News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

WLC's Moral Ontology Argument

Started by Phillysoul11, February 24, 2009, 11:40:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Phillysoul11

Quote from: "Recusant"You will excuse me if I do not accept you as the arbiter of definitions.
Faith is not "the belief in the existence of reality."  Look as you will, those words are not to be found in any definition of the word 'faith,' other than perhaps your personal definition.  You say that belief in the existence of reality is an idea, and ideas can only be trusted by an act of faith.  This is twisting and stretching the definition of faith to back up what seems to me to be an essentially solipsistic argument.  I know this veers into epistemology, but I'm curious; are you espousing solipsism here?
  Faith, as I understand it, is superfluous and irrelevant to the question of the existence of reality.  I know that reality exists, and can prove it to my own satisfaction. (Remember that I'm a barbarian who is only dabbling in philosophy.)  You will of course say that any standards of proof that I've used are unsatisfactory to you, the mentally agile theist philosopher. I think that your standard of proof is literally unrealistic. Reality can never be proved to your satisfaction, yet there are strong (I would say undeniable, but that's just me) indications that it does exist.    To assert that knowledge of reality is dependent on faith is once again, it seems to me, recourse to solipsism.  No doubt in your view I'm wrong; I await your explanation why.
As I mentioned before I think dictionary.com got it right when they said faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing" now this confidence is based off of evidence, if not than it is blind faith. While I think that solipsism has a few things right I would not label myself as one. I believe 100% (not that I can prove it) that I exist, that the world exists and that universe exists. Can you prove to me these exist? no, neither can I prove to you that God exists, the stronger the evidence, the less faith one needs. Evidence or lack thereof alone cannot prove anything, it can only make things more likely.

QuotePlease give some examples of these assumptions.

Math and Logic.
Science presupposes Mathematical and Logical truths but to try and prove them would be impossible.

 
 
QuoteYou are arguing that subjective morality leaves one morally crippled and is not in line with reality if I understand you correctly.  I think this idea is a bit contrived, since we see subjective morality in action all around us in the real world, and people acting on it don't feel themselves to be morally crippled.  But it would seem that according to what you have been saying, subjective morality doesn't even exist, since if it's not congruent with objective morality, it's necessarily other than morality.  Thus those who act based on what they believe to be morality, are not really acting in a moral way at all, if it is not in line with objective morality.  This makes sense only if you believe in objective morality, of course.

If you were to say that my opinions on this subject imply that I'm a nihilist, you would not be the first to label me as such.  I think 'nihilist' is not entirely accurate, but I'm willing to accept being labeled a nihilist since it's close enough to my views, in the opinions of moral absolutists that I have known, that I don't mind it.
We see those who adhere to subjective morality who don't feel morally crippled which is why I was writing this, I have repeatedly stated that I am after consistency, if what I have arguing for (that subjective morality is morally crippling) is true, than those who adhere to subjective morality should live morally crippled lives. (which they aren't) I have no need in labeling you nor anyone else. I was merely trying to point out the ramifications of adhering to subjective morality.
http://www.twitter.com/Phillysoul11

Keep the dream alive... hit the snooze button

verybigv

Objective morality ,I don't believe, exists. I'm assuming that you mean," It was moral then, it's moral now. It will always be moral, forever and always." I think our morality has evolved. I think our ability to have morals is part of our evolutioary success.I think perhaps our morality is a form of survival of the species. Without our morals we could, very possibly, self-destruct. But as the idea of god has changed, so has morality. To the ancient Hawaiians killing children with birth defects was a correct and moral choice.Being isolated from the rest of the world left them no "wiggle room" in the gene pool. What seems outrageously immoral to us now was a matter of survival to them. As we evolve away from theism and toward humanism our morality will be based more on how we'll all need to get along and not on the fear of a vengeful god.

Phillysoul11

Quote from: "verybigv"Objective morality ,I don't believe, exists. I'm assuming that you mean," It was moral then, it's moral now. It will always be moral, forever and always." I think our morality has evolved. I think our ability to have morals is part of our evolutioary success.I think perhaps our morality is a form of survival of the species. Without our morals we could, very possibly, self-destruct. But as the idea of god has changed, so has morality. To the ancient Hawaiians killing children with birth defects was a correct and moral choice.Being isolated from the rest of the world left them no "wiggle room" in the gene pool. What seems outrageously immoral to us now was a matter of survival to them. As we evolve away from theism and toward humanism our morality will be based more on how we'll all need to get along and not on the fear of a vengeful god.

thank you for the reply, but I was concerned with moral ontology, not moral epistemology. See previous posts ;)
http://www.twitter.com/Phillysoul11

Keep the dream alive... hit the snooze button

maestroanth

The spirit is free-will not god.

ryan-blues

Hi Phillysoul11,

I have just been reading through and you seem to either contradict yourself or are not being clear enough over some key points in your argument for Objective Morality. For example:
Quote“My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three.

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing.

when I say that murder (or any other immoral act) is wrong, I state that it is wrong because it violates God's moral standard, now can I prove that it violates God's moral standard? no I cannot, I have repeatedly tried to make this clear.”

Versus

Quote“Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
Murder is wrong, it is not wrong because god "says" its wrong, after all then it would be subjective because God could have decided to say something else.

God does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective.

Where did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective.”

Where this is confusing is when you ascribe objective morality as “God's moral standard” and that which is immoral is so because it “runs contrary to God”. Yet you continue to say that a particular act is not wrong/immoral because  God “says its wrong”  or because he decides “that 'A' is wrong and 'B' is right”.

So either you are suggesting one of these three options;

1)Objective Morality is based upon God's moral standard, yet he did not set this moral standard. Otherwise that would be subjective due to God's personal choice on what constitutes a moral/immoral act.
2)God originally created an objective moral standard, but does not arbitrarily decide upon each individual act and it's moral standard.
3)I have not accurately explained your view and created a straw-man or misrepresentation (unintentionally but I apologise for doing so).


I feel that if your argument runs along the lines of 1. then you are suggesting God him/her/itself is living within this objective morality and not omnipotent or infinite as he has to adhere to some higher standard, is this your view of God?

If you are advocating point 2. then you are stating God set the moral standard in the first place and therefore it is not objective but subjective as it represents God's personal opinion. Or obviously there is point 3. so i would be happy for you to elaborate on the basis of objective morality and God's role (if he had one).

Quote“I believe that if one is intellectually honest with themselves it would be much more plausible to conclude that objective morality does exist. Can I prove it does? No I can't, but then again I can't prove the existence of reality, truth or anything else for that matter. “

You seem to say it is intellectually honest to conclude that something (objective morality) does exist, without any proof. When you assess the subjective nature of our existence, variety in cultures/societies/politics etc attests to us living within a subjective reality, it seems much more intellectually honest and rational to conclude that objective morality does not exist, as all proof points to subjectivity.

Quote“it is in my opinion, irrational to believe in opinion based morality as the consequences that such a world view entails do not match up with reality.”

But again you have said that reality (perhaps I am misconstruing your interpretation of reality?) does not match up with subjective morality, yet you have said there is no evidence for objective morality. Surely it is more rational to believe in subjective morality?

Hope this is clear enough, and please set me straight if I have misrepresented anything.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." Bertrand Russell
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of formi

Sophus

I agree! It's like Nietzsche said:

Nihilist und Christ: das reimt sich, das reimt sich nicht bloss.

Translated means: "Nihilist and Christian. They rhyme, and do not merely rhyme..."

We both think that without god morality is man-made.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

PipeBox

I'm not really adding anything by saying this, but morality with God is still man made, unless you can get by all of these assumptions:
1. God exists.
2. Morality exists and God is either its creator or falls under it.
3. God fully understands this morality.
3. God dictates morality to people, perfectly.
4. People understand God's diction, perfectly.

I'm probably missing a few.  Most Christians break off when they don't like the sound of (realize the implications of) 2, but there can be no argument that at least one of these assumptions is broken because not even Christians have perfect, harmonious morality.  I'm not talking about making bad choices (willfully sinning, which would still be possible even with perfect moral understanding), but about the difference in opinion of what is right and wrong.

Our morality is man made, dictated by biology and environment.  No other part of nature functions entirely as though it adheres to the same very diverse and often contradicting moral opinion as humans.
If sin may be committed through inaction, God never stopped.

My soul, do not seek eternal life, but exhaust the realm of the possible.
-- Pindar

Phillysoul11

Quote from: "ryan-blues"Hi Phillysoul11,

I have just been reading through and you seem to either contradict yourself or are not being clear enough over some key points in your argument for Objective Morality. For example:
Quote“My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three.

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing.

when I say that murder (or any other immoral act) is wrong, I state that it is wrong because it violates God's moral standard, now can I prove that it violates God's moral standard? no I cannot, I have repeatedly tried to make this clear.”

Versus

Quote“Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
Murder is wrong, it is not wrong because god "says" its wrong, after all then it would be subjective because God could have decided to say something else.

God does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective.

Where did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective.”

Where this is confusing is when you ascribe objective morality as “God's moral standard” and that which is immoral is so because it “runs contrary to God”. Yet you continue to say that a particular act is not wrong/immoral because  God “says its wrong”  or because he decides “that 'A' is wrong and 'B' is right”.

So either you are suggesting one of these three options;

1)Objective Morality is based upon God's moral standard, yet he did not set this moral standard. Otherwise that would be subjective due to God's personal choice on what constitutes a moral/immoral act.
2)God originally created an objective moral standard, but does not arbitrarily decide upon each individual act and it's moral standard.
3)I have not accurately explained your view and created a straw-man or misrepresentation (unintentionally but I apologise for doing so).


I feel that if your argument runs along the lines of 1. then you are suggesting God him/her/itself is living within this objective morality and not omnipotent or infinite as he has to adhere to some higher standard, is this your view of God?

If you are advocating point 2. then you are stating God set the moral standard in the first place and therefore it is not objective but subjective as it represents God's personal opinion. Or obviously there is point 3. so i would be happy for you to elaborate on the basis of objective morality and God's role (if he had one).

Hey Ryan! Thanks for digging up one of my favorite threads, brings back memories ;]

From what I can tell you are merely throwing Euthyphro's Dilemma into the equation which might seem like a smart move at first, but eventually (as I have argued in other threads) falls on its face.
Instead of spending 30 mins re-writing everything the wonderful Hitsumei and I discussed I will refer you to a brief article I wrote on my blog about the Dilemma  http://u.nu/5y8c

If you don't read through the article I could probably summarize it by saying God does not arbitrarily decide what is good, or evil. Nor does he conform to an external standard of good and evil, rather he is the standard. and he is this standard by virtue of his existence. Thus if god exists, than he is necessarily the moral standard.  tada  :D

Oh, and I apologize for the time it took to respond to these questions, I just now noticed the new replies.
http://www.twitter.com/Phillysoul11

Keep the dream alive... hit the snooze button