Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 2:24 pm)genkaus Wrote: (September 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm)Chas Wrote: And how is 'ought' determined? Whose 'ought' is it?
That's a separate discussion that comes after we establish the parameters of relevance.
That is not a separate discussion. You said morality is about how we ought to live.
Quote: (September 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm)Chas Wrote: How is that morality? You have made a rather elliptical reference, but have not satisfactorily defined anything.
You do know what 'illustrating a point' means, right?
I've given you the definitions. Morality is about how to live. Survival is about how to stay alive till the next moment. I've illustrated the difference by using a hypothetical example where difference in morality makes an objective difference in the quality of life. What else do you expect?
You have illustrated comparing the way two people chose to live, not the morality of the choices. And it is not objective; it is your value judgement about which is better.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 2:31 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm)Chas Wrote: And how is 'ought' determined? Whose 'ought' is it?
That is a complex question that the branch of ethics deals with.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm)Chas Wrote: That is not a separate discussion. You said morality is about how we ought to live.
And the discussion of the content of morality comes in once we agree upon that point. So, do we agree?
(September 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm)Chas Wrote: You have illustrated comparing the way two people chose to live, not the morality of the choices. And it is not objective; it is your value judgement about which is better.
I didn't realize I had to explicitly state each and every thing - the woman made the right/moral/good choices. The man did not make the right/moral/good choices. Since he did not make the opposite choices, his choices were not wrong/immoral/bad - so he is guilty of sin of omission, though not commission. The consequence of that was having a poor quality of life. And yes, the statement "the woman's life was better" is an objective judgment.
Posts: 3638
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: I didn't realize I had to explicitly state each and every thing - the woman made the right/moral/good choices. The man did not make the right/moral/good choices. Since he did not make the opposite choices, his choices were not wrong/immoral/bad - so he is guilty of sin of omission, though not commission. The consequence of that was having a poor quality of life. And yes, the statement "the woman's life was better" is an objective judgment.
I don't see how any of either of their choices has anything to do with morality?
Morality has to do with how we deal with other conscious beings with respect to their well being, and giving them a chance to flourish.
A single person can not act immorally or morally, since there are no other conscious beings to interact with.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Morality isn't about how we deal with other conscious beings. It is about determining what a person ought to do, which often times is determined by how it will affect other people.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 3:45 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I don't see how any of either of their choices has anything to do with morality?
Morality has to do with how we deal with other conscious beings with respect to their well being, and giving them a chance to flourish.
A single person can not act immorally or morally, since there are no other conscious beings to interact with.
Atleast read a few post before making same old defeated arguments. This point has already been addressed - therefore, repeating the same refutation over and over again gets really tiring.
Morality is a conceptual standard applicable to conscious human actions and behavior that dictates how they should live their lives.
To put it in words you'd understand - morality has to do with how a person acts or behaves. It includes - but is not limited to - actions and behavior that affect his dealings with other conscious beings with respect to their well-being. Once again - it includes this, but is not limited to it.
Which is why a single person can act morally or immorally without other conscious beings to interact with.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 3:56 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 12:24 pm)genkaus Wrote: (September 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The comparison fails when entire cultures practice, even celebrate, deviations from those norms.
Deviation from norm, cultural or otherwise, does not make the norm subjective.
I find that position absurd. Humans do what they want to do and make up excuses for why it is okay.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 4:02 pm
(September 3, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I find that position absurd. Humans do what they want to do and make up excuses for why it is okay.
The same way I can define the length of my foot to be 1 ft. and the length of my arm to be 1 meter and make up the excuse that its okay because the official standards are incorrect and invalid. However, that still would make my standards subjective and the official ones would remain objective.
Posts: 46583
Threads: 543
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 4:08 pm
P1) If God does not exist, then William Lane Craig is a big, fizzy douche nozzle.
P2) God does not exist.
C) Therefore, William Lane Craig is a big, fizzy douche nozzle.
The above argument is on as firm a ground, and makes no more logical errors than does Craig's in the OP.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
September 3, 2013 at 4:12 pm
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2013 at 4:16 pm by Chas.)
(September 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: (September 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm)Chas Wrote: That is not a separate discussion. You said morality is about how we ought to live.
And the discussion of the content of morality comes in once we agree upon that point. So, do we agree?
No, where do you get 'ought'?
Quote: (September 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm)Chas Wrote: You have illustrated comparing the way two people chose to live, not the morality of the choices. And it is not objective; it is your value judgement about which is better.
I didn't realize I had to explicitly state each and every thing - the woman made the right/moral/good choices. The man did not make the right/moral/good choices. Since he did not make the opposite choices, his choices were not wrong/immoral/bad - so he is guilty of sin of omission, though not commission. The consequence of that was having a poor quality of life. And yes, the statement "the woman's life was better" is an objective judgment.
No, you are making a value judgement - you are presuming a moral stance. One can argue that the man's life was simpler, therefore better.
It is not objective.
(September 3, 2013 at 3:45 pm)genkaus Wrote: (September 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I don't see how any of either of their choices has anything to do with morality?
Morality has to do with how we deal with other conscious beings with respect to their well being, and giving them a chance to flourish.
A single person can not act immorally or morally, since there are no other conscious beings to interact with.
Atleast read a few post before making same old defeated arguments. This point has already been addressed - therefore, repeating the same refutation over and over again gets really tiring.
Morality is a conceptual standard applicable to conscious human actions and behavior that dictates how they should live their lives.
To put it in words you'd understand - morality has to do with how a person acts or behaves. It includes - but is not limited to - actions and behavior that affect his dealings with other conscious beings with respect to their well-being. Once again - it includes this, but is not limited to it.
Which is why a single person can act morally or immorally without other conscious beings to interact with.
Please climb down off of your high horse, it's hard to hear you from there.
You are claiming a definition of morality and others disagree with your definition. Your claim to being right does not make you right.
Please define the basis on which one determines how one should live absent other people. What is the basis for choice?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
|
