Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

You just made and used a lot of logical fallacies to make your points like in using the fact that because people's views on morality vary this must mean there is no objective morality. You also misrepresented what morality is by saying that differences in the age of consent must mean differences in moral views. When all those nations morally agreed that protecting young people from being taken advantage of. So if this is how you see things then I can understand why your under the wrong impression that morality is subjective.

Here is another observation. If as you say that there is only subjective morality then for countries that say have a different position on say rape just as they do get away with a different view on the age of consent. Then how do you stop people from getting away with horrible moral positions if there is no moral truth? What if these differences are within the same country. How can we condemn and stop different moral views that we think are wrong?

I havent misrepresented anything or used any fallacies.

We can condemn whatever we want on any grounds we can come up with. If our arguments are sound and resonate (or as is appareant right now, populistic) we will change peoples opinions.

In the end, those with the biggest guns makes the rules. And they would with or without "objective morals".

 

[Moral Orel]

If our arguments are sound...

An argument is sound only when the conclusion is true.

"True" is a very complicated concept.

Its not applicable to morals.

So it is impossible to have a sound argument for any given moral.

If our arguments...resonate

This is what moral debates are. They all suffer from the fallacy of appealing to emotion. So they aren't arguments, but rather persuasion via emotional manipulation.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey my fellow brother in Christ

Yep, well.....something along those lines

Post 2552.

Dont forget saint I record all our conversations and I have a good memory.

You said

"Eye witness accounts are written in the first person: "I saw..., I heard..., I did..." An account written in the third person: He saw..., He heard..., He did..." may not be an eye-witness account. In the case of the Gospels there is evidence which suggests that they are not."

My dear you did not say "a third person narrative may be an eyewitness account."

You said "may not be an eye-witness account" because "Eye witness accounts are written in the first person: "I saw..., I heard..., I did..."

Similar but used within context means something different.

"I may open this door" is expressing a possibility, permission or hope.

"I may not be successful in opening this door" expresses something different.

"I may not open this door" says something else.

Any finally we have your post to stevew post 2532.

"There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant."

So please do not try and pull one over me my dear. If you wanna assume that im unintelligent, then I will not stop you, I'll let you.

More fun for me.

Now, I have shown you that a 3rd person narrative - when you are not the focal point - can still be an eye witness account. You reply "As I said at the beginning, a third person narrative may be an eyewitness account."

The context of that answer shows me you are not in disagreement. So it is indeed possible.

.Yes, I agree that it is possible--I thought I had made that clear.

Now let's turn our attention to the substance of your remark to stevew

You said "There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament."

1. What argument can you treat me with to prove your claim?



My dear brother, I don't usually do something without thought and strategy.

2.Why is the Gospel of John likely not to have been authored by an eye witness?

I love your use of the word "likely" because just how certain are you?



Fair enough.

Not very, though it is possible, and many Bible scholars who haven't got a political ax to grind think so.

3.Why would you feel trapped if you believed that Genesis is 100% literal history?

What belief system of yours would be compromised?

My belief in the divine inspiration of scripture. Straight factual historical narrative is the lowest form of literature. God should be able to do better than that when writing such an important story.

4. Are you suggesting I believe that Jesus died for nothing?

How did you come to that conclusion?

No. Those are the options presented by fundamentalist Protestants. Either Genesis is 100% accurate literal history or Jesus died for nothing. I reject both

5. Fair enough but what did I deny and where did I say it?

You are aware I'm Pentecostal right? What do Pentecostals believe?

Ps if you want to fight some point, tell me what you think i said and show me where i said it. I will be more than haopy to address your concerns.



What do you know I did say.

However I cannot see me this elusive passage where I deny something or do something wrong.

6. What have you got?

Your statement in post #2656:
"Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

I got some moves. Let's start with the Gospel of John - heads up I'm no expert but I know what im doing.

John 1:3
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made

7. What do you say about this verse. Should i trust it or what am i to make of verse 1:3?

You can trust it if you like; I believe it to be true.

Hahaha sounds 'goofy' to me hehehe.
- where do I get that from, right

You know what, my ban from that particular forum was lifted in March. "Ima gon com luk fer you" hehehe



You must have been a formidable opponent. I bet the ladies must have lined up. God bless you sir.



I am sorry to hear about your bullied children. THAT does sicken me.

God bless you for standing up for your children. Now that is a true father.



8. Would you say that you are making a narrative about an eye witnessed event?

Hint hint

I am not familiar with such atrocities. I'll acknowledge that this is your answer, but I cannot comment if what you say is correct or not.

How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people

 

[VirOptimus]

An argument is sound only when the conclusion is true.


So it is impossible to have a sound argument for any given moral.


This is what moral debates are. They all suffer from the fallacy of appealing to emotion. So they aren't arguments, but rather persuasion via emotional manipulation.

Learn the basics, optimistic, I know.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @Herman Hedning
Hey @Belk
Hey @46AND2
Hey @SPF

 

[Kylie]

I have shown it can't work time and time again. If there really only was subjective morality then there could be no way of forcing one set of morals onto society as we do. That's because there is no way to determine what one set of morals would be. It would be unfair to others who disagree with that one set as they have just as much right to put their version of morality forward as well. But the fact that society does go with one set and forces that on everyone shows that they believe in objective morality.

Use the morality that people agree on. How many times have I told you that people sharing the same opinion doesn't make it objective?

Not hard.

Let's use an example. If the rules of a footy game were determined subjectively then it follows that there would be no way to determine what the rules should be. The rules would only be presented as personal opinions of what the rules should be. It follows that if there is no fixed set of rules and that subjectivity is the only way to out what should be the rules then everyone involved has equal opportunity to determine what the rules would be.

They WERE determined subjectively. When the game was invented, people just MADE IT UP. They tried to make it balanced so it wouldn't be too easy for one team to win, because that's no fun, but there's no objective source for the rules of footy outside footy itself.

Even if a group agreed on a certain set of rules others would have the right to challenge this because there is no objective way that the group can prove their agreed rules are the best. Any ideas that anyone including agreed rules have to way of determining what is best for that game. So the game would either not be able to be played as there would always be conflicts about what was fair or unbiased or a certain set of rules would have to be forced onto others making them objective anyway.

The rules of sports change quite regularly.

 

[Kylie]

So if those people who go around with the subjective view that raping and killing are morally OK what gives anyone the right to say they are morally wrong and stop them or say their moral view is wrong if there is no objective way to tell they are wrong.

At this point you are just trolling.

 

[Moral Orel]

Learn the basics, optimistic, I know.

You mean like the definition of a "sound argument"? Cause I know my basics. It's clear you don't know yours.

 

[VirOptimus]

You mean like the definition of a "sound argument"? Cause I know my basics. It's clear you don't know yours.

Sure sure.

 

[the iconoclast]

.Yes, I agree that it is possible--I thought I had made that clear.

Hey hey brother

Hey @stevevw, @Speedwell said to you "There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant."

He now says this to me about eyewitness accounts of Christ in the NT " Yes, I agree that it is possible--I thought I had made that clear".

@stevevw, I think you are owed an apology. What do you think brother @Speedwell?

Not very, though it is possible, and many Bible scholars who haven't got a political ax to grind think so.

So you believe It's possible for the Gospel of John to be eye witnessed but it's also - in your opinion - the least likely to be eyewitnessed.

Treat me with an argument and give me a reference or is there a reason why you lack the motivation to express WHY it is least likely?

My belief in the divine inspiration of scripture.
Straight factual historical narrative is the lowest form of literature. God should be able to do better than that when writing such an important story.

So you would feel trapped if you believed that Genesis is 100% literal history because of your belief in the divine inspiration of scripture!?!?!

What does that mean?

Here it is again

Why would you feel trapped if you believed that Genesis is 100% literal history?

You missed a question, What belief system of yours would be compromised? (.eg of you believed 100% in the Book of Genesis)

No. Those are the options presented by fundamentalist Protestants. Either Genesis is 100% accurate literal history or Jesus died for nothing. I reject both

Ahhhh.... so some fundamentalist protestant Christians who are unfamiliar to me - I dont know who or how many - said that to you.

My dear I cannot comment on this. If that's what they believe then that's what they believe. I would suggest forgiving them for what you may consider a trespass and pray for them, if you feel wronged.

Heads up. I dont really have an opinion on this Genesis incomplete = Jesus' dies for nothing. Sounds to speculative for my tastes.

All that matters to me at this moment is you are my Brother in Christ and I'm having fun.

You are a diamond, we are on the same side and heads up, a belief in evolution does not matter to salvation. What matters is you found Jesus.

I'll turn a card over. I personally have no respect for the theory of evolution or Darwin. I debate it because I can. I debate Atheists on it because it makes me smile, I smile at their belief in something and that they have trust in scientific conclusions.

They have a faith. It has been labeled "Sciencism", by those pick up on it. They put their trust in the conclusions and thoughts of men who reason with facts. I put my trust in God and His Word.

I debated you on evolution because it was your turn, you and spf did not appreciate my questions.

Check this out, I will make 2 statements. I wont tell you which ones I believe are wrong or right.

A. Common ancestry is intergal to the theory of evolution. Every living thing is derived from single cell organisms - please correct me if I'm wrong?

B. Adam and Eve gave birth to all the diverse races on God's Earth - please tell me if this is what you believe or if it is correct and how it is not correct?

Your statement in post #2656:

"Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

Yes cherub, I did say that. And what about it?

You can trust it if you like; I believe it to be true.

Good.

How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people

So you have a dislike for Creationist Protestant Christian's - like me - because you dislike Bible-belt, fundamentalist, Creationist Protestants.

This is because "white Americans used lynching to terrorize black people" and trump is empowering these fundamentalists Christians at the expense of the religious liberty of the rest of you?

Wow. Read that out loud to yourself and then correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong re word my statement to better suit your position.

Cheers and see you next week. It's time to relax, have a celebration and play some music.

Dude I rock, and roll.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey brother

Hey @stevevw, @Speedwell said to you "There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant."

He now says this to me about eyewitness accounts of Christ in the NT " Yes, I agree that it is possible--I thought I had made that clear".

@stevevw, I think you are owed an apology. What do you think brother @Speedwell?

No. My statement to Steve was unqualified, and while I will admit that there is a small possibility that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, I see no reason to apologize for my unqualified statement to Steve.

So you believe It's possible for the Gospel of John to be eye witnessed but it's also - in your opinion - the least likely to be eyewitnessed.

I think you misunderstand me. What I said was that the Gospel of John was the only one with the least likelihood of having been written by an eyewitness. In other words, the Synoptics were not written by eyewitnesses but the Gospel of John might have been.

So you would feel trapped if you believed that Genesis is 100% literal history because of your belief in the divine inspiration of scripture!?!?!

What does that mean?

Here it is again

Why would you feel trapped if you believed that Genesis is 100% literal history?

You missed a question, What belief system of yours would be compromised? (.eg of you believed 100% in the Book of Genesis)

As I have already explained, my belief in the divine inspiration of scripture would be threatened. Reducing the stories of Genesis to straight factual historical narrative makes them paltry, uninteresting and unworthy of divine authorship.

Check this out, I will make 2 statements. I wont tell you which ones I believe are wrong or right.

A. Common ancestry is intergal to the theory of evolution. Every living thing is derived from single cell organisms - please correct me if I'm wrong?

Not integral, but a reasonable inference.

B. Adam and Eve gave birth to all the diverse races on God's Earth - please tell me if this is what you believe or if it is correct and how it is not correct?

Adam and Eve as symbolic of the first humans, yes, whatever their actual names might have been. "Adam" and "eve" are punning names as are appropriate for symbolic characters in an etiology.

So you have a dislike for Creationist Protestant Christian's - like me - because you dislike Bible-belt, fundamentalist, Creationist Protestants.

Like you? Do you support right-wing politics in your country and use your religious beliefs as justification? Do you despise, revile and sometimes even attack other Christians who don't support right-wing politics?

This is because "white Americans used lynching to terrorize black people" and trump is empowering these fundamentalists Christians at the expense of the religious liberty of the rest of you?

That is correct. That is exactly what Trump is doing.

 

[stevevw]

I havent misrepresented anything or used any fallacies.

I would disagree with this. One of the biggest fallacies you used was that because people disagree on morality this must be evidence that there is no objective morality.

We can condemn whatever we want on any grounds we can come up with. If our arguments are sound and resonate (or as is appareant right now, populistic) we will change people's opinions.

I disagree, and you contradict yourself when you say that whoever has the biggest guns makes the moral rules. People with the biggest guns, money or power don't have to make sound arguments. Money and power buy morality. Whoever makes the loudest noise and protests the most can push their moral views and ideologies to the right people and force the majority to follow their moral views. We are seeing this happen in society now.

In the end, those with the biggest guns makes the rules. And they would with or without "objective morals".

I agree those with the biggest guns will dictate what morals society should have but it is not a very good state of affairs.

This means that what may be morally right and best for us is not the measure for morality but what is determined as morally right according to a group (often small) who have their own personal beliefs, ideologies, agenda, and motives. Often not with the best of intentions and more about self than others.

 

[stevevw]

At this point you are just trolling.

You don't even use the right meaning for trolling let along have any support that I am doing this. Trolling is about a person who starts flame wars or upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

Show me how I have done this. As far as I can see I am not starting flaming wars or posting inflammatory off-topic messages. I am right on topic and I am clarifying the topic and have not made one personal attack. In fact as far as I can see it is others who are attacking and flaming me by attacking my credibility and honesty.

 

[VirOptimus]

I would disagree with this. One of the biggest fallacies you used was that because people disagree on morality this must be evidence that there is no objective morality.

I disagree, and you contradict yourself when you say that whoever has the biggest guns makes the moral rules. People with the biggest guns, money or power don't have to make sound arguments. Money and power buy morality. Whoever makes the loudest noise and protests the most can push their moral views and ideologies to the right people and force the majority to follow their moral views. We are seeing this happen in society now.

I agree those with the biggest guns will dictate what morals society should have but it is not a very good state of affairs.

This means that what may be morally right and best for us is not the measure for morality but what is determined as morally right according to a group (often small) who have their own personal beliefs, ideologies, agenda, and motives. Often not with the best of intentions and more about self than others.

Yes; the fact that morality is different around the world and different through history very much support that there are no ”objective morality”.

The rest of your post just seem to be you not liking reality.

 

[stevevw]

Use the morality that people agree on. How many times have I told you that people sharing the same opinion doesn't make it objective?

Not hard.

And how many times have I pointed out that it is not just the case that they are sharing the same or agree on morality. That they insist and force the one set of morals on everyone which is different. If people just happened to coincidently and freely came to the same conclusion on morality then you would have a point.

But that is not what is happening. People are purposely taking a specific moral stand and claiming that there is only one set of moral values and duties and they are saying that any difference in opinion is objectively wrong and that all people should conform to that one set of morals.

They WERE determined subjectively. When the game was invented, people just MADE IT UP. They tried to make it balanced so it wouldn't be too easy for one team to win, because that's no fun, but there's no objective source for the rules of footy outside footy itself.

Actually the rules are based on math. There is a specific logic to what the rules are to produce a certain outcome. If they were just arbitrarily determined then we would end up with a game like stone age football where there are no rules. Just like chess where the rules are designed and can be calculated. A pawn moving forward and not sideways and only being allowed to take another piece vertically is done for a calculated reason. The same with footy.

But you missed the point. Once the rules have been determined players cannot oppose the rules. The ref enforces those rules. Their personal view of what the rules should be are not taken into consideration and they must abide by the rules. If they descent they will be penalized. So when applied to morality there is no room for subjective moral positions when setting moral laws in society. That is an objective position and shows how unreal and impossible it is to really have a subjective system as it would promote descent.

The rules of sports change quite regularly.

Yes, but they are not just changed arbitrarily. There is a logical reason independent of humans. But unlike subjective morality, if a player said I think the footy rule is this and I can apply that in my view they would be sent from the field for not conforming to the objective rules. There is no room for subjective views.

 

[stevevw]

Yes; the fact that morality is different around the world and different through history very much support that there are no ”objective morality”.

The rest of your post just seem to be you not liking reality.

That is a logical fallacy (non-sequitur) IE

Second, consider a flaw in one of the arguments given on behalf of moral relativism. Some argue that given the extent of disagreement about moral issues, it follows that there are no objective moral truths. But this is what a basic logic text refers to as a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism

Moral relativism is also unintelligible.

Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible
They say moral disagreement is best explained by the idea that there are many different and incompatible relative moral truths, which are in some way determined by the beliefs of a given society; and that this is the only kind of moral truth there is. So, for the Aztecs it was true that human sacrifice is morally permissible, although it is false for us.

They think that even though many benighted philosophers disagree with them, moral truth just is relative to a given society – that it is an objective fact about reality that there are no objective moral facts but merely relative ones. But this would be a distressingly unstable position, if relativists believe their relativism on the basis of an argument that depends on the principle that if there is a certain kind of disagreement over some topic T, there is no objective truth about T. If that principle is true, the fact that there is such disagreement about their relativist conclusion implies that that conclusion is itself not objectively true, but only relatively so. So, if this relativist’s argument is good, then by his own standards he should not believe its conclusion is objectively true; or if he is entitled to believe its conclusion, it follows that the argument is not good.

Need it be self-defeating to hold that moral truth is relative and that that truth about moral truth is itself merely relatively true too? Happily, we do not need to consider this question with much care, since I think the core problem with moral relativism is not that it is false, implausible or self-defeating, but simply that it is unintelligible. I mean by this that there is no intelligible concept of truth that can be used to frame the thesis that moral truth is relative to the standards or beliefs of a given society.
Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible | Issue 97 | Philosophy Now

 

[VirOptimus]

That is a logical fallacy (non-sequitur) IE

Second, consider a flaw in one of the arguments given on behalf of moral relativism. Some argue that given the extent of disagreement about moral issues, it follows that there are no objective moral truths. But this is what a basic logic text refers to as a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism

Moral relativism is also unintelligible.

Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible
They say moral disagreement is best explained by the idea that there are many different and incompatible relative moral truths, which are in some way determined by the beliefs of a given society; and that this is the only kind of moral truth there is. So, for the Aztecs it was true that human sacrifice is morally permissible, although it is false for us.

They think that even though many benighted philosophers disagree with them, moral truth just is relative to a given society – that it is an objective fact about reality that there are no objective moral facts but merely relative ones. But this would be a distressingly unstable position, if relativists believe their relativism on the basis of an argument that depends on the principle that if there is a certain kind of disagreement over some topic T, there is no objective truth about T. If that principle is true, the fact that there is such disagreement about their relativist conclusion implies that that conclusion is itself not objectively true, but only relatively so. So, if this relativist’s argument is good, then by his own standards he should not believe its conclusion is objectively true; or if he is entitled to believe its conclusion, it follows that the argument is not good.

Need it be self-defeating to hold that moral truth is relative and that that truth about moral truth is itself merely relatively true too? Happily, we do not need to consider this question with much care, since I think the core problem with moral relativism is not that it is false, implausible or self-defeating, but simply that it is unintelligible. I mean by this that there is no intelligible concept of truth that can be used to frame the thesis that moral truth is relative to the standards or beliefs of a given society.
Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible | Issue 97 | Philosophy Now

What incredibly bad quotes. Also, I’m not a moral relativist. I’m a value nihilist. Try to keep up. You using strawmen is quite tiresome.

My points stand.

And furthermore; if your belief where true that god(s) determine morality. By wich authority do your god(s) determine how I live my life?

 

[Kylie]

You don't even use the right meaning for trolling let along have any support that I am doing this. Trolling is about a person who starts flame wars or upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

Show me how I have done this. As far as I can see I am not starting flaming wars or posting inflammatory off-topic messages. I am right on topic and I am clarifying the topic and have not made one personal attack. In fact as far as I can see it is others who are attacking and flaming me by attacking my credibility and honesty.

And once again we have someone who is quibbling about wordplay rather than actually have a discussion.

When you've decided you're done wasting everyone's time, let me know, okay?

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is how the world works. Just read history and it will be selfevident.

First, if this was the case it would logically follow that no specific independent measure including human wellbeing (pleasure or pain), empathy, or any other naturalist standard of morality could be implemented. As soon as any of these measures are held up as the measure of morality an objective standard is being taken.

So despite saying that our history shows we have taken a subjective position which would and should allow any crazy standard to be the measure of morality most individuals and cultures have used a specific standard to measure morality whether that be a transcendent being or some other independent naturalistic measure of morality.

 

[VirOptimus]

First, if this was the case it would logically follow that no specific independent measure including human wellbeing (pleasure or pain), empathy, or any other naturalist standard of morality could be implemented. As soon as any of these measures are held up as the measure of morality an objective standard is being taken.

So despite saying that our history shows we have taken a subjective position which would and should allow any crazy standard to be the measure of morality most individuals and cultures have used a specific standard to measure morality whether that be a transcendent being or some other independent naturalistic measure of morality.

We cannot measure wellbeing, pleasure or pain. And they surely arent ”objective” as they are from subjective agents.

There is no way to measure morality.