The Moral Argument (revamped)

[Uber Genius]

Self-Evident Truths

Remember that we only have three categories for foundational beliefs:

self-evident
evident to the senses
incorrigible

A self-evident belief is one that, upon understanding it, you see it to be true.

Typical self-evident beliefs include the laws of logic and arithmetic and some metaphysical principles like “An object can’t be red all over and blue all over at the same time.”

Additionally defined as "Intuitionism in Ethics" again from Stanford:

"All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument. Price distinguishes intuition from two other grounds of knowledge—namely, immediate consciousness or feeling on the one hand, and argumentation, on the other. Argumentation, or deduction, is knowledge that is ultimately derived from what is immediately apprehended, either by sensation or by the understanding. Immediate consciousness, or feeling, is the mind's awareness of its own existence and mental states (Price, 1758/1969, 159). It shares immediacy with intuition, but unlike intuition does not have as its object a self-evident proposition. Such immediate self-consciousness is immediate apprehension by sensation. Intuition is immediate apprehension by the understanding. It is the way that we apprehend self-evident truths, general and abstract ideas, “and anything else we may discover, without making any use of any process of reasoning.''''

For more see:
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


So what people studying this area of knowledge argue is that any argument attempting to diminish trust in self-evident truths will depend on logical reasoning. But logical reasoning is a form of self-evident truth. Each step in the argument is logically self-evident given the prior steps (excluding the premises). So any attempt to undercut or rebut self-evident truths will require the use of those truths to do so. Therefore, any such argument is practically contradictory.

Now the above knowledge gained as self-evidently true is nevertheless requiring proper function of one's faculties. So I can raise a child in an abusive way that will damage their intuition about moral truths, or similarly I can get into a car accident and lose my moral intuition due to a brain injury. Similar to the loss of sense perception and ability to reason.

 

[Uber Genius]

I agree there's moral facts.

But "absolutes"? Im not even sure what that means?

Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't Rape
Love your neighbor as yourself
Care for the widow
Care for the orphan
Care for the alien (foreigner not extraplanetary alien)

Those are moral absolutes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now you're just being daft. It was literally pointed out by Tinker Grey in post #2, we're a social species.
Full stop.

We learned thousand of years ago as a species, that if we cooperate, we don't have to spend all of our time hunting, gathering and shelter building. This is all you need. Study it as much / little as you like, but this is a sufficient explanation that comports with reality.

thanks again, I fully refuted this in this post: The Moral Argument (revamped)

 

[createdtoworship]

, So I can raise a child in an abusive way that will damage their intuition about moral truths, or similarly I can get into a car accident and lose my moral intuition due to a brain injury. Similar to the loss of sense perception and ability to reason.

I agree, but I am talking about society in general, not a small case.

 

[Uber Genius]

You don't need a Gd to lead a moral life. Morality is physically ingrained in our psyche- as witnessed by the PTSD reactions among people involved in taking lives- be that soldiers, executioners or mass murders. More so, the history of a human development and organization is purely based on what we would consider morality. A lack of morality is actually and widely considered a mental deficiency, an abnormality.

Your first claim is also claimed by everyone making the moral argument.

So atheists, and pantheist, and pagans, and panentheists, and monotheist alike all have the same faculty to perceive (intuit) moral truths. The NT also affirms this idea.

Read my comments to see why atheist philosophers suggest that moral values and duties can't possibly be a function of evolution.

Finally, the point here is not to develop an ethical framework for describing Why people acted morally or even what counts as morality. The point is:

If atheists and theists and everyone has similar moral intuitions that are in fact outside of culture (wrong in every case even if everyone votes that they are moral),

then we need an explanation of the objective nature of those values and duties.

Example:

Suppose Hitler won WWII.
Now suppose further that he went on to dominate the entire world.
Now suppose that only a few million people were left on the planet that were not NAZIs.
If 7+Billion people voted that Hitler should kill the remaining few million who were not NAZIs would it still be wrong for Hitler to kill those remaining few?

 

[HitchSlap]

thanks again, I fully refuted this in this post: The Moral Argument (revamped)

No, you didn't. Societal evolution is well understood, and is independently supported by genetics, archaeology, neurobiology, cognitive science and recorded history. It's all you need to sufficiently explain morality. I know, I know, it's neater to ascribe to your god, though. I get it, but it's unnecessary for understanding.

 

[createdtoworship]

See if you can answer this yourself. What would happen to humans as a whole if we did not tend to live by a moral code?

exactly what is happening. Social unrest, crime increasing.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you didn't. Societal evolution is well understood, and is independently supported by genetics, archaeology, neurobiology, cognitive science and recorded history. It's all you need to sufficiently explain morality. I know, I know, it's neater to ascribe to your god, though. I get it, but it's unnecessary for understanding.

thanks for the debate, but you'll excuse me if I will reply to other posters now. I can see you are no longer open minded regarding the OP.

 

[HitchSlap]

exactly what is happening. Social unrest, crime increasing.

Oh please. We're safer than we've ever been. Ever.

Read Daniel Gardner's book The Science of Fear. Or watch this. I know this doesn't play into your apocalyptic notions, but the sky isn't falling.

 

[HitchSlap]

thanks for the debate, but you'll excuse me if I will reply to other posters now. I can see you are no longer open minded regarding the OP.

You shouldn't confuse rejecting nonsense as close mindedness.

 

[gaara4158]

exactly what is happening. Social unrest, crime increasing.

Social unrest and crime are lower now than they have ever been in history, but let’s pretend you’re right. And in the long term, what do you see happening to an immoral society? Do you see them surviving more than a few generations?

 

[HitchSlap]

It's hilarious how much trouble the religious folk have determining morality.

Your first claim is also claimed by everyone making the moral argument.

So atheists, and pantheist, and pagans, and panentheists, and monotheist alike all have the same faculty to perceive (intuit) moral truths. The NT also affirms this idea.

Read my comments to see why atheist philosophers suggest that moral values and duties can't possibly be a function of evolution.

Finally, the point here is not to develop an ethical framework for describing Why people acted morally or even what counts as morality. The point is:

If atheists and theists and everyone has similar moral intuitions that are in fact outside of culture (wrong in every case even if everyone votes that they are moral). Then we need an explanation of the objective nature of those values and duties.

Example:

Suppose Hitler won WWII.
Now suppose further that he went on to dominate the entire world.
Now suppose that only a few million people were left on the planet that were not NAZIs.
If 7+Billion people voted that Hitler should kill the remaining few million who were not NAZIs would it still be wrong for Hitler to kill those remaining few?

 

[createdtoworship]

And in the long term, what do you see happening to an immoral society? Do you see them surviving more than a few generations?

It would depend on the level of the immorality of course. For example male on male homosexual sex, makes the immune system very weak, according to studies and highly susceptible to HIV virus. So much in fact that AIDS used to be called GRIDS (gay related immune deficiency syndrome). It is something that rubber prophylactics do not prevent due to the violent nature of the sin. some scholars believe this is one reason among many why rome fell. The average median age of death for a male homosexual is 50 years old. I would not know.

 

[durangodawood]

Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't Rape
Love your neighbor as yourself
Care for the widow
Care for the orphan
Care for the alien (foreigner not extraplanetary alien)

Those are moral absolutes.

Those are instances in the category "moral absolutes", according to you.

What I'm looking for is what moral absolute means. What defines this category?

 

[createdtoworship]

Those are instances in the category "moral absolutes", according to you.

What I'm looking for is what moral absolute means. What defines this category?

we have defined this many times. I simply have to ask if you can find a tribe or culture that honors selfishness, or in contrast find a culture that does not honor self sacrifice (in the traditional sense of the word). Those are moral absolutes. There is a lot of them.

 

[gaara4158]

It would depend on the level of the immorality of course. For example male on male homosexual sex, makes the immune system very weak, according to studies and highly susceptible to HIV virus. So much in fact that AIDS used to be called GRIDS (gay related immune deficiency syndrome). It is something that rubber prophylactics do not prevent due to the violent nature of the sin. some scholars believe this is one reason why rome fell.

Yikes, that’s not true, but let’s again pretend it is. Are you beginning to see how a moral compass lends a species better longevity than a lack thereof? If so, how is it surprising to find that we, a complex social species that has existed a quarter million years, has an innate moral compass?

 

[HitchSlap]

It would depend on the level of the immorality of course. For example male on male homosexual sex, makes the immune system very weak, according to studies and highly susceptible to HIV virus. So much in fact that AIDS used to be called GRIDS (gay related immune deficiency syndrome). It is something that rubber prophylactics do not prevent due to the violent nature of the sin. some scholars believe this is one reason among many why rome fell. The average median age of death for a male homosexual is 50 years old. I would not know.

Lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Yikes, that’s not true, but let’s again pretend it is. Are you beginning to see how a moral compass lends a species better longevity than a lack thereof? If so, how is it surprising to find that we, a complex social species that has existed a quarter million years, has an innate moral compass?

well lets start here: "yikes, that's not true" please refute the peer review document I provided supporting my comments.

 

[Freodin]

I will give you a hint: here in princetons online dictionary. On their dictionary they said evil is: "having or exerting a malignant influence." So the next question is if god tortures babies for fun, is a malignant influence, then yes he would be evil, according to princeton. So 99% of the atheists I have talked to believe torturing babies for fun is a malignant influence. Even the ones on here. So If you disagree with this, then you are either disagreeing with princeton, or you are disagreeing with 99% of atheists. source: WordNet Search - 3.1

"Malignant", using the same dictionary, meaning "evil in nature, influence or effect".

So "evil" is... "having an evil influence". Well done, gradyll!

Is it really so difficult for you to answer this question? I mentioned it in my first post: I never get any direct answers to it... and you just tagged all the points.

"I will give you a hint": meaning, I won't tell you directly. Figure it out for yourself. Well, I want to know what you think it means. I won't second-guess others.

"If you disagree with this...": meaning, "Oh, so you don't think it is? Well, others do!"
I never said anything about what I think, agree or disagree with: I was asking you a direct question to explain this assertion you made.

And you just cannot give an answer. About a topic that seems to be very important to you.

I find that extremely telling.

 

[gaara4158]

well lets start here: "yikes, that's not true" please refute the peer review document I provided supporting my comments.

It’s not important to my point. Please address my question.