.

I cannot prove God exists, but I can make a compelling case for His existence.

But to say, you can't disprove his existence, is simply shifting the burden of proof.

under the refuting arguments section of a (nonpartisan site about logic) it says
"In a formal argument, the primary arguer must establish a ...case (that stands on its own) and thus carries the burden of proof.
The opponent only needs to show that the case is not proven to win the argument"

above quote from:
Refuting the Argument

so basically you must establish wikipedia is a valid source of information, since you are the one making that claim.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh man, if youre going to hold a total faith position like "atheistic moral platonism", why not just go the extra step and put a friendly (Jesus) face on it? I mean, it should require zero additional exertion.

My argument for naturalistic morality is basically: morals describe the behaviors that naturally make individuals most satisfied and preserve the group, based on the sort of beings/species we naturally are. There's no appeal at all to any "outside" force or standard.

but you have not proven that animals show the same love that humans do. You would think that the rich give the most to charity, but what studies have proven is that average income earners give 90% of the charity in the united states. Basically people who can't afford to give, give. That is sacrificial love, I don't see that in animal kingdom accept in family units.

"And among individual givers in the U.S., while the wealthy do their part (as you’ll see later in this essay), the vast predominance of offerings come from average citizens of moderate income."
Who Gives

Like I said, you can see animals showing love for other pack animals, sharing food. But it is not predominant, and normally they will not do it in a self sacrificial way.


So the point stands, where did the moral law come from? And why does humans have it when other mammals don't?

 

[Moral Orel]

Objective simply means without reference to subjects.

Moral values are either outside of humans or not.

There's the bait and switch. See it? You start using "without reference to subjects" and then sneak in the premise "only humans can be subjects". But that's a false premise because God is a subject too. Ahh, the tricks theists play...

 

[durangodawood]

....so basically you must establish wikipedia is a valid source of information, since you are the one making that claim.

The initial claim that animals do not display food sharing behaviors among their group was yours. Your claim. Thats the claim I'd like you to back up.

 

[Uber Genius]

Oops I screwed something up and was actually quoting Super Genius.

That's "UUUBBBEEERRR Genius."

 

[gaara4158]

that would be reversing the burden of proof, a fallacy. Let me explain:
Shifting the Burden of Proof

many people shift the burden of proof, even Christians.

that’s why we must all appeal to common logic, and honesty. We don't learn to think rationally by general classwork, we must train our minds to be rational.

It’s a discipline we must undergo.

I cannot prove God exists, but I can make a compelling case for His existence.

But to say, you can't disprove his existence, is simply shifting the burden of proof.

under the refuting arguments section of a (nonpartisan site about logic) it says
"In a formal argument, the primary arguer must establish a ...case (that stands on its own) and thus carries the burden of proof.
The opponent only needs to show that the case is not proven to win the argument"

above quote from:
Refuting the Argument

so basically you must establish wikipedia is a valid source of information, since you are the one making that claim.

How convenient, that you can make whatever claim you want but when people say you’re wrong they must cite sources, and it it better not be Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is not a source in itself, but it is an aggregate of information that often does come from cited sources. Even so, it is perfectly sufficient in response to an unsupported claim, like your initial one that sharing behavior is not observed in nonhuman animals.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I posted a peer review that proved it sir.

Your statement that:

“For example male on male homosexual sex, makes the immune system very weak...”

Is so obviously, ridiculously false I’m surprised that I have to point it out. This nonsense is just making you look even worse than you would have just by posting one of the worst “proofs” for a god’s existence I’ve heard.

So tell me, how does oral sex between two men with no venereal diseases make their immune systems weak?