What is morality?

[Mephster]

Sounds like ...... Elizabeth Anscombe. ta-da!!!

"Modern Moral Philosophy"

 

[Outspoken]

Blech. Your disdain for even elementary logic is palpable. I reiterate, Lewis has not made an exclusive argument for Christianity. He has not "proven" God exists.

My pantheon example has the same epistemic foundation as Lewis' - basically none. I am no more under obligation to "prove" other gods as Lewis' is to "prove" one.
Lewis was quite the wordsmith, I'll concede that. But, as his argument no more deduces the Christian God as the source of morality as the Easter Bunny, any claim of "excellence" is wishful thinking.
Go ahead, show me where I said Lewis was "wrong." I neither said nor implied any such thing. Lewis has no monopoly on the truth, but his argument is also currently beyond disproof.

Sure he has. The same foundation is not there. The fact that all humans have the same moral sense points to ONE universal law. This would not be true for a pantheon because each one would emphase different aspects due to their different "overlordships". thus there would not be a conhesiveness about it, as there, in fact, is. Thus your foundation is in ruins, and Lewis' is not. If you want to finally try some logic or some good arguments, let me know. Until then I'll be satified to resign myself to Lewis' arugments as true since you have neither disproved them nor offered any other explaination.

 

[Philosoft]

Sure he has. The same foundation is not there. The fact that all humans have the same moral sense points to ONE universal law.

Who said all humans have the "same moral sense"? This is certainly not something that has been proven. If Lewis' argument requires its truth, his moral argument is incomplete.

This would not be true for a pantheon because each one would emphase different aspects due to their different "overlordships". thus there would not be a conhesiveness about it, as there, in fact, is.

Your lack of imagination is astonishing. Tell me, do you think the only possible pantheons necessarily follow the Greek/Roman models?

Thus your foundation is in ruins, and Lewis' is not. If you want to finally try some logic or some good arguments, let me know. Until then I'll be satified to resign myself to Lewis' arugments as true since you have neither disproved them nor offered any other explaination.

Feh. You've merely assumed everything on behalf of Lewis' foundation. In any case, my task is not to disprove Lewis (as I have said now three times), but to show his putative deductive argument is nothing of the sort. I'm telling you, deductive transcendental arguments are bollocks. This is not philosophically controversial.

 

[glo]

Who said all humans have the "same moral sense"? This is certainly not something that has been proven. If Lewis' argument requires its truth, his moral argument is incomplete.

if you'd read in the first couple chapters of the book, (Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis of course) you'd see the undeniable human behavioural similarities around the world.

Your lack of imagination is astonishing. Tell me, do you think the only possible pantheons necessarily follow the Greek/Roman models?

what other ones are there then?

 

[Mephster]

*amused that C.S. Lewis is somehow mistaken as an Ethicist*

 

[Philosoft]

if you'd read in the first couple chapters of the book, (Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis of course) you'd see the undeniable human behavioural similarities around the world.

I'm not asking for "behavioural similarities." That would make a nice inductive argument, but Lewis' putative deduction requires something more.

what other ones are there then?

Just about anything your little imagination can come up with. This is philosophically open - we're not limited to historical examples. For example, I can picture an Arthur Ashe, Althea Gibson and Yannick Noah (if he were dead) ruling the world with an divine agenda to promote tennis amongst black minorities. Everything else they do is just boring, but necessary, machinations to ensure a functioning world.

 

[glo]

God is the Supreme being.



'Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sittting on.'
-Mere Christianity,
C.S. Lewis



thus you couldn't possibly disagree. and God is Almighty. He made everything. He made you. then how could you possibly argue? with any sense (because God made EVERYTHING) you couldn't disagree with morality. God(or some sort of god)'s morality is the only 'right' morality. there can be no other..

 

[Philosoft]

If God exists, then...

God is the Supreme being.



'Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sittting on.'
-Mere Christianity,
C.S. Lewis



thus you couldn't possibly disagree. and God is Almighty. He made everything. He made you. then how could you possibly argue? with any sense (because God made EVERYTHING) you couldn't disagree with morality. God(or some sort of god)'s morality is the only 'right' morality. there can be no other..

There. That's better.