(July 6, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Inigo Wrote:(July 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm)paulpablo Wrote: But then why does there have to be an afterlife because of morals? Why could the person issuing the demands not be a supernatural being in charge of our current lives, with no afterlife.
Because the rational authority of the instructions of such a person would not be inescapable. You would only have reason to comply with such a person's instructions so long as you stay alive. if you were planning on, or about to kill yourself/die you would have no reason to comply with this person's instructions to you.
Moral instructions are not like this. Moral instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife would be like that.
(July 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm)simplexity Wrote: Instructions don't require an instructor. They can be contained in a code that is read through already existing patterns. We call these the laws of physics. The code itself is written through already existing patterns. Chemistry/Physics what have you. You keep saying instructions require an instructor when obviously you know nothing about what an instruction is. Keep on asserting an instruction requires an instructor. A code does not require an instructor, only the correct sequence of events. Obviously you skipped over the part about instinct and neural blackmail. These are examples of instructions which we do not necessarily have to follow.
Just nonsense. the laws of physics are not instructions. You're not 'instructed' to obey the laws of physics, are you?! They describe how things behave, they do not prescribe.
Instructions DO require an instructor. Provide me with an example of one that doesn't have an instructor or shut up.
What about if you care about others outside of your own life, or what happens to people after you die. In this case there are reasons to follow a code of ethics without there being a need for a god.
This whole thread seems flawed to me if I understand it correctly, you're basing evidence upon what a word means.
You're basically saying "this word (normative morality) means an instruction which is inescapably rational to follow, only a god could give such instructions" Well maybe if you don't care about anyone else or what happens to you after you die and you do just want to kill yourself there are no normative morals. It's like me saying "I invented a word bozwollocks, its the feeling you get when the invisible elephant wraps its trunk around your stomach and you feel a bit weird, the word exists, the feeling exists, the invisible trunk must exist." It's only other people who get to decide who is rational, and their decision is surely effected by their own rationality, so logically no one can truly decide perfect rationality, absolute morality, none of these things, they aren't actual things which exist they are just ideas and words, just because someone out there had an idea that there are certain behaviors that all rational people should do and that these are normative morals what makes you think the idea behind all of this is actually true:?
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
