Christians don't believe there's objective morality.

[Godscreated]

Ho Ho Ho!!! Sir Greneknight is tickled.

I find the Fundies in this forum extremely hilarious. Some deny I'm a Christian. Others insist I am (and they refuse to debate with Christians) but they do that only because they don't dare to cross swords with me in a debate - they fear someone who hasn't even reached physical puberty!!!

Fear is what fundies always have. They always cite "For the FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

But if I'm not a Christian, and I'm prepared to debate on the Bible, what's your problem?

Deny you're a Christian, why no, I'm telling you as a fact you are not a Christian. Let's battle on I will be using the NASB, ESB, just wanted you to know what my weapons of choice are.

---

You are not a Christian, the scriptures prove that and since you want to use scripture to debate objective morality, you must also use scriptures to prove you are a Christian.

I am able to use Scriptures to prove I am a Christian but since the fruit of the Holy Ghost (which I have in considerable abundance; woot!!) includes humility, I won't bother to do that.

Yeah, yeah ducking out aren't you.

You will never be able to do it, I assure you. Scriptures teach morality's objective, just because you do not want to adhere to the morality the scriptures lay out does not make them subjective. Morality has never nor will it ever depend on what you want or believe, objective morality depends only on God. Christ said that the moral laws of scripture would never change, if you were a Christian you would know this and believe this. You've come to an atheist site and claim you are a Christian and then represent their beliefs, you must be a real loon. It's people like you that give Christianity problems, the atheist on this site are honest about their position, you are trying to be as deceptive as Satan and you fail at even that.

Thou liest! Scriptures do not teach that morality is objective. Why don't you engage in a formal debate. Oh please, sum up all your courage and agree to debate with me. You don't want it to go down on record that you are FEARFUL of a 13 year old boy who's not yet attained physical maturity but who has mental maturity by the spadefuls. If I don't know Scriptures as you claim then it shouldn't be difficult to debate and we use Scriptures, is it? YOu shouldn't be trembling in fear.

I'm ready anytime you are, so bring it on.

I don't just claim I'm a Christian. If you have the opportunity to talk to the Archbishop and you remind him who I am, he will tell you I'm a fine and faithful child of Holy Church.

You might be a fine and faithful child of Holy Church and your Archbishop might be as well, but if he believes as you do then both of you are not Christians. To bad you believe your authority comes from a simple man and a building. Mine however is a gift from the Heavenly Father, the One on High, the omniscient God of creation.

You claim I am as deceptive as Satan. You don't even know that Satan does not exist as a person and is used throughout as a METAPHOR? Oh, for crying out loud. I suggest you read Elaine Pagels on Satan. She's a professor of religion in Princeton which is a respected university in your country.

I rely on the Word of God not a human, God is truth, man is nothing more than opinion when we do not listen to the omniscient God. By the way, again no, I'm saying without a doubt that you are as deceptive as Satan and I find that he probably has you firmly in his control, read and study scripture and you will find out what I say is true.

SIR GRENEKNIGHT THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET AND CHALLENGES GODSCHILD TO A DUEL IN THE FORM OF A FORMAL DEBATE.

LET ALL AND SUNDRY BEAR IN MIND THAT GODSCHILD HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND WHETHER HE IS TO BE SEEN AS A MAN OR A COWARD DEPENDS ON HIS RESPONSE.

I urge you to take up the challenge and I will ask the moderators to arrange for a formal debate. Let's sharpen our swords and to the battle!

Sir Greneknight, Knight of the Order of the Round Table

We will do it right here I have no problem with arguing my points, and I've already shown you my weapons of choice, my sword has been sharpened and is ready.

[greneknight]

Ho Ho Ho!!! Sir Greneknight is tickled.

I find the Fundies in this forum extremely hilarious. Some deny I'm a Christian. Others insist I am (and they refuse to debate with Christians) but they do that only because they don't dare to cross swords with me in a debate - they fear someone who hasn't even reached physical puberty!!!

Fear is what fundies always have. They always cite "For the FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

But if I'm not a Christian, and I'm prepared to debate on the Bible, what's your problem?

Deny you're a Christian, why no, I'm telling you as a fact you are not a Christian. Let's battle on I will be using the NASB, ESB, just wanted you to know what my weapons of choice are.

---

You are not a Christian, the scriptures prove that and since you want to use scripture to debate objective morality, you must also use scriptures to prove you are a Christian.

I am able to use Scriptures to prove I am a Christian but since the fruit of the Holy Ghost (which I have in considerable abundance; woot!!) includes humility, I won't bother to do that.

Yeah, yeah ducking out aren't you.

You will never be able to do it, I assure you. Scriptures teach morality's objective, just because you do not want to adhere to the morality the scriptures lay out does not make them subjective. Morality has never nor will it ever depend on what you want or believe, objective morality depends only on God. Christ said that the moral laws of scripture would never change, if you were a Christian you would know this and believe this. You've come to an atheist site and claim you are a Christian and then represent their beliefs, you must be a real loon. It's people like you that give Christianity problems, the atheist on this site are honest about their position, you are trying to be as deceptive as Satan and you fail at even that.

Thou liest! Scriptures do not teach that morality is objective. Why don't you engage in a formal debate. Oh please, sum up all your courage and agree to debate with me. You don't want it to go down on record that you are FEARFUL of a 13 year old boy who's not yet attained physical maturity but who has mental maturity by the spadefuls. If I don't know Scriptures as you claim then it shouldn't be difficult to debate and we use Scriptures, is it? YOu shouldn't be trembling in fear.

I'm ready anytime you are, so bring it on.

I don't just claim I'm a Christian. If you have the opportunity to talk to the Archbishop and you remind him who I am, he will tell you I'm a fine and faithful child of Holy Church.

You might be a fine and faithful child of Holy Church and your Archbishop might be as well, but if he believes as you do then both of you are not Christians. To bad you believe your authority comes from a simple man and a building. Mine however is a gift from the Heavenly Father, the One on High, the omniscient God of creation.

You claim I am as deceptive as Satan. You don't even know that Satan does not exist as a person and is used throughout as a METAPHOR? Oh, for crying out loud. I suggest you read Elaine Pagels on Satan. She's a professor of religion in Princeton which is a respected university in your country.

I rely on the Word of God not a human, God is truth, man is nothing more than opinion when we do not listen to the omniscient God. By the way, again no, I'm saying without a doubt that you are as deceptive as Satan and I find that he probably has you firmly in his control, read and study scripture and you will find out what I say is true.

SIR GRENEKNIGHT THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET AND CHALLENGES GODSCHILD TO A DUEL IN THE FORM OF A FORMAL DEBATE.

LET ALL AND SUNDRY BEAR IN MIND THAT GODSCHILD HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND WHETHER HE IS TO BE SEEN AS A MAN OR A COWARD DEPENDS ON HIS RESPONSE.

I urge you to take up the challenge and I will ask the moderators to arrange for a formal debate. Let's sharpen our swords and to the battle!

Sir Greneknight, Knight of the Order of the Round Table

We will do it right here I have no problem with arguing my points, and I've already shown you my weapons of choice, my sword has been sharpened and is ready.

Anyway, my debate with a Christian in Christian Forums has been approved. It's a formal debate but unfortunately, it will be heavily moderated (typical fundy fear). I will be showing that the Bible and Christianity tell us quite clearly that there is NO objective morality. For my New Testament, I will be using the Nestle Greek text. Oh, you guys don't read Koine Greek and you call yourselves Christians who love the Bible? How disgraceful!

[Faith No More]

To bad you believe your authority comes from a simple man and a building. Mine however is a gift from the Heavenly Father, the One on High, the omniscient God of creation.

On whose authority have you determined that you have received a gift from the "Heavenly Father." It wouldn't be from a simple man, would it?

[discordianpope]

On the contrary, teleology seeks to apply a purpose and by extension an ought to all things. The goal strategies would work fine even outside the teleological framework. As for the competing oughts, that'd would be one of the problems for the science of morality to solve.

That's just ignoring the problem. Completely. How would science settle the question of competing oughts? Science doesn't deal with oughts it deals with what is, with facts not values. It is the very move to teleology which gets around the problem precisely by reintroducing an aristotelian approach to science, which included oughts. The only person I know of who has taken this route is Alasdair MacIntyre, a Roman Catholic Thomistic philosopher. It's not the kind of thing most naturalists would want to sign up to. Without the inbuilt oughts of aristotelianism, even if science can tell us everything about what "is" in the world there will always be a conceptual gap concerning questions of oughts.

As for the other stuff, well, if you aren't a dualist, the quibble about psychology versus biology (neuroscience) seems a strange one to me.

[genkaus]

That's just ignoring the problem. Completely. How would science settle the question of competing oughts? Science doesn't deal with oughts it deals with what is, with facts not values. It is the very move to teleology which gets around the problem precisely by reintroducing an aristotelian approach to science, which included oughts. The only person I know of who has taken this route is Alasdair MacIntyre, a Roman Catholic Thomistic philosopher. It's not the kind of thing most naturalists would want to sign up to. Without the inbuilt oughts of aristotelianism, even if science can tell us everything about what "is" in the world there will always be a conceptual gap concerning questions of oughts.

Are you sure about that? I see sciences dealing with "oughts" everyday. Economics deals with measures that ought to be taken t maximize productivity. Political sciences deal with what a government's policy ought to be. Medical sciences deal with what ought to be the best course of treatment for patients. Applied sciences deal with what ought to be done to create most stable structures (civil engineering) or most efficient machines (mechanical).

I don't see any inbuilt oughts of aristoteleanism in these cases and there are competing oughts here as well - such as between patient's life and quality of life or a structure's stability and cost efficiency. However, the conceptual gap between is and ought have been bridged very well in these cases.

As for the other stuff, well, if you aren't a dualist, the quibble about psychology versus biology (neuroscience) seems a strange one to me.

Can every aspect of human psychology be explained by neuroscience? If not, then here is your answer.

[discordianpope]

Are you sure about that? I see sciences dealing with "oughts" everyday. Economics deals with measures that ought to be taken t maximize productivity. Political sciences deal with what a government's policy ought to be. Medical sciences deal with what ought to be the best course of treatment for patients. Applied sciences deal with what ought to be done to create most stable structures (civil engineering) or most efficient machines (mechanical).

I don't see any inbuilt oughts of aristoteleanism in these cases and there are competing oughts here as well - such as between patient's life and quality of life or a structure's stability and cost efficiency. However, the conceptual gap between is and ought have been bridged very well in these cases.

You are avoiding the issue again, I'm pretty sure you realise that though. Surely nobody thinks that ethics can be grounded in political science or civil engineering.

The economist can tell us what we ought to do to increase productivity but not whether we ought to want to increase productivity for moral ends. The what we ought to do to achieve such and such a goal in the economics case is an instrumental ought, it has nothing to do with morality. The question of whether we ought to want to increase productivity in order to make peoples lives better is a moral ought, but not one the economist can address without appeal to external moral commitments.

Medical science, likewise, can answer questions of what morally ought to be done only once the moral oughts have already crept back in. The premises are not purely factual. Once we agree that something like the limiting of suffering is a moral good, medical science can tell us what we ought to do to achieve it. It can not tell us whether we (morally) ought to limit suffering.

In short: Hume's Is-Ought problem applies to moral oughts, not instrumental oughts.

Now, how can moral oughts (not instrumental oughts) be grounded in a value-free psychology?

[genkaus]

You are avoiding the issue again, I'm pretty sure you realise that though. Surely nobody thinks that ethics can be grounded in political science or civil engineering.

Quite the reverse actually. Well - not civil engineering, but political science can have roots in ethics.

The economist can tell us what we ought to do to increase productivity but not whether we ought to want to increase productivity for moral ends. The what we ought to do to achieve such and such a goal in the economics case is an instrumental ought, it has nothing to do with morality. The question of whether we ought to want to increase productivity in order to make peoples lives better is a moral ought, but not one the economist can address without appeal to external moral commitments.

Medical science, likewise, can answer questions of what morally ought to be done only once the moral oughts have already crept back in. The premises are not purely factual. Once we agree that something like the limiting of suffering is a moral good, medical science can tell us what we ought to do to achieve it. It can not tell us whether we (morally) ought to limit suffering.

In short: Hume's Is-Ought problem applies to moral oughts, not instrumental oughts.

You are missing the point. The fact is sciences do prescribe "oughts" based on "is" regularly. These sciences do not prescribe moral oughts - nor are they required to do so - because they have little to do with morality.

If science of morality were to become advanced enough to be applied in practice, then there would be no difference between moral oughts and instrumental oughts within its scope. One of the purposes of that science woudl be the discovery and/or establishment of moral oughts.

Now, how can moral oughts (not instrumental oughts) be grounded in a value-free psychology?

Again, that'd depend on the science itself.

[discordianpope]

Obviously political science can have roots in ethics. But not the other way around.

I obviously did miss the point. Because it seems you weren't bloody well making one. Obviously science has no problem deriving instrumental oughts from facts because nobody ever has, nobody ever will, it was never an issue and it has nothing to do with morality. You say as much yourself - so what was the bloody point of mentioning them?

You can't use that fact that there is no problem in deriving instrumental oughts from factual premises to support the idea that that science can get at moral oughts. It just doesn't make sense. When you say that a science of morality would reduce moral imperitives to instrumental ones you are just stating as a fact exactly what I am denying. You can't reduce moral oughts to instrumental oughts because the first are values and the second are facts. THIS is the is/ought problem! Stating it as if it isn't a problem doesn't make it go away.

So, from that, your argument seems to be that a science of morality dissolves the is ought problem, but how will depend on the science itself, which you don't seem inclined to say anything about. Meh, I'm not convinced. Maybe you could offer a single reason... argument... anything...?

[genkaus]

I obviously did miss the point. Because it seems you weren't bloody well making one. Obviously science has no problem deriving instrumental oughts from facts because nobody ever has, nobody ever will, it was never an issue and it has nothing to do with morality. You say as much yourself - so what was the bloody point of mentioning them?

The point was that you were wrong. You said that science doesn't deal with "oughts", it deals with what is. Clearly, it does. Later on, you changed it from "ought" to "instrumental ought". That is moving the goalposts.

You can't use that fact that there is no problem in deriving instrumental oughts from factual premises to support the idea that that science can get at moral oughts. It just doesn't make sense. When you say that a science of morality would reduce moral imperitives to instrumental ones you are just stating as a fact exactly what I am denying. You can't reduce moral oughts to instrumental oughts because the first are values and the second are facts. THIS is the is/ought problem! Stating it as if it isn't a problem doesn't make it go away.

Unless, ofcourse, those values are factual. Your entire argument and subsequent distinction is based on the assumption that what we consider "values" cannot be factual, i.e. not have a basis in facts. But if they can, then the problem would simply go away.

So, from that, your argument seems to be that a science of morality dissolves the is ought problem, but how will depend on the science itself, which you don't seem inclined to say anything about. Meh, I'm not convinced. Maybe you could offer a single reason... argument... anything...?

I've shown you how other sciences dissolve the is-ought problems within their scope. And saying how science of morality would do it would be empty speculation. By your response, it seems that you won't be satisfied until the there is some actual work done in it. So, I guess, you can just wait around.

[discordianpope]

The point was that you were wrong. You said that science doesn't deal with "oughts", it deals with what is. Clearly, it does. Later on, you changed it from "ought" to "instrumental ought". That is moving the goalposts.

Yeah, I was like totally wrong and a sneaky goalpost mover for thinking that we were talking about moral oughts and not instrumental oughts in a frickin discussion of morality.

Unless, ofcourse, those values are factual. Your entire argument and subsequent distinction is based on the assumption that what we consider "values" cannot be factual, i.e. not have a basis in facts. But if they can, then the problem would simply go away.

Yeah it would. But they don't. It's the is-ought problem. You know, that thing Hume talked about. You can not get evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises.

I've shown you how other sciences dissolve the is-ought problems within their scope. And saying how science of morality would do it would be empty speculation. By your response, it seems that you won't be satisfied until the there is some actual work done in it. So, I guess, you can just wait around.

Jebus Christ! I have explained why they don't dissolve the is-ought problem within their scope because it isn't an is ought problem! Hume wasn't talking about instrumental oughts. As for your blind faith that science will find a solution even though you don't know how it will be done, well.... I'm not a fan of blind faith.