The Moral Argument

[Davian]

Was there a question?

 

[Davian]

If I say that the Nazis would have been doing something bad in implementing their final solution even if every human thought it was good, then I am affirming the objective badness of the final solution.

The word objective in the first premise is defined the way it is in any standard English dictionary. It is not defined as "God derived". Thus the charge of tautology is groundless. To think otherwise is to make the mistake of thinking the premise is about moral semantics, which it is not. It is about ontology.

To whom are you responding? Is the quote button broken for you?

 

[anonymous person]

I would say it would be 'bad', in the context of human wellness and empathy.

This is analogous to saying that it is objectively bad.

Can you list those "objective moral values" that you speak of, and how you made that determination?

Look at what you just said.

With regards to how you made that determination, well, that is simply irrelevant to the moral argument.

 

[anonymous person]

I am speaking to whoever it applies to. I use the quote button when I feel it suitable to do so.

 

[Davian]

This is analogous to saying that it is objectively bad.

But not the same.

Look at what you just said.

With regards to how you made that determination, well, that is simply irrelevant to the moral argument.

For the moral argument, can you list those "objective moral values" that you speak of, and how you made that determination?

 

[anonymous person]

No Davian.

 

[Davian]

No Davian.

Can you not list any?

 

[anonymous person]

Can you not list any?

I can pray for you. That is what I will do. Goodnight.

 

[Moral Orel]

How is it terrorism exactly?

we were attacking civilians to scare them

 

[Davian]

I can pray for you. That is what I will do. Goodnight.

Should not premise 2 assume that you (the "apologist") have some "objective moral values" that you can demonstrate?

 

[quatona]

If morality is determined by a community then the Nazi's were moral.

Ok, let´s ignore the non-sequitur in this sentence and accept the conclusion, for argument´s sake:
It turns out the Nazis were moral.
Now how to proceed from this argument from consequence?
I don´t see much point in reverse engineering a philosophical argument from your (or my) preferred conclusion.

 

[quatona]

If I say that the Nazis would have been doing something bad in implementing their final solution even if every human thought it was good, then I am affirming the objective badness of the final solution.

Ok, but let´s keep in mind that at this point it is a mere affirmation - without any ontological or epistemological background or reference.
Which makes it a premise that can be rejected in the same way it is asserted.

The word objective in the first premise is defined the way it is in any standard English dictionary. It is not defined as "God derived". Thus the charge of tautology is groundless. To think otherwise is to make the mistake of thinking the premise is about moral semantics, which it is not. It is about ontology.

Yeah, but the problem is: Immediately after having insisted on this the moral argument asserts (with as little substantion as it has asserted the first premise) in the second premise an ontological necessity.

Thus, until the proponent of the moral argument makes an attempt to substantiate the accuracy of those two premises, there´s little reason for me to even look at it twice.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you first.

You're proving to be as evasive as @anonymous person on this question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I say that the Nazis would have been doing something bad in implementing their final solution even if every human thought it was good, then I am affirming the objective badness of the final solution.

The word objective in the first premise is defined the way it is in any standard English dictionary. It is not defined as "God derived". Thus the charge of tautology is groundless. To think otherwise is to make the mistake of thinking the premise is about moral semantics, which it is not. It is about ontology.

Errr... we have the thread in which you explicitly characterise it as "God-given," so no, the charge of tautology still stands.

 

[anonymous person]

While I do believe objective moral values are grounded in God's nature and objective moral duties are grounded in God's commands, this does not render premise one of the argument a tautology, it just means that I affirm it. Reasons are given for thinking it true and since the word objective is used univocally throughout the argument to signify "that which is independent of human opinion" and not "God derived", the charge of it being a tautology falls.

Objections to premise 1 formulated by philosophers and ethicists attempt to show that objective moral values and duties can be grounded in a transcendent ground other than God, not that the premise is tautological.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

While I do believe objective moral values are grounded in God's nature and objective moral duties are grounded in God's commands, this does not render premise one of the argument a tautology, it just means that I affirm it. Reasons are given for thinking it true and since the word objective is used univocally throughout the argument to signify "that which is independent of human opinion" and not "God derived", the charge of it being a tautology falls.

Objections to premise 1 formulated by philosophers and ethicists attempt to show that objective moral values and duties can be grounded in a transcendent ground other than God, not that the premise is tautological.

But we don't need to focus on "objections formulated by philosophers and ethicists." We just need to focus on your presentation of the argument, and go from there. On your first definition, the premise is a tautology. On your second definition, "objective moral values and duties" are independent of (personal) gods. So which would you like to go with? The first or the second?

 

[quatona]

While I do believe objective moral values are grounded in God's nature and objective moral duties are grounded in God's commands, this does not render premise one of the argument a tautology, it just means that I affirm it.

Yeah, you affirm a premise in which the conclusion "God exists" is already contained as a pre-premise.

Reasons are given for thinking it true and since the word objective is used univocally throughout the argument to signify "that which is independent of human opinion" and not "God derived", the charge of it being a tautology falls.

Ok. Nature is independent of human opinion, an aliens moral view is independent of human opinion, Satan´s view is independent of human opinion, and even a dog´s view is independent on human opinion.
Thus, when you move from "independent of human opinion" to "God" you are merely changing your initial definition, revealing that you actually meant "God given" right from the start.

Objections to premise 1 formulated by philosophers and ethicists

Main objection to premise1 is: It is unsubstantiated.

attempt to show that objective moral values and duties can be grounded in a transcendent ground other than God, not that the premise is tautological.

Indeed, this wouldn´t be an objection to premise1 per se - it is an objection to the way you operate with it in the course of the argument.

 

[bhsmte]

You first.

Best of luck.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?

I was under the impression (wrong I guess) that you didn't believe in free will but in determinism.

Am I expected to take this comment as fact? Have you considered substantiating your opinion?

I would be open to being shown that opinion is incorrect. I have read many articles from current scientists who feel our free will is an illusion. It seems to me that at least a majority of them believe in determinism. If you have something that would show that the majority of scientists do not believe in determinism I would be glad to look at it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. If morality - as defined on page two of this thread by the OP - is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society, then the Nazis had a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

I still do not see the point of his question.

I guess you'll have to take it up with him.