The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

Having had his theology exposed as morally bankrupt, it would seem that Jeremy would drag the morality of others down to the same level. I am not sure what this might accomplish.

Notice, my theology is not on trial here. Nor my character.

Rather, the two premises of the moral argument are the subject of discussion.

A man of intellectual integrity and honesty would no doubt stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to fallaciously divert attention away from the topic by attacking people's beliefs and or character.

 

[quatona]

The discussion is about the existence of objective moral values and duties. Objective meaning simply independent of human opinion, that is, values and duties whose goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness is not derived from human beings and what they think, but something external and transcendent to them.

Ah, "transcendent" - you just spontaneously added a new concept to your definition. I predicted you would eventually change the horses midstream.

They either are grounded in some external grounds or they are grounded in the opinions of human beings.

We could as well say "they are either grounded in the tips of roses or something external to tips of roses". There seems little point in making a distincition of the "either specifically this...or something else". But, other than that, ok.

You have already said that a certain act is wrong.

This is not exactly what I said. Please cite me correctly.

Is the wrongness of the act derived from a moral fact that is true for everyone or is the wrongness of the act derived from the opinions of those that are of the opinion that it is wrong?

How did "moral fact" enter the scene suddenly? What the heck is that supposed to be? So far your categories were "human perspective" vs. every "non-human (objective) perspective".
Please read my yesterday posts in which I also talked about "facts" (and which so far you conveniently ignored). It´s all there. I´m not going to humour you again with a detailed response just to see you ignoring it, and later start from somewhere else in your script.

 

[quatona]

A man of intellectual integrity and honesty would no doubt stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to fallaciously divert attention away from the topic by attacking people's beliefs and or character.

Now, that was funny.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, "transcendent" - you just spontaneously added a new concept to your definition. I predicted you would eventually change the horses midstream.

Not spontaneous, but deliberate.

We could as well say "they are either grounded in the tips of roses or something external to tips of roses".

You could, but you would then have to give an explanation as to how the tips of roses could ground objective moral values and duties.

There seems little point in making a distincition of the "either specifically this...or something else". But, other than that, ok.

The point in presenting someone with a dichotomy is to demonstrate that there are only two options from which to choose.

This is not exactly what I said. Please cite me correctly.

How did "moral fact" enter the scene suddenly?

Moral fact is a phrase that ethicists and philosophers sometimes use interchangeably with "objective moral value/duty."

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

What the heck is that supposed to be? So far your categories were "human perspective" vs. every "non-human (objective) perspective".

I referred you to an article above. Read it.

If you do not know what is signified when someone uses the phrase "moral fact", you are in over your head here.

Please read my yesterday posts in which I also talked about "facts" (and which so far you conveniently ignored). It´s all there. I´m not going to humour you again with a detailed response just to see you ignoring it, and later start from somewhere else in your script.

Please supply a post number for me to reference. When you do, I will respond to it and expect you to return the same courtesy and tell me if my deductions from your post 908 were accurate or inaccurate.

If you do not know what terms like "cognitivism" mean, then google them.

 

[Davian]

It is very important to me. That is why I keep calling attention back to what we are discussing. Ad-hominems are fallacies so make sure not to use them.

Ad hominems are fallacies and have no place in substantive irenic discussion. Please be an example of a man of intellectual integrity and honesty and do not contribute to the derailing of this thread, which is about the moral argument for the existence of God.

Notice, my theology is not on trial here.

Of course it is, unless the "God" mentioned in the OP was not yours.

Nor my character.

My comments were directed at your posts, not your character. You are attacking - and misrepresenting - the positions others, rather than addressing the OP.

Rather, the two premises of the moral argument are the subject of discussion.

..and after a thousand posts, we still do not have a list of "objective values", or a methodology by which they can be determined.

A man of intellectual integrity and honesty would no doubt stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to fallaciously divert attention away from the topic by attacking people's beliefs and or character.

Then with your active attacks on both my beliefs and my character, you would not describe yourself as a man of intellectual integrity and honesty?

 

[quatona]

Not spontaneous, but deliberate.

So you had been planning to redefine "objective" in the midst of the argument, right from the start?

You could, but you would then have to give an explanation as to how the tips of roses could ground objective moral values and duties.

Well, they are independent of human opinion. That should suffice - according to your definition.

The point in presenting someone with a dichotomy is to demonstrate that there are only two options from which to choose.

Agreed. But "this...or all other options" isn´t a dichotomy exactly.

Moral fact

is a phrase that ethicists and philosophers sometimes use interchangeably with "objective moral value/duty."

I wouldn´t know why an objective (non-human) perspective (e.g. that of a dog, an alien, a fairy, Satan, or God) would constitute "a fact". See my posts from yesterday, in which I talked about "facts".

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Thanks for explaining. If I read this correctly, the idea that there are moral facts is just another a human perspective? Ok.
Well, there are curious ideas out there, for sure.

In any case, I don´t see why we should change the entire terminology and conceptualization of the moral argument after hundreds of posts. Even less do I see why we should accept a new definition of the keyterm in the midst of the argument. Unless, of course, you would like to admit that the moral argument and your defense of it didn´t work, and you would like to start a different argument instead.
Let´s instead just keep to the argument as presented and to the definition you kept insisting on being the one that should be applied for purposes of this argument.

Please supply a post number for me to reference.

I already spent a lot of time writing those posts. Just because you were in one of your moods yesterday doesn´t mean I will do what you were and are too lazy to do. Just do what - from a purely human perspective - is decent behaviour: read and respond to those responses you initiated.

When you do, I will respond to it and expect you to return the same courtesy and tell me if my deductions from your post 908 were accurate or inaccurate.

They were inaccurate. Please refrain from asking me to explain to you why they were inaccurate. I already told you that and why I consider your desire to label my explanations irrelevant and unhelpful. I am not going to support you in your attempts at distracting from the actual topic, nor from what I actually said. You gave arguments, I adressed them directly, and that´s what you should do in return. Your attempts at labeling and "deductions" are just attempts to distract from the objections to your arguments. "Red herrings" of the kind you are so eager to criticize - unless when you yourself happen to be in the mood for them.

If you do not know what terms like "cognitivism" mean, then google them.

Which part of "I don´t care what you label the descriptions of my position - address what I clearly stated." is hard to understand?[/quote][/quote]

 

[anonymous person]

Of course it is, unless the "God" mentioned in the OP was not yours.

The subject of the thread is the moral argument.

The second premise of the argument which has been the topic of discussion has nothing whatsover to do with my theology or God. Therefore bringing it up in this context is to introduce a red herring and is a distraction from the topic at hand.

My comments were directed at your posts, not your character. You are attacking - and misrepresenting - the positions others, rather than addressing the OP.

Until I am presented with an explanation as to where and how I have misrepresented someone, I will consider the charge of having done so to be another red herring introduced into the discussion to divert attention away from the immediate topic at hand.

..and after a thousand posts, we still do not have a list of "objective values", or a methodology by which they can be determined.

I don't have to give you a methodology for determining whether or not a value or duty is objective

All that is required of me is that I support the premise that there is in fact at least one objective moral value and or duty. The issue, which you repeatedly have overlooked, is that the argument is concerned with ontology, not epistemology. If you do not know the difference then I would be happy to try and show you.

I have asked numerous people numerous times including yourself whether or not they affirmed that certain actions would be objectively bad or wrong and if they did then we would have then moved to premise 1. However, no one seems to be willing to answer that question.

Is it objectively wrong to rape someone for the fun of it? If you say yes sir, I believe it is, then we can move along. If not then you think that rape is not objectively wrong. And if that is what you think then I would politely say, "sir I thank you for sharing your view with me." I would then know that the moral argument is not something that is going to be persuasive to you and move along.

Now you will either step up to the plate and answer the question either way or we are done. The choice is yours but if you refuse, which I think you will, then your refusal will be an indication of your reluctance to state your position which will be a signal to me to move on.

 

[Davian]

You said: "You're an ethical subjectivist. You think right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the human making the claim.

That's naturalistic meta-ethical subjectivism.

You Davian, Archaeopteryx are all in that camp."

Where is my error?

You erred in thinking that I might adhere to any label for which you hold your own personal criteria for.

You erred in stating that I think morality is determined by an individual human ("the human").

If I have lied, show where and why.

Without one of those fancy mind-reading hats, I cannot know your true motivation.

However, you have been given many opportunities to denounce the practice of "lying for Jesus", and you have not done so.

Having been shown where you are wrong, do you reveal your motivation, or sweep it under the rug?

 

[anonymous person]

So you had been planning to redefine "objective" in the midst of the argument, right from the start?





Well, they are independent of human opinion. That should suffice - according to your definition.




Agreed. But "this...or all other options" isn´t a dichotomy exactly.





I wouldn´t know why an objective (non-human) perspective (e.g. that of a dog, an alien, a fairy, Satan, or God) would constitute "a fact". See my posts from yesterday, in which I talked about "facts".


Thanks for explaining. If I read this correctly, the idea that there are moral facts is just another a human perspective? Ok.
Well, there are curious ideas out there, for sure.

In any case, I don´t see why we should change the entire terminology and conceptualization of the moral argument after hundreds of posts. Even less do I see why we should accept a new definition of the keyterm in the midst of the argument. Unless, of course, you would like to admit that the moral argument and your defense of it didn´t work, and you would like to start a different argument instead.
Let´s instead just keep to the argument as presented and to the definition you kept insisting on being the one that should be applied for purposes of this argument.









I already spent a lot of time writing those posts. Just because you were in one of your moods yesterday doesn´t mean I will do what you were and are too lazy to do. Just do what - from a purely human perspective - is decent behaviour: read and respond to those responses you initiated.

They were inaccurate. Please refrain from asking me to explain to you why they were inaccurate. I already told you that and why I consider your desire to label my explanations irrelevant and unhelpful. I am not going to support you in your attempts at distracting from the actual topic, nor from what I actually said. You gave arguments, I adressed them directly, and that´s what you should do in return. Your attempts at labeling and "deductions" are just attempts to distract from the objections to your arguments. "Red herrings" of the kind you are so eager to criticize - unless when you yourself happen to be in the mood for them.



Which part of "I don´t care what you label the descriptions of my position - address what I clearly stated." is hard to understand?

Thanks for telling me this. I will not bother you any longer.

 

[anonymous person]

You said: "You're an ethical subjectivist. You think right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the human making the claim.

That's naturalistic meta-ethical subjectivism.

You Davian, Archaeopteryx are all in that camp."

You erred in thinking that I might adhere to any label for which you hold your own personal criteria for.

You erred in stating that I think morality is determined by an individual human ("the human").

Without one of those fancy mind-reading hats, I cannot know your true motivation.

However, you have been given many opportunities to denounce the practice of "lying for Jesus", and you have not done so.

Having been shown where you are wrong, do you reveal your motivation, or sweep it under the rug?

Ok good.

You're not an ethical subjectivist.

I asked a question in my previous post to you. Please answer it.

 

[quatona]

The subject of the thread is the moral argument.

The second premise of the argument which has been the topic of discussion has nothing whatsover to do with my theology or God. Therefore bringing it up in this context is to introduce a red herring and is a distraction from the topic at hand.

It has even less to do with my philosophy, and nothing with the labels you are so eager to attach to them.

Until I am presented with an explanation as to where and how I have misrepresented someone, I will consider the charge of having done so to be another red herring introduced into the discussion to divert attention away from the immediate topic at hand.

Except that your own representations and labelings of our views are nothing but distractions from the actual topic themselves, to begin with.
On another note, as soon as someone tells you: "No, this is not my opinion.", your representation is out the window. Deal with it.

I don't have to give you a methodology for determining whether or not a value or duty is objective

You don´t have to do anything.
However, as long as there is no methodology to speak of, I consider the whole issue of "objective values and duties" purely academic.

All that is required of me is that I support the premise that there is in fact at least one objective moral value and or duty.

Yeah, that would be a good start. Are you planning to do it eventually?

I have asked numerous people numerous times including yourself whether or not they affirmed that certain actions would be objectively bad or wrong and if they did then we would have then moved to premise 1. However, no one seems to be willing to answer that question.

Yes, people have answered it, with regards to your definition of "objective". Upon which you forgot all about your question and the answers, and changed your strategy.
Anyway, since you are trying to establish "objective" (independent of human opinion) morality, your requests for our subjective opinions is the first and foremost attempt to divert from the actual topic. Anyone´s subjective opinion is completely irrelevant for that task.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for telling me this. I will not bother you any longer.

Is "I will not bother you any longer" Christianspeak for "I am unwilling/unable to address your points", by any chance?

 

[anonymous person]

Is "I will not bother you any longer" Christianspeak for "I am unwilling/unable to address your points", by any chance?

Why do you keep asking me questions?
I said good day to you sir.

 

[Davian]

The social contract is a contract constructed by human beings who come together and share their opinions on the badness and goodness, rightness and wrongness of certain actions. Such a theory does not ground values and duties at all, but presupposes certain values and duties exist and then seeks to formulate a way human beings can relate to one another in society while affirming these values and duties.

The social contract, as I understand it, is not based on opinion. You are straw-manning.

Thus the charge of a false dichotomy by appealing to social contract theory fails.

Your false dichotomy lay in your statement, "They either are grounded in some external grounds or they are grounded in the opinions of human beings."

They can be based on reason, compassion, empathy, relative human wellness, or the social contract, or a mix of such.

All of which are matters of opinion among human beings.

I do not see how. Looking back over evolutionary timescales, given two otherwise similar societies, in competition for the same resources, and one of them throws acid at one another, eats their young, and terrorizes their youth, I would hypothesize that one could measure the success of one over the other in terms of surviving, particularly when the resources become scarce.

In addition, social contract theory deals with the questions of the origin of society

Of course. Society is morality.

and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual,-Wikipedia, not the ontological grounds for moral values and duties.

As such it is irrelevant here.

That one component of social contract theory, but that would be, as you would say, a red herring.

 

[anonymous person]

The social contract, as I understand it, is not based on opinion. You are straw-manning.

Your false dichotomy lay in your statement, "They either are grounded in some external grounds or they are grounded in the opinions of human beings."

They can be based on reason, compassion, empathy, relative human wellness, or the social contract, or a mix of such.

I do not see how. Looking back over evolutionary timescales, given two otherwise similar societies, in competition for the same resources, and one of them throws acid at one another, eats their young, and terrorizes their youth, I would hypothesize that one could measure the success of one over the other in terms of surviving, particularly when the resources become scarce.

Of course. Society is morality.

That one component of social contract theory, but that would be, as you would say, a red herring.

Society is morality he says....

Ok....

I think we're done here.

LOL!

 

[quatona]

Why do you keep asking me questions?

Because you seem to be the only one left trying to defend the moral argument, the topic of this thread.

I said good day to you sir.

Yeah, running away is also an option when you´ve run out of arguments.

 

[Davian]

The subject of the thread is the moral argument.

The second premise of the argument which has been the topic of discussion has nothing whatsover to do with my theology or God. Therefore bringing it up in this context is to introduce a red herring and is a distraction from the topic at hand.

Not at all. Appealing to the moral argument from a morally bankrupt position makes the argument a non-starter.

Until I am presented with an explanation as to where and how I have misrepresented someone, I will consider the charge of having done so to be another red herring introduced into the discussion to divert attention away from the immediate topic at hand.

Post #708, #1008.

Are we to sweep your comparisons of me to the mentally ill under the rug?

I don't have to give you a methodology for determining whether or not a value or duty is objective

All that is required of me is that I support the premise that there is in fact at least one objective moral value and or duty.

The only one I have seen you offer to this point is, believe, or else, also stated as Anything goes, as long as you believe.

The issue, which you repeatedly have overlooked, is that the argument is concerned with ontology, not epistemology. If you do not know the difference then I would be happy to try and show you.

I have asked numerous people numerous times including yourself whether or not they affirmed that certain actions would be objectively bad or wrong and if they did then we would have then moved to premise 1. However, no one seems to be willing to answer that question.

Perhaps if you were to establish a methodology for determining whether or not a value or duty is objective, you might get some traction on that subject.

Is it objectively wrong to rape someone for the fun of it? If you say yes sir, I believe it is, then we can move along. If not then you think that rape is not objectively wrong. And if that is what you think then I would politely say, "sir I thank you for sharing your view with me." I would then know that the moral argument is not something that is going to be persuasive to you and move along.

From what I gather from this [false] dichotomy, you are offering two options: rape is wrong in a manner that supports the existence of the "God" character in the bible, that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing, or it is opinion.

I do not accept your [false] dichotomy as you present it here.

Now you will either step up to the plate and answer the question either way or we are done. The choice is yours but if you refuse, which I think you will, then your refusal will be an indication of your reluctance to state your position which will be a signal to me to move on.

My reluctance? Are you trying to read minds again?

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

 

[Davian]

Ok good.

You're not an ethical subjectivist.

I asked a question in my previous post to you. Please answer it.

Answer mine first. You have been given many opportunities to denounce the practice of "lying for Jesus", and you have not done so.

Do you condone the practice of "lying for Jesus"? Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

Society is morality he says....

Ok....

I think we're done here.

LOL!

We were done on page two of this thread, when the OP defined the ground out from under his own argument. I just stayed around to see how far it would sink.

 

[Davian]

I am assuming you said something to the effect that I was a lousy apologist.

And I was, up until now.

I am glad we have cleared that up. Will we see a change from this point on, or more of the same?

More of the same it is.