The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

Yes, we are done if your final retort is “evolution is not proven.” It has been a pleasure. I hope you can make better logical arguments in the future.

If I post more threads here, feel free to join. Take care.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

thats his phrase, not mine. If you want a definition ask him. Is that the only question you had? Yes, my phrases were, moral facts, moral absolutes, etc.

You seem to miss the fact that I just showed that the idea that morality is our highest imperative is subjective, which refutes your previous post.

 

[createdtoworship]

You seem to miss the fact that I just showed that the idea that morality is our highest imperative is subjective, which refutes your previous post.

actually it would not be subjective. The law supercedes physical nature, as I have proven. We only need to find a culture that honors selfishness, and criminalizes self sacrifice. That would be one of the only things that could disprove what I am saying. All cultures follow the same moral laws. And our performance of the law, is less than our desire to perform. We perform it less than we desire to. Which shows that the laws origin is above ourselves, or not rooted in nature.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

actually it would not be subjective.

Of course it's subjective, for the reason that I gave earlier that you didn't actually address.

The law supercedes physical nature, as I have proven.

a) That's your subjective opinion.
b) Like I've mentioned earlier, proof isn't for arguments, it's for math and alcohol. Anyone who calls themselves a "logical debater" should know that. So you haven't "proven" anything.

We only need to find a culture that honors selfishness, and criminalizes self sacrifice. That would be one of the only things that could disprove what I am saying.

No... it wouldn't "prove" or "disprove" anything. The difference between "objective" and "subjective" isn't popularity.

All cultures follow the same moral laws. And our performance of the law, is less than our desire to perform.

If all cultures subjectively follow the same moral laws, it doesn't make it objective, it makes it intersubjective.

We perform it less than we desire to. Which shows that the laws origin is above ourselves, or not rooted in nature.

I'm thinking that you really need to do some reading about logic before you post. You're seriously not helping your cause by continually making these mistakes. It would be like posting in a math forum and insisting that the value of pi is 8...

 

[createdtoworship]

No... it wouldn't "prove" or "disprove" anything. The difference between "objective" and "subjective" isn't popularity.

Intersubjectivity is used to determine objectivity. But I don't believe the moral law is subjective, I believe it is objective.

lets try this another way, is rape wrong?

is it wrong if a tribe votes it as right and does it anyway?

is it wrong if some countries think it is right?

YES, it is still wrong. This is an example of objective morality, versus subjective morality of say "killing is wrong" well this is subjective, but "killing innocent human beings is wrong" is objective, regardless of culture, religion, or race.

now does that mean that morality is both objective and subjective?

I don't think so, I believe the statement "killing people is wrong" is not a universal moral truth. So it is a category error using it. Only universal moral truths can be used as a litmus test for the question "is morality objective or subjective." Because it is only those truths that contain the 100% morality that we need.


in conclusion, we would only need one example to prove that objective moral truth exists, even if we only have 1. IT still proves that it is possible in the universe that objective moral truth exists.


now where does that morality come from?


we already proved it transcends all races, religions, and cultures.


and that is it is known by intuition.

Since it is known by intuition (through our conscience), and since no other animals even apes or chimpanzees (genetically 90-97% similar), have said morality (objectively speaking)


we can deduce this morality is from outside of ourselves.


according to talk origins large gorillas have brain sizes of 700cc, which is comparable to small humans.

Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes


so why don't gorillas with nearly the same brain size have the same objective moral truth that we do? Chimpanzees are known to eat their own children for example.


Because morality is above ourselves, and it is inherent in our souls, animals who don't have souls will not have the morality that is from God. They have family instinct to take care of young etc, but not the morality we talk of that is objective above.

----------------------
Here is a quote from a book by norman geisler:


Lewis’ Moral Argument. The most popular modern form of the moral argument was given
by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. He not only gives the most complete form of the argument
in the most persuasive way, but he also answers major objections. The moral argument of Lewis
can be summarized:
1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Intersubjectivity is used to determine objectivity.

The very first sentence, and you get it wrong. Intersubjectively is just subjectivity that’s consistent. It has absolutely no ties into objectivity.

If everyone thought that chocolate was the best flavor of ice cream, it would be an intersubjecive opinion. It doesn’t magically become objective just because it’s widely (or even universally held).

Seriously, start reading some actual Philosophy books. Because even if you end up having a valid point in any of your posts, it’s going to be overlooked by all the mistakes you’re making.

lets try this another way, is rape wrong?

No.

Now show that I’m wrong objectively.

And please be aware that sputtering “you can’t really mean that” or “everyone knows that rape is wrong” or “you must be mentally ill to think that” does not constitute an actual argument. It’s not evidence that rape is objectively wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

The very first sentence, and you get it wrong. Intersubjectively is just subjectivity that’s consistent. It has absolutely no ties into objectivity.

you may want to look that one up. "Intersubjectivity also helps to constitute objectivity" wikipedia, and I also found that above on another site. I don't like wikipedia, but you guys seem to feel that it is authoritative or something, so for now I will use it.

If everyone thought that chocolate was the best flavor of ice cream, it would be an intersubjecive opinion. It doesn’t magically become objective just because it’s widely (or even universally held).

again I see what you are saying, but I don't think thats how rationalists etc are using it right now.

Seriously, start reading some actual Philosophy books. Because even if you end up having a valid point in any of your posts, it’s going to be overlooked by all the mistakes you’re making.

I guess I would have to see some of the mistakes before researching more. And BTW the person I quoted has a phd in philosophy. Thats why I quoted him.

No.

Now show that I’m wrong objectively.

And please be aware that sputtering “you can’t really mean that” or “everyone knows that rape is wrong” or “you must be mentally ill to think that” does not constitute an actual argument. It’s not evidence that rape is objectively wrong.

my own opinion does not matter, but how about a peer review proving it's wrong?

Wrong of Rape

at this point you may say that rape is wrong is his opinion. But please find a culture or group that says uncontrolled rape to anyone in the tribe is ok. Then I may agree that you are correct. This is relatively easy to prove objectively. I believe your problem stems from the fact that you don't believe intersubjectivity aids in finding objective truth like most people online are saying.

Also more importantly, lets talk about tact. I did notice that you are somewhat angry. This does not help your debate, but encourages ad hominem attack, and mistake. Someone to win a debate merely need to get his opponent angry, it becomes very easy to examine flaws in the arguments of someone who has lots their cool. The comment that said my first statement was wrong implying everything afterward was itself wrong, via 2 sources. But I don't like the tactic your posts are using to try to belittle my view point. If everyone in the world believed the way your posts indicate, that does not mean that they are correct. Thats the bandwagon fallacy. I have seen errors in your posts, but have not mocked you for them, but simply addressed the post, not you personally. I have repeatedly said, your comment was wrong, not you personally. So what if I said something wrong, does that make all the other statements false? That would be poisoning the well. See so there are three fallacies that your statements make, simply because you approach this from an angry viewpoint. Relax bud, it's just us here. Also I will be addressing the post above from now on. If that is okay, we can use talking points from above, little by little.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[ToddNotTodd]

you may want to look that one up. "Intersubjectivity also helps to constitute objectivity" wikipedia, and I also found that above on another site. I don't like wikipedia, but you guys seem to feel that it is authoritative or something, so for now I will use it.

First, you originally posted that "Intersubjectivity is used to determine objectivity". That's not what Wikipedia says. You're using an equivocation fallacy.

Second, the paragraph in question isn't talking about moral intersubjectivity, it's talking about we use intersubjectivity to justify existent reality. As in, I see a tree over there and you see a tree over there, so we can tentatively say the tree objectively exists. Again, not what I was talking about at all, since objective reality and opinions about morality aren't in the same sphere. Trees exist as things in reality, moral opinions don't. Using the wording from Wikipedia, the best you can say is that because different people experience opinions about morality as brain states then opinions about morality exist as brain states. That says nothing about subjectivity or objectivity.

again I see what you are saying, but I don't think thats how rationalists etc are using it right now.

That's what I was taught when I got my bachelor's in Philosophy. I doubt it's changed.

I guess I would have to see some of the mistakes before researching more. And BTW the person I quoted has a phd in philosophy. Thats why I quoted him.

Argument from authority fallacy.

my own opinion does not matter, but how about a peer review proving it's wrong?

Wrong of Rape

Argument from authority and argument from popularity fallacies.

at this point you may say that rape is wrong is his opinion. But please find a culture or group that says uncontrolled rape to anyone in the tribe is ok. Then I may agree that you are correct.

Argument from popularity fallacy.

This is relatively easy to prove objectively.

I really don't think you're understanding the difference between objective and subjective.

I believe your problem stems from the fact that you don't believe intersubjectivity aids in finding objective truth like most people online are saying.

Show me where "most people online" are saying that moral intersubjectivity leads to moral objectivity.

Also more importantly, lets talk about tact. I did notice that you are somewhat angry.

Nope, not angry at all. I even was trying to help you out by letting you know that your consistent mistakes might lead to people dismissing your arguments, since you keep making the same mistakes.

This does not help your debate, but encourages ad hominem attack, and mistake.

I haven't engaged in an ad hominem fallacy, because I haven't said your argument is incorrect because of some personal defect. I'm saying other people could take it that way.

Someone to win a debate merely need to get his opponent angry, it becomes very easy to examine flaws in the arguments of someone who has lots their cool. The comment that said my first statement was wrong implying everything afterward was itself wrong, via 2 sources.

No it wasn't. You're reading into it something that isn't there. And your first sentence was wrong in context.

But I don't like the tactic your posts are using to try to belittle my view point. If everyone in the world believed the way your posts indicate, that does not mean that they are correct. Thats the bandwagon fallacy.

Which I haven't engaged in, since I didn't say it. Putting words in people's mouths is disingenuous.

I have seen errors in your posts, but have not mocked you for them, but simply addressed the post, not you personally.

When you point out an actual mistake, I'll let you know. I admit my mistakes when I make them. I haven't seen you do the same.

I have repeatedly said, your comment was wrong, not you personally.

Not to me you haven't.

So what if I said something wrong, does that make all the other statements false? That would be poisoning the well. See so there are three fallacies that your statements make, simply because you approach this from an angry viewpoint.

Again, I didn't say that, so no, it wasn't a fallacy. And you're again putting words in my mouth.

Let me ask you this before we go any further. Are you actually trying to argue in good faith, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of people? Because that's what it seems.

 

[durangodawood]

....Argument from authority fallacy.....

How is that even a fallacy?

When people study a topic intensively, what they think about that topic should matter.

Of course, the credentials underpinning their expertise should be questioned.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How is that even a fallacy?

Well, first off... because it is...
I mean, you can Google it...

But in short, just because somebody has a PhD doesn’t mean that any statement by them is necessarily true, or even more likely to be true.

There are countless examples of “experts” who were very wrong about something related to their field. It happens every day. So you can’t just use their credentials as evidence that they’re correct.

 

[durangodawood]

...But in short, just because somebody has a PhD doesn’t mean that any statement by them is necessarily true, or even more likely to be true.....

Then why do we even let them teach... if their statements about their field are no more likely to be true than yours or mine or even their students'?

 

[createdtoworship]

First, you originally posted that "Intersubjectivity is used to determine objectivity". That's not what Wikipedia says. You're using an equivocation fallacy.

Second, the paragraph in question isn't talking about moral intersubjectivity, it's talking about we use intersubjectivity to justify existent reality. As in, I see a tree over there and you see a tree over there, so we can tentatively say the tree objectively exists. Again, not what I was talking about at all, since objective reality and opinions about morality aren't in the same sphere. Trees exist as things in reality, moral opinions don't. Using the wording from Wikipedia, the best you can say is that because different people experience opinions about morality as brain states then opinions about morality exist as brain states. That says nothing about subjectivity or objectivity.



That's what I was taught when I got my bachelor's in Philosophy. I doubt it's changed.



Argument from authority fallacy.



Argument from authority and argument from popularity fallacies.



Argument from popularity fallacy.



I really don't think you're understanding the difference between objective and subjective.



Show me where "most people online" are saying that moral intersubjectivity leads to moral objectivity.



Nope, not angry at all. I even was trying to help you out by letting you know that your consistent mistakes might lead to people dismissing your arguments, since you keep making the same mistakes.



I haven't engaged in an ad hominem fallacy, because I haven't said your argument is incorrect because of some personal defect. I'm saying other people could take it that way.



No it wasn't. You're reading into it something that isn't there. And your first sentence was wrong in context.



Which I haven't engaged in, since I didn't say it. Putting words in people's mouths is disingenuous.



When you point out an actual mistake, I'll let you know. I admit my mistakes when I make them. I haven't seen you do the same.



Not to me you haven't.



Again, I didn't say that, so no, it wasn't a fallacy. And you're again putting words in my mouth.

Let me ask you this before we go any further. Are you actually trying to argue in good faith, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of people? Because that's what it seems.

there are alot of points here, and I will adress them when possible. But for now, you call me quoting a phd in philosophy an appeal to authority, (after asking I read a philosophy book)? But isn't the statement asking someone to read a book, an appeal to authority? isn't the statement that you have a bachelors in philosophy an appeal to authority? Lets start there. Again when someone is upset, they make a lot of common mistakes. It's best to just relax and let the logic of the debate go where it takes us.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then why do we even let them teach... if their statements about their field are no more likely to be true than yours or mine or even their students'?

I said any statement, as in any given statement. We hire teachers based on the totality of their accurate statements.

But, when a university finds that a teacher is consistently saying incorrect statements, they tend to get fired. Unless they’re tenured...

 

[durangodawood]

I said any statement, as in any given statement. We hire teachers based on the totality of their accurate statements.....

Any statement in their field of expertise, right?

Of course I'm not saying to privilege a biology PhD when he holds forth on art history.

But for any given statement he makes in his field, yes it IS more likely to be true than any given statement by a total layman.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

there are alot of points here, and I will adress them when possible. But for now, you call me quoting a phd in philosophy an appeal to authority, (after asking I read a philosophy book)? But isn't the statement asking someone to read a book, an appeal to authority?

No. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, whereby a person’s credentials are used as evidence that an argument is correct. I’m not making an argument in this case, so there’s no fallacy. I’m suggesting that you might want to have a better understanding of the subject you’re discussing.

isn't the statement that you have a bachelors in philosophy an appeal to authority?

No again. I didn’t say that because I have a degree in Philosophy my arguments are correct. I merely said that when I was getting my degree, intersubjectivity had the definition I’m using. Again, not a fallacy.

Lets start there. Again when someone is upset, they make a lot of common mistakes.

As I’ve said, I’m not upset. I do see that by saying this after I’ve explicitly said I’m not, you’re possibly trying to bait me into getting upset, thereby making yourself seem more sympathetic. Hopefully that’s not the case...

And again, you haven’t so far pointed out any actual mistakes. That’s not to say that I haven’t made any. You just haven’t correctly labeled any.

It's best to just relax and let the logic of the debate go where it takes us.

Indeed.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Any statement in their field of expertise, right?

Of course I'm not saying to privilege a biology PhD when he holds forth on art history.

But for any given statement he makes in his field, yes it IS more likely to be true than any given statement by a total layman.

Nope.

I’ve been developing websites for over 25 years, so I’m considered an expert. Is it more likely that the following statement is correct just because I’m an expert:

“The acronym HTLM stands for Hypertronic Markup Language.”

 

[durangodawood]

Nope.

I’ve been developing websites for over 25 years, so I’m considered an expert. Is it more likely that the following statement is correct just because I’m an expert:

“The acronym HTLM stands for Hypertronic Markup Language.”

If you are claiming its true, then yes - from the perspective of non expert observers... which is the typical perspective when we appeal to authorities.

Are you claiming its true?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you are claiming its true, then yes - from the perspective of non expert observers... which is the typical perspective when we appeal to authorities.

Are you claiming its true?

When you’re being presented with an appeal to authority fallacy, you don’t get to interrogate the source of the statement. All you have is the statement and the credentials of the source.

So... is it more likely that my statement is true just because I’m an expert?

 

[durangodawood]

When you’re being presented with an appeal to authority fallacy, you don’t get to interrogate the source of the statement. All you have is the statement and the credentials of the source.

So... is it more likely that my statement is true just because I’m an expert?

You can at least see where its published. Verify if its fake or real.

If you cant verify authenticity then of course the appeal to authority is suspect, but not because of any logical fallacy.

So how do I verify that you presented your statement in earnest rather than as a trick for argumentative purposes?