How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, makes sense.

I was reading this this morning:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/moore/

Specifically the ethics section. Found the author's criticism of his open question argument interesting.

[Acrobat]

I have never asked "but is it really?"

Nor has Acrobat. 

This is getting silly. Over and out.

Moore's argument is about that. Did you not mention Moore?

And I just checked your last post. What are you asking about then? You're not asking is killing a baby bad? Your last post contains that question, lol

ETA: I'm not saying you think killing babies is bad is questionable. I know you believe it's bad. I'm saying that your demand for strong proof is unreasonable and your suggestion that there must be something beyond natural about morality is unwarranted.

Furthermore, it just so happens that Moore is not really as non-naturalistic as he purports to be. He still thinks it's all natural in some sense. From what I read, he doesn't believe in some spooky reality that Acrobat does.

No that's not Moore's argument. Moore argument is just to show that "good" is a distinct concept from the object its being used as an adjective for.

Harm is bad. Isn't like a vegan is someone who doesn't eat meat. I couldn't say he's a vegan, who doesn't eat meat. Because that's just a meaningless tautology. 

Bad is not synonymous with Harm. Or else you would just be saying harm is harm, or bad is bad, another meaningless tautology. 

Saying harm is bad, is like saying the ball is yellow. Yellow and ball are two distinct concepts. A ball does not define Yellow, nor does Yellow define a ball. So that begs that question what is the nature of Yellow, or the nature of Good and bad? 

Moore's claim is the referent of Good, is some real, but non-natural indefinable property.

[GrandizerII]

Moore's argument is about that. Did you not mention Moore?

And I just checked your last post. What are you asking about then? You're not asking is killing a baby bad? Your last post contains that question, lol

ETA: I'm not saying you think killing babies is bad is questionable. I know you believe it's bad. I'm saying that your demand for strong proof is unreasonable and your suggestion that there must be something beyond natural about morality is unwarranted.

Furthermore, it just so happens that Moore is not really as non-naturalistic as he purports to be. He still thinks it's all natural in some sense. From what I read, he doesn't believe in some spooky reality that Acrobat does.

No that's not Moore's argument. Moore argument is just to show that "good" is a distinct concept from the object its being used as an adjective for.

Harm is bad. Isn't like a vegan is someone who doesn't eat meat. I couldn't say he's a vegan, who doesn't eat meat. Because that's just a meaningless tautology. 

Bad is not synonymous with Harm. Or else you would just be saying harm is harm, or bad is bad, another meaningless tautology. 

Saying harm is bad, is like saying the ball is yellow. Yellow and ball are two distinct concepts. A ball does not define Yellow, nor does Yellow define a ball. So that begs that question what is the nature of Yellow, or the nature of Good and bad? 

Moore's claim is the referent of Good, is some real, but non-natural indefinable property.

Moore is saying that it's meaningful to ask the question "Is harm really bad?" unlike with say "is a bachelor an unmarried man?"

But doesn't matter anyway. The argument hasn't really been successful over time. Again, Google the counterarguments.

And Moore was nevertheless not a supernaturalist. There's no God in his position.

[Abaddon_ire]

Acrobat,

Would you agree that we could make a subjective assumption that well-being is a reasonable basis on which to base morality? Yes or no?

[Acrobat]

Acrobat,

Would you agree that we could make a subjective assumption that well-being is a reasonable basis on which to base morality? Yes or no?

I think you can make a variety of statements like x is beneficial for well being of a particular society, person etc..., like it's better for a child's wellbeing to be raised in a loving two parent home, than by a single parent, or that it's better for our wellbeing to have close friends, be a part of a community, that it would be better for the wellbeing of Japanese society if more people married, and had children.

You can make such statements, which may in fact have scientific validity, without any morality required. Without saying it's morally good for children to be raised in two person homes, in fact some might even disagree with calling this moral.

[Abaddon_ire]

Acrobat,

Would you agree that we could make a subjective assumption that well-being is a reasonable basis on which to base morality? Yes or no?

I think you can make a variety of statements like x is beneficial for well being of a particular society, person etc..., like it's better for a child's wellbeing to be raised in a loving two parent home, than by a single parent, or that it's better for our wellbeing to have close friends, be a part of a community, that it would be better for the wellbeing of Japanese society if more people married, and had children.

You can make such statements, which may in fact have scientific validity, without any morality required. Without saying it's morally good for children to be raised in two person homes, in fact some might even disagree with calling this moral.

Don't divert from the question. It is a starting point. You are intentionally trying to skip over a lot. Agree or not?

[Acrobat]

I think you can make a variety of statements like x is beneficial for well being of a particular society, person etc..., like it's better for a child's wellbeing to be raised in a loving two parent home, than by a single parent, or that it's better for our wellbeing to have close friends, be a part of a community, that it would be better for the wellbeing of Japanese society if more people married, and had children.

You can make such statements, which may in fact have scientific validity, without any morality required. Without saying it's morally good for children to be raised in two person homes, in fact some might even disagree with calling this moral.

Don't divert from the question. It is a starting point. You are intentionally trying to skip over a lot. Agree or not?

No. I don't agree.

[Acrobat]

Moore is saying that it's meaningful to ask the question "Is harm really bad?" unlike with say "is a bachelor an unmarried man?"

Yes, it’s a meaningful question because there is a distinction in meaning between good and harm, or else it would be a meaningless tautology like saying a bachelor whose also an unmarried man.

Good is distinct from harm, same way it’s distinct from a pizza.

But doesn't matter anyway. The argument hasn't really been successful over time. Again, Google the counterarguments.

There’s plenty of argument like that of Hume is/ought that many individuals think they have resolved like Sam Harris, without really understanding them.

And Moore was nevertheless not a supernaturalist. There's no God in his position.

He’s not, he’s just a non-naturalist, there no God in his view here.

But that’s because it’s incomplete, not fully realized, his picture though true, is only partly formed. Wittgenstein was a student ( he was also a student of Bertrand Russel), and eventual teacher of Moore as well, his views are far more realized than Moore’s.

[Abaddon_ire]

Don't divert from the question. It is a starting point. You are intentionally trying to skip over a lot. Agree or not?

No. I don't agree.

So you think wellbeing is not a moral objective. Oh fucking boy.

Explain why wellbeing is not a moral objective.

[Acrobat]

No. I don't agree.

So you think wellbeing is not a moral objective. Oh fucking boy.

Explain why wellbeing is not a moral objective.

You asked me if well-being is a reasonable basis to base morality on, not whether wellbeing is a moral objective.

So based on the original question, let take the example of gave of Japan.

It would be beneficial to the wellbeing of Japanese society, if their younger generation got married and produced more children. The situation currently shows a growing trend that’s causing a significance demise of their society as a whole.

Yet, I don’t see the idea of forgoing marriage and children as immoral, do you? Is it immoral for Japanese young people to be okay with the predicated decline of their society as a whole, as a result of low birth rates? I don’t think so.

I also fail to see any reason to label what’s beneficial or not beneficial to wellbeing with moral components, not to mention the term is a bit hazy.

Has Christianity been beneficial to the wellbeing of society, has western societies been better off with it, than if they continued n their pagan tradition? I think so, does that mean Christianity is or at least was morally good?

How about slavery, if slavery benefited us more than cost our societies in the long term with several hundred years of free labor, does this mean it was a morally good thing?

In addition in the real world morality works a lot more different, than any sort of rational system you devise for it. In fact our proactive moral behavior, has no real connection with any sort of moral rationalization.