Where does morality come from?

[VirOptimus]

That's a common tactic, to try and undermine and discredit the person rather than deal with the content. I have been consistent with what I have said. What you perceive as evidence for non-objective morality is what non-theists use to support objective morality. You are thinking that because they are atheists then they must pushing non-objective morality. But believe it or not, atheists also support objective morality. That's how common the belief is for moral realism.

Yes, I'm quite aware of this. I also know the arguments that are commonly used in moral philopsophy for an objective morality and those arguments are not the ones you use. They are quite a bit more sophisticated.

 

[stevevw]

Heh, no. You simply don't understand the basics of philosophy.

This is what I am talking about when I say you are hard to debate. You seem to have a stock standard reply which is either "No you are wrong" without any reason why or "you don't understand philosophy". Neither replies address what is being discussed which shows you do not even bother to think about things. For example, you tell me "I simply don't understand philosophy basics" when I wasn't even talking about philosophy. I was talking about logical fallacies and how you made one in your last reply.

A logical fallacy is simple to understand and you don't need a philosophy degree to realize this. In your case, you used a generalization to make a conclusion. IE that because morals vary this must mean subjective morality is true and there are no moral facts. You have not explained why we can conclude that subjective morality means there are no objective moral values.

I have provided support for how it is faulty thinking and you seem to think I am in need of educating. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black lol.

The case for moral relativism is that different societies have different moral judgments. However, most more complex moral judgments are derived from a few basic ones, with components that vary with the material conditions of different societies. But the fact that different societies make different moral judgments does not prove relativism. To prove their position, relativists must dig down to the fundamental moral judgments in every society, and then show that these judgments are not shared by societies. This they have not done.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

But according to your logic, this would also mean objective morality is true because all societies use certain values necessary to function (for example, no lying, promise-keeping, nurturing children).

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I'm quite aware of this. I also know the arguments that are commonly used in moral philopsophy for an objective morality and those arguments are not the ones you use. They are quite a bit more sophisticated.

Which ones are more sophisticated mine or the ones normally used for objective morality? What is the usual argument commonly used in moral philosophy for objective morality?

 

[the iconoclast]

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.

Hey hey Saint

Fair enough.

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.

1. Why are the Synoptics not eye witnessed?

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.

2. If Genesis is not factual history and unworthy of Divine Authorship, what is it then to you?

Not integral, but a reasonable inference.

Common ancestry is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

The conclusion is reasoned not by proof but on the basis of some evidence.

3. What evidence?

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.

4. What are adam and eve symbolic of?

Like you?

Well I am a fundamentalist - a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

I'm not American - no bible belt.

I am a Creationist.

I am a Pentecostal - so protestant.

Do you support right-wing politics in your country and use your religious beliefs as justification?

(When I do vote) i vote for conservative parties who uphold Christian principles. Last election I voted to make sure the progressive did not get in.

I do use my religious beliefs to justify how I should vote.

5. What you think?

Do you despise, revile and sometimes even attack other Christians who don't support right-wing politics?

I'm respectful of someone else's right to vote. I do not despise, revile or attack other Christians for their choice of vote.

I may think it strange for a Christian to vote for candiates that dont uphold Christian principles but I don't usually ask how another person votes and I rarely make it known what i will do.

6. Am I an enemy to you?

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

7. What is he doing to you?
How is it doing it and how does it make you feel?
Cheers

 

[stevevw]

Yes, the world the world IS is that people ACT like morals are objective.

Acting like something is the case doesn't make it the case.

And once again, acting like there is objective morality doesn't mean there is objective morality.

Yes it does. You are thinking like a materialist/physicalist when it comes to morality and philosophical evidence. Evidence for morality is not the same as scientific evidence where an objective can be found and tested. Morality is determined by the way we act/react and what we believe is moral truth. That is the only way we can produce evidence for morality.

As mentioned with epistemic truths, the way that you or any person believes that people ought to act honestly in a debate, for example, we ought not to lie, or use logical fallacies. Or we ought not to misrepresent the other person's argument which you have pointed out on a number of occasions. By doing these people are accepting and believing in epistemic truths that people should be honest in debates. There are a number of other epistemic values we all believe and use as well.

Epistemic truths are intertwined with moral truths such as honesty and they cannot be separated. You cannot, on the one hand, believe and act like there are epistemic truths and then claim that epistemic and morals are relative and subjective because you are already assuming, believing, and acting like they are truths we all should adhere to.

They are not just your opinion because you are using them in an interaction where you expect others or the group to also abide by like they are the only truths. Otherwise, I could just say why should I follow these truths and not misrepresent your argument, or lie and make logical fallacies. As mentioned by you protesting when I do misrepresent your argument, make fallacies, or lie you are showing that you believe and live those epistemic and moral truths. This is the lived experience that forms the evidence for moral and epistemic truths.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist. But epistemic facts (facts that concern reasons for belief), it is argued, do exist. So, moral facts also exist. And if moral facts exist, then moral realism is true. This argument provides not simply a defense of a robust realist view of ethics, but a positive argument for this position. In so doing, it engages with sophisticated skeptical positions in epistemology, such as error theories, expressivist views, and reductionist views of epistemic reasons. These positions, it is claimed, come at a high theoretical cost. It follows that realism about both epistemic and moral facts is a position that we should find highly attractive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285966919_The_Normative_Web_An_Argument_for_Moral_Realism
https://philpapers.org/rec/[bless a...s and do not curse][bless and do not curse]NW

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @Allandavid

 

[stevevw]

I'm not responisible for your education.

I give the answers you posts deserve.

All I can say is you give very little replies not just to me. So I don't think it is a case of anyone deserving such poor responses.

 

[VirOptimus]

Which ones are more sophisticated mine or the ones normally used for objective morality? What is the usual argument commonly used in moral philosophy for objective morality?

Again, I'm not responsible for your education or your arguments.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is what I am talking about when I say you are hard to debate. You seem to have a stock standard reply which is either "No you are wrong" without any reason why or "you don't understand philosophy". Neither replies address what is being discussed which shows you do not even bother to think about things. For example, you tell me "I simply don't understand philosophy basics" when I wasn't even talking about philosophy. I was talking about logical fallacies and how you made one in your last reply.

A logical fallacy is simple to understand and you don't need a philosophy degree to realize this. In your case, you used a generalization to make a conclusion. IE that because morals vary this must mean subjective morality is true and there are no moral facts. You have not explained why we can conclude that subjective morality means there are no objective moral values.

I have provided support for how it is faulty thinking and you seem to think I am in need of educating. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black lol.

The case for moral relativism is that different societies have different moral judgments. However, most more complex moral judgments are derived from a few basic ones, with components that vary with the material conditions of different societies. But the fact that different societies make different moral judgments does not prove relativism. To prove their position, relativists must dig down to the fundamental moral judgments in every society, and then show that these judgments are not shared by societies. This they have not done.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

But according to your logic, this would also mean objective morality is true because all societies use certain values necessary to function (for example, no lying, promise-keeping, nurturing children).

No.

 

[Speedwell]

[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 75084678, member: 342064" . What you perceive as evidence for non-objective morality is what non-theists use to support objective morality. [/QUOTE]It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is that you have utterly and completely failed to discredit that evidence. I expect you will claim to have done so several times, but I have followed this thread fairly closely and have seen nothing from you in that regard but empty assertions and the knocking down of straw men.

 

[stevevw]

Again, I'm not responsible for your education or your arguments.

 

[stevevw]

No.

Yes lol.

 

[VirOptimus]

The truth is inconvenient sometimes.

Also - "Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." - is a very ignorant quote. Science cannot deal with the supernatural.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is that you have utterly and completely failed to discredit that evidence. I expect you will claim to have done so several times, but I have followed this thread fairly closely and have seen nothing from you in that regard but empty assertions and the knocking down of straw men.

What are you talking about? Do you mean the evidence to show objective morality exists based on naturalism such as human wellbeing, natural laws of evolution, etc? Or that these ideas can be used by subjectivists to reason what is right and wrong morally. Which is more or less the same things.

 

[stevevw]

The truth is inconvenient sometimes.

Also - "Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." - is a very ignorant quote. Science cannot deal with the supernatural.

So you have run out of evidence or constructive things to say so your now attacking me personally. Your entire approach to arguing is just wrong. The right thing to do would have been to ask a person first what they mean by what they have quoted rather than assuming things. You don't know me or the reasoning behind why I posted that.

But what I have noticed is that I got more out of you by playing your yes and no game than anything else which is good.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you have run out of evidence or constructive things to say so your now attacking me personally. Your entire approach to arguing is just wrong. The right thing to do would have been to ask a person first what they mean by what they have quoted rather than assuming things. You don't know me or the reasoning behind why I posted that.

But what I have noticed is that I got more out of you by playing your yes and no game than anything else which is good.

Where in the quote have I attacked you personally?

 

[Speedwell]

1. Why are the Synoptics not eye witnessed?

Why should they be? The authors make no claim that they were eyewitness and Luke is quite explicit that he was not.

2. If Genesis is not factual history and unworthy of Divine Authorship, what is it then to you?

It is beginning to seem as if you are deliberately misunderstanding me. What I am trying to convey to you is this:

1. If Genesis is merely an historical narrative then it is unworthy of God's authorship.
2. If it is authored by God then it need not be an historical narrative in order to be true and authoritative.

4. What are adam and eve symbolic of?

The first humans.

 

[Speedwell]

What are you talking about? Do you mean the evidence to show objective morality exists based on naturalism such as human wellbeing, natural laws of evolution, etc? Or that these ideas can be used by subjectivists to reason what is right and wrong morally. Which is more or less the same things.

What I mean is evidence that morality (whether you define it as "objective" or not) can be based on naturalism such as human wellbeing, natural laws of evolution, etc.

You must refute that evidence. There appear to be two possibilities depending on whether you define "objective morality" as possibly arising from natural causes or not...

1. If naturalistic causes are a possible source of an objective morality then the existence of objective morality does not necessarily prove the existence of God.
or
2. If naturalistic causes are a possible source only of a subjective morality, then a possible subjective cause exists for the content of our consciences (our "lived moral experience") which refutes your original argument for an objective morality.

Your turn.

 

[stevevw]

Where in the quote have I attacked you personally?

By attacking my credibility, claiming I am ignorant.

 

[Speedwell]

By attacking my credibility, claiming I am ignorant.

"Willful ignorance" would be a personal attack; "ignorance" is merely an observation.