(July 1, 2013 at 7:52 pm)Inigo Wrote: 1. Morality's instructions are instructions that confer reasons for compliance to any and all to whom they are addressed.
2. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife and wishes to harm those interests should we fail to do as she instructs/favours would be instructions that would confer a resaon to comply to all to whom they are addressed.
3. Morality is an agent of the kind outlined in 2 above.

An agent of that kind is, on common usage, 'a god'.

I will simply point out that two beliefs common in Hindu tradition, karma and reincarnation, make up samsara or the wheel of existence. Existence qua existence is taken to be a bad thing, and thus escaping the endless cycle of reincarnation is the goal, also known as moksha. Escaping the wheel takes different forms, but is ultimately seen as the result of acting in accordance with one's dharma which yields good karma and leads to release. Because karmic law imposes karmic burdens on the individual depending on the moral goodness of the act, these serve the same moral function as an ever vigilant, vengeful god who controls your afterlife. So you see, no god is required after all.

Are you at all interested in converting to Hinduism?

(July 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm)Inigo Wrote:

Quote:That agent can be your dad, or bugs bunny, or the gecko that tells you that it;s okay to rape that girl...

Well, no it can't and I've shown why umpteen times. But assert something enough and it'll become true.

No one is denying that you've repeated yourself umpteen times. Realizing that asserting something often enough doesn't make it true, one might think you'd give it up. Your argument is rubbish unless one accepts your premises (i.e., already agrees with you). How's that working for you?

I still don't understand the argument, it would be more simple if you just tried to prove me wrong when I say all my morals I have come from being taught, brainwashed, educated (whatever you want to call it) when I was younger. That along with the empathy, guilt, instincts I have of wanting to preserve myself along with my genetic code and other people who share my DNA closely, for example my close family.
Why does any of this need a god? Or if you don't like the wording of the question because you seem to constantly pick at my precise wording why does any of this mean god exists, why does it require a god to exist, whichever words you want to use, what does morality, moral sense or anything like that have in relation to a supernatural being? What does the afterlife have to do with morals or moral sense?

My morality exists. Maybe yours doesn't. Morality could be a concept or it could be some sort of internal instinct. It doesn't matter. What matters is that a God does not have to exist for my morality to exist. Only I do. I am this agent you are speaking about. And so are you. This is pointless.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:04 am)apophenia Wrote: I will simply point out that two beliefs common in Hindu tradition, karma and reincarnation, make up samsara or the wheel of existence. Existence qua existence is taken to be a bad thing, and thus escaping the endless cycle of reincarnation is the goal, also known as moksha. Escaping the wheel takes different forms, but is ultimately seen as the result of acting in accordance with one's dharma which yields good karma and leads to release. Because karmic law imposes karmic burdens on the individual depending on the moral goodness of the act, these serve the same moral function as an ever vigilant, vengeful god who controls your afterlife. So you see, no god is required after all.

Are you at all interested in converting to Hinduism?

No, I do not think morality is well explained by the posit of a Karmic universe. There are several major problems in my view. One of the major problems is that morality instructs/favours whereas a law of nature (or supernature) does not. So this kind of view will be entirely unable to account for morality's instructing nature. Second, there would be no good explanation available of our moral sense and how it has come to track moral properties. Third, such a view does not have the resources to explain moral desert.

This is unsurprising as the Hindu view is not offered as an explanatory hypothesis. Rather, as with all religions, it is just some barmy story someone pulled out of their backside.

---

(July 2, 2013 at 11:03 am)BrotherNeto Wrote: My morality exists. Maybe yours doesn't. Morality could be a concept or it could be some sort of internal instinct. It doesn't matter. What matters is that a God does not have to exist for my morality to exist. Only I do. I am this agent you are speaking about. And so are you. This is pointless.

And once again, just ignore the argument. Don't bother saying which premise you disagree with, just pronounce!

Why are you sure morality exists? Moral sensations and beliefs exist. But some people have a 'sense' that there is a god and loads of people 'believe' there is a god. But that doesn't show a god exists. Why? Because a god is not a sensation or belief. Our concept of a god is of a supernatural agent. So that's what needs to exist before anyone's sensation or belief in a god can be true.

Similarly, most of us have a moral sense and most of us 'believe' some acts to be right and others wrong. But this in itself does not establish the existence of morality. You can recognise this in the religious case, I assume. Why can't you recognise it in this case? MOrality is not a sensation or a belief. It is what the sensation gives us an impression of. it is the thing believed.

You have to look at our concept of morality - analyse the concept - before you can possible know what it would take for morality to exist. And when or if you do that, you'll notice that morality is something instructional and whose instructions have rational authority. The only kind of thing that can have those features is a certain sort of god's instructions. Deal with it.

You are simply using the Argument from Morality, only you've tried to smuggle it in by claiming that something which we can derive instructions from requires an intelligent agent as an axiom. As I have tried to mention, we receive instructions from the sensation of pain, but it requires no sentient agent, simply nerves telling us what is and is not good for our survival.

Until you can prove that instructions require an intelligent agent, you're dead in the water.

Still ignoring the evolutionary explanation I see.

(July 2, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Inigo Wrote: Similarly, most of us have a moral sense and most of us 'believe' some acts to be right and others wrong. But this in itself does not establish the existence of morality.

In the bolded bit, you -conceded- the case of the italicized bit. Do most of us have something that doesn't exist? How does that work, I wonder?

(July 2, 2013 at 10:47 am)paulpablo Wrote: I still don't understand the argument, it would be more simple if you just tried to prove me wrong when I say all my morals I have come from being taught, brainwashed, educated (whatever you want to call it) when I was younger. That along with the empathy, guilt, instincts I have of wanting to preserve myself along with my genetic code and other people who share my DNA closely, for example my close family.
Why does any of this need a god? Or if you don't like the wording of the question because you seem to constantly pick at my precise wording why does any of this mean god exists, why does it require a god to exist, whichever words you want to use, what does morality, moral sense or anything like that have in relation to a supernatural being? What does the afterlife have to do with morals or moral sense?

I drew a distinction that you are ignoring. Do you understand that I do not dispute the existence of moral sensations or beliefs? Do you understand that I do not think those things require a god?

moral sensations and beliefs exist. You have them, I have them, virtually everyone has them and their content has been discussed as long as there are records of humans discussing anything. They launch crusades, inspire great sacrifice, get people tortured and so on.

Moral sensations and beliefs exist. Where do they 'come from'? Well, I'm not sure - it is beside the point. You're providing an partial account of where they 'come from' when you talk about parents and upbringing and empathy and so on. All perfectly plausible. But all perfectly beside the point. For I am not talking about moral sensations and beliefs. Just take it as read that I accept their existence and that I do not for one moment think they require the existence of a god. THey exist for certain, but a god may not.

Morality is NOT those sensations and beliefs. Morality is the thing sensed, the thing believed. That doesn't mean it exists. THe existence of a sense of X does not entail the existence of X. Some people have a sense of god. THat doesn't mean god exists. When a sensation gives us the impression of something that doesn't really exist we call it a hallucination. Sometimes our visual sensations have nothing answering to them (such as when we are dreaming - we have visual impressions when we are dreaming, but there is nothing answering to them - a dream is a hallucination), and so on. Our senses can let us down.

Now, moral sensations and beliefs exist. There is no disputing that. They do not require a god. And you can keep telling me about their existence and development and how they do not require a god until you are blue in the face. It is pointless. I know they do not require a god. I am not claiming they do.

I am claiming that if no god exists, there is nothing answering to those sensations or beliefs. So, if no god exists then our moral sensations constitute a hallucination and our moral beliefs are systematically false. They will still exist, and your stories about how they developed will still be true. But the sensations will be hallucations and the beliefs false. So your story will be a story about how it has come to pass that we have this hallucination, and how it has come to pass that we have all these false beliefs.

Great. Now all you have to do is prove that morality is something that exists beyond our sensations and beliefs.

Hop to it.