Pixie runs a site callled "on creationism and why it's nonsense." he attacks my moral argument:
https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-argument-from-morality.html?showComment=1601305525809#c6051707562949656813>
That;s the old version but I'll answer it any way, The new version is found: https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/09/morality-warrants-belief-in-god.html,
Px With regards to (1), I agree, but it must be noted that morality is not universal. We feel a sense of outrage when an atrocity is committed, but presumably the perpetrators do not. We can feel moral outrage at how the Romans would watch people being eating by wild animals at the circuses, but these were very popular events 2000 years ago. What people consider good and bad is not set in stone, but is part of their culture.
Answer:(1) I speak of universal pertaining to cultures and civilization not all individuals, (2) People do violate the code they know is right that's why we have guilt feelings.
This brings us to (2), I would say they are cultural or social, rather than genetic; again think about the Roman circuses or consider changing attitudes to slavery. That said, I do not think this greatly impacts his argument.
Answer: fine that does not change my point it just means I have less to answer, As I pointed out we need an answer that preserves the normative nature of moral axioms
Px:These are rules mankind has developed to allow him to work in a community. We find them moral because our culture has conditioned us to, and that works because moral cultures survive better than amoral cultures. By amoral culture I mean one where individuals are free to steal and murder within the community. The basic rights of an individual who belongs to the in-group is preserved across all cultures because that in-group gets to set the rules. The in-group does not want people stealing from them or killing them, so develop rules to protect themselves from that, and morality springs from those rules.
Answer: That does answer my point. My argument says naturalistic answers reduce morality to less than normative if it;s just social contract we can have a social contract that allows us to conduct a holocaust, Whose to say it's wrong?
In (3), Joe points out that genetic (and implicitly social and cultural) explanations fail to offer the basis of a morality - get cannot turn "is" into "ought". But why should we suppose there is such a basis? Maybe there is no moral foundation, and morality is merely what we all agree it is. How else can we explain the changes in morality between cultures?
That Contradicts Premise (1) which you already agreed to, Really that's giving me the argument
Or maybe there is an objective morality that exists in the abstract, just as geometry does. Again, should we suppose there is an "ought"?
Answer: moral axioms are not like mathematics you have to have a theory of what grounds the ought, there is no calculation involved.
With regards to (4), Joe says social contract theory (SCT) "offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored". What he fails to note is that that is what we observe! Morality does change, morality can indeed be ignored.
Answer: morality is taught by cultures and thus it will bear the stamp of a given time or place but it always has a grounding in universal ought or there is no moral basis Tat;s the gist of my argument, its in premise1 and you agreed to it,
When we get to (5), Joe seems to be saying that God (according to Christianity) is good and judging what is right and wrong. It sounds like he sees morality as separate to God. There is an objective morality, and, say slavery is objectively wrong. God, given his situation, is particular able at discerning that fact, and relaying that to mankind.
Answer: Morality is not separate, God is objective God's universal perspective gives morality it;s universal basis,
However, when we look at (6), it looks like Joe's position is the reverse of that. Now God is the "source of grounding", indicating that slavery is wrong because God says it is. It must be noted that Joe does not talk about objective morality, so he is not on the weak ground that Craig is at this point. For Joe, "Universal Moral Law" means laws that come from God, and are universal because God is universal.
Answer: to the comfrey I just got though telling you morality is based upon God they are not separate, it's God's judgment of what is right and wrong,
So how can we relate that to (5)? I guess what Joe means is that God chooses what is right or wrong. Slavery is morally wrong because God has arbitrarily decided slavery will be wrong. However, as per (5), as the creator he is adept at deciding what will be morally wrong, so he made a good choice to make slavery morally.
Answer: not arbitrary it's based upon God's character
Good on what basis? Well, one that aligns with our ideas of right and wrong, i.e., what God decided would be good is what God decided would be good! Frankly, the argument make as much sense without (5) in my opinion.
Answer: It's not arbitrary it's based upon God's character which is love.
In summary, the argument comes down to:
People universally understand right and wrong (1)
Therefore there must be some underlying and fundamental morality (2)
God is the best explanation of that (3-6)
Therefore God likely exists
Answer: that is an inadequate understanding of the argument. There is a universal morality but argent is based upon the fact that approaches that don't embody God have basis for grounding of the axioms,
Joe: Answer:(1) I speak of universal pertaining to cultures and civilization not all individuals, (2) People do violate the code they know is right that's why we have guilt feelings.
ReplyDeleteI was also talking about cultures too, so this fails to address my point.
Joe: Answer: That does answer my point. My argument says naturalistic answers reduce morality to less than normative if it;s just social contract we can have a social contract that allows us to conduct a holocaust, Whose to say it's wrong?
So you argument is that you want the Holocaust to be objectively wrong, therefore it is.
Joe: That Contradicts Premise (1) which you already agreed to, Really that's giving me the argument
Explain that contradiction. I do not see it.
Joe: Answer: moral axioms are not like mathematics you have to have a theory of what grounds the ought, there is no calculation involved.
Okay. So why should we suppose there is an "ought"?
Joe: Answer: morality is taught by cultures and thus it will bear the stamp of a given time or place but it always has a grounding in universal ought or there is no moral basis Tat;s the gist of my argument, its in premise1 and you agreed to it,
Sure, but that can be accounted for in other ways. Societies with rules to protect its members flourish, those without do not. No need to suppose God is involved.
Joe: Answer: not arbitrary it's based upon God's character
Right, so God had no choice; he HAD to say murder is wrong. Therefore murder is wrong whether God says it or not.
Joe: Answer: that is an inadequate understanding of the argument. There is a universal morality but argent is based upon the fact that approaches that don't embody God have basis for grounding of the axioms,
There is a universal morality, and God's nature is such that he has to uphold it. No need for God, except possibly to inform us.
Pix
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJoe: Answer:(1) I speak of universal pertaining to cultures and civilization not all individuals, (2) People do violate the code they know is right that's why we have guilt feelings.
PX:I was also talking about cultures too, so this fails to address my point.
Then you don't understand your own point. Your original point was that it's not universal because some people violate it [moral motions]. Thus I say In', saying it's universal to all cultures not necessarily every individual, but if you agree then it contradicts your point,
Joe: Answer: That does answer my point. My argument says naturalistic answers reduce morality to less than normative if it;s just social contract we can have a social contract that allows us to conduct a holocaust, Whose to say it's wrong?
PX: So you argument is that you want the Holocaust to be objectively wrong, therefore it is.
why are you imposing a stupid relativistic notion as though that's the only way to think? Obviously my view assumes a cosmic truth that is not relativistic,
Joe: That Contradicts Premise (1) which you already agreed to, Really that's giving me the argument
Explain that contradiction. I do not see it.
I think I explained this above
Joe: Answer: moral axioms are not like mathematics you have to have a theory of what grounds the ought, there is no calculation involved.
P
PX:Okay. So why should we suppose there is an "ought"?
why should we oppose the holocaust? because we have the sense of moral outrage,
Joe: Answer: morality is taught by cultures and thus it will bear the stamp of a given time or place but it always has a grounding in universal ought or there is no moral basis That's the gist of my argument, its in premise1 and you agreed to it,
PX:Sure, but that can be accounted for in other ways. Societies with rules to protect its members flourish, those without do not. No need to suppose God is involved.
why make such rules if there's no right or wrong? you are helping society, the only good, by abusing some persecuted group so why make laws against it when it doesn't matter?
Joe: Answer: not arbitrary it's based upon God's character
PX: Right, so God had no choice; he HAD to say murder is wrong. Therefore murder is wrong whether God says it or not.
If that were true it would not be Without God. But I am not convinced that character is hard wired. That does not cancel free will but if God bases good on his character its not a contradiction nor arbitrary,
Joe: Answer: that is an inadequate understanding of the argument. There is a universal morality but argument is based upon the fact that approaches that don't embody God have no basis for grounding of the axioms,
There is a universal morality, and God's nature is such that he has to uphold it. No need for God, except possibly to inform us.
who says he has to? How does that change my argument?
Joe: Then you don't understand your own point. Your original point was that it's not universal because some people violate it [moral motions]. Thus I say In', saying it's universal to all cultures not necessarily every individual, but if you agree then it contradicts your point,
ReplyDeleteI said it is not universal because some cultures violate it.
Joe: why are you imposing a stupid relativistic notion as though that's the only way to think? Obviously my view assumes a cosmic truth that is not relativistic,
Right. You assume it. I am pointing out your assumption is unproven.
Joe: why should we oppose the holocaust? because we have the sense of moral outrage,
The issue is why we have the sense of moral outrage - and why German culture at that time did not.
Joe: why make such rules if there's no right or wrong? you are helping society, the only good, by abusing some persecuted group so why make laws against it when it doesn't matter?
If you are the ruler, then you make up the rules that protect yourself and your family, and those around you. It is just self-interest. If you want others to obey the rules, then you have the rules protect them too, and now it is in their self-interest to promote the rules too.
Look at the rules in the OT (and I use them only because they are ancient laws we can all readily access). They were created to protect the Hebrews, but not the gentiles. The slavery laws are quite specific that Hebrew slaves are to be well treated, not gentile slaves. The reason for that is that it was the Hebrews who made the rules, and so it was he Hebrews they rules were designed to protect.
Not sure what your point about persecuted groups is.
Joe: If that were true it would not be Without God. But I am not convinced that character is hard wired. That does not cancel free will but if God bases good on his character its not a contradiction nor arbitrary,
God is obliged to do good because that is his nature. Therefore he must be obliged to follow an external standard of good. God was obliged to say murder is wrong because it is in his nature to do what is good, and murder is, by its nature, wrong.
The alternative is to say that whatever God does it must necessarily be God just because God does it, so it is arbitrary. Murder is not intrinsically wrong, it is only wrong because that is what God chose to say. He potentially could have said otherwise, and if he had, murder would be moral.
Joe: who says he has to? How does that change my argument?
If murder is intrinsically wrong, we do not need God to decide that.
Pix
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJoe: Then you don't understand your own point. Your original point was that it's not universal because some people violate it [moral motions]. Thus I say In', saying it's universal to all cultures not necessarily every individual, but if you agree then it contradicts your point,
PX: I said it is not universal because some cultures violate it.
what cultures? Also They share the value. violating it does not mean they don't have the value
Joe: why are you imposing a stupid relativistic notion as though that's the only way to think? Obviously my view assumes a cosmic truth that is not relativistic,
PX: Right. You assume it. I am pointing out your assumption is unproven.
That's pretty silly. We have to assume that sharing the value is proof of veracity. you can't got to heave and show me the truth from God's perspective so we have to assume that if all cultures hold moral values they must be universal, you can't show me that has no moral values.
Joe: why should we oppose the holocaust? because we have the sense of moral outrage,
PX:The issue is why we have the sense of moral outrage - and why German culture at that time did not.
They did hold it. Those values were well documented im that culture. that's why people were so stunned that such a well civilized society could forget. It's also tri they didn't know the extent of the final solation. You can subvert moral values for a time especially with an organized effort. That's what makes the republicans....I mean the fascists so dangerous.
Joe: why make such rules if there's no right or wrong? you are helping society, the only good, by abusing some persecuted group so why make laws against it when it doesn't matter?
ReplyDeletepX:If you are the ruler, then you make up the rules that protect yourself and your family, and those around you. It is just self-interest. If you want others to obey the rules, then you have the rules protect them too, and now it is in their self-interest to promote the rules too.
That is a Republican out look. iT'S probably the way Trump sees things. by that way of looking at it you can justify murder. That's an Orwellian view. No liberal would accept that. It's not efficient or Just. There is no reason why we can't keep truth and justice.
PX: Look at the rules in the OT (and I use them only because they are ancient laws we can all readily access). They were created to protect the Hebrews, but not the gentiles. The slavery laws are quite specific that Hebrew slaves are to be well treated, not gentile slaves. The reason for that is that it was the Hebrews who made the rules, and so it was he Hebrews they rules were designed to protect.
I;ve made the point several tie that morality is an evolutionary apset of human understanding. Social evolution progressing over time
Not sure what your point about persecuted groups is.
Nazi society was predicated upon the idea that one group had been detrimental to society and it had to be removed for the good of the whole That justified persecution of the Jews. That view is valid and logical given your moral philosophy before.
Joe: If that were true it would not be Without God. But I am not convinced that character is hard wired. That does not cancel free will but if God bases good on his character its not a contradiction nor arbitrary,
God is obliged to do good because that is his nature. Therefore he must be obliged to follow an external standard of good. God was obliged to say murder is wrong because it is in his nature to do what is good, and murder is, by its nature, wrong.
You have not proven that God is not free to violate his nature, I am free to violate mine. Even so it's not an external standard it is a standard in God.
PX: The alternative is to say that whatever God does it must necessarily be God just because God does it, so it is arbitrary. Murder is not intrinsically wrong, it is only wrong because that is what God chose to say. He potentially could have said otherwise, and if he had, murder would be moral.
No the alternative is to say God can choose rationally as we can. Jump off the determinist band wagon Determinism is a lie.
Joe: who says he has to? How does that change my argument?
If murder is intrinsically wrong, we do not need God to decide that.
you just said God is bound by his nature, But no God means no nature that means no morality.