Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To whom are you responding? Is the quote button broken for you?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.
I would say it would be 'bad', in the context of human wellness and empathy.
Can you list those "objective moral values" that you speak of, and how you made that determination?
But not the same.This is analogous to saying that it is objectively bad.
For the moral argument, 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.
Can you not list any?
How is it terrorism exactly?
we were attacking civilians to scare them
Ok, let´s ignore the non-sequitur in this sentence and accept the conclusion, for argument´s sake:If morality is determined by a community then the Nazi's were moral.
Ok, but let´s keep in mind that at this point it is a mere affirmation - without any ontological or epistemological background or reference.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.
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.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.
You're proving to be as evasive as @anonymous person on this question.No, you first.
Errr... we have the thread in which you explicitly characterise it as "God-given," so no, the charge of tautology still stands.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.
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?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.
Yeah, you affirm a premise in which the conclusion "God exists" is already contained as a pre-premise.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.
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.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.
Main objection to premise1 is: It is unsubstantiated.Objections to premise 1 formulated by philosophers and ethicists
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.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.
I was under the impression (wrong I guess) that you didn't believe in free will but in determinism.Why not?
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.Am I expected to take this comment as fact? Have you considered substantiating your opinion?
I guess you'll have to take it up with him.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?