Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?
Collapse
X
-
"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI've done so dozens of times, and each time you simply repeat the original question again.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI showed clearly that any moral belief is subjective (person dependent) in a godless universe.
If you truly and honestly feel that your questions aren't being answered properly, and aren't just deliberately trolling people by a strategy of relentless stubbornness until everyone gives up in disgust, then I suggest that that's probably because you keep using words in non-standard ways and people don't understand what you are trying to ask. You could try abandoning all your technical terms and instead explain in plain words what you think you're trying to ask.Last edited by Starlight; 06-29-2015, 08:03 AM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI'm beginning to think you actually believe that repeating something often enough actually makes it true. That would explain a lot of your posts on these forums.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIthen I suggest that that's probably because you keep using words in non-standard ways and people don't understand what you are trying to ask. You could try abandoning all your technical terms and instead explain in plain words what you think you're trying to ask.
So back to your link and his grounding for morality:
So a very broad definition of morality can be the distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.
Now I have nothing against this ideal. And if one accepts this ideal then there are most likely objectively better ways to reach that goal. But the goal itself is subjective. Why is negatively affecting conscious beings wrong if your moral goal is to garner personal power or wealth for instance? It would not be.Last edited by seer; 06-29-2015, 10:01 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOriginally posted by JoelThat's not how the law works. Anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. don't force Men's Warehouse to sell ladies' dresses The law only requires that Men's Warehouse sell men's suits to women who wish to purchase them.
See: http://www.menswearhouse.com/ for that example of a national chain store devoted to men's clothing.
There are also bridal shops that sell only ladies' things.
There are also religious stores that sell goods related to only one religion.
And so on.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf you own a cake shop that caters for weddings then you must provide a full service to all people eligible by law to marry, this includes same-sex couples.
Maybe the law is different where you live. In the U.S., bridal shops are not required to stock men's suits.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostYep. That's how the Civil Rights Act works in the U.S. It looks like you don't live in the U.S., so you may not be familiar with how things work here?
See: http://www.menswearhouse.com/ for that example of a national chain store devoted to men's clothing.
There are also bridal shops that sell only ladies' things.
There are also religious stores that sell goods related to only one religion.
And so on.
Bridal shops focus only on weddings, and only sell ladies' things. It is targeted solely at women. They are legally required to provide this service for anyone (including men) who wishes to purchase wedding dresses, but they aren't required to sell anything in addition to dresses.
Maybe the law is different where you live. In the U.S., bridal shops are not required to stock men's suits.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut I did explain what I meant by objective, and it was not in a non-standard way - I gave you a dictionary definition. So again, the sun exists objectively, no matter what our subjective perception is. The sun's existence does not depend on us - it is not person dependent. God's law is subjective to Him, but objective to human kind. It does not depend on us. His law would exist whether we knew it or not.
So back to your link and his grounding for morality:
So a very broad definition of morality can be the distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided.
Now I have nothing against this ideal. And if one accepts this ideal then there are most likely objectively better ways to reach that goal. But the goal itself is subjective. Why is negatively affecting conscious beings wrong if your moral goal is to garner personal power or wealth for instance? It would not be.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostBecause for morality to make any sense it has to depend on the existence of sentient beings because they're alive and can suffer. This is logically deduced from the first paragraph:
Imagine a universe devoid of all life. In this universe there are stars shining, quasars pulsating, and septillions of rocks smashing into each other, but not a single specimen of life anywhere to experience it. Such a universe would also be a universe devoid of all morality. For if planets collide, stars explode, and back holes devour entire worlds and there is no life to be affected by these events, there isn't a moral component to this universe. So therefore we can say that at some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it. And the higher the level of sentiment of the creature, that is to say, the more conscious it is to respond and be aware of its environment, the more sensitive it will be to external actions that affect it. Therefore, it would logically follow that if morality depends on life, the more sensitive and consciously aware a living being is, the greater the moral concern should be with regards to actions that affect them.
Wouldn't your reasoning here be consistent with an objective morality that required maximizing suffering?
One more question: You seem to be referring here only to external actions on a conscious being. Would you also include internal actions affecting one's self? Moral philosophers throughout history have attributed moral judgement also to internal actions and actions that affect one's self (such as in speaking of fortitude, temperance, pride). (Of course these things also require living beings, so this may not change your reasoning here.)
I think you mis-state the "standard response". The response is not just that God is loving, but that the objective standard that "loving is good" is also a property of God. The fact that God is loving is not the same thing as the standard that loving is good. But both are eternal properties of God.
It's the same thing with the laws of logic. They are neither arbitrary commands of God, nor a standard existing eternally apart from God, but are an eternal property of God. The fact that God is non-contradictory is different than the property of God that requires that "no contradiction is possible".
So sure, we can say that God conforms to the objective standard of morality (as well as the immutable laws of logic), and thus God is good (or logical) because He conforms to that standard. But neither does the standard exist independently of God. Both exist eternally in God.
The theist would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they wouldn't be good without god, which I haven't yet seen anyone successfully achieve.
Or put into the terms of your first reasoning in your post: For the theist, the existence of all other living things depends on God. Without God, they do not exist, and without any living beings (according to your own premise) morality doesn't exist.
The other major hurdle that divine command theory suffers from is the epistemic problem. That is, even if people believe in god, no one is going to fully agree on what god or what version of god is the correct one, or what commands are authentic and how to properly interpret them. You're going to be faced ultimately with moral relativism in practice, as is evident from the wide range of beliefs and practices of all religions. Thus the moral argument fails in theory and in practice.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut I did explain what I meant by objective, and it was not in a non-standard way - I gave you a dictionary definition. So again, the sun exists objectively, no matter what our subjective perception is. The sun's existence does not depend on us - it is not person dependent. God's law is subjective to Him, but objective to human kind. It does not depend on us. His law would exist whether we knew it or not.
So what you're trying to say is that you think a moral code ought to be external to humanity. I personally don't think that's a good requirement for a moral code, and don't see any good reason to place such a restriction on a moral code. I think morality arises from the nature of humanity as conscious beings - so I think morality is intrinsic to humanity (and any spiritual beings, God included) as a result of the fact that we are sentient beings. Demanding that a moral code be external to humanity rather than intrinsic to humanity strikes me as being like demanding that I solve a math problem without using math.
Here is my attempt at explaining objective morality as simply as I possibly can:
Whenever there are conscious beings in the universe - beings capable of experiencing reality - it makes sense to ask whether those experiences are positive or negative in nature. Whenever two conscious and intelligent beings interact, they do so with values and intentions toward each other. It makes sense to ask whether their intentions were to increase the positive experiences of the other, or to increase the negative experiences of the other, or neither. On that concept we pin the label of "morality". And that's it. The only arbitrary thing there was the choice to use the word "morality" to refer to that concept and not to some other concept. But this is always going to be a problem, because the definition of all words is intersubjective (they are defined by society) and you can never escape the subjectivity of the definition itself. But the concept the word refers to - the positive or negative intentions of conscious beings toward each other - clearly objectively exists."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostI am sure we can count on homosexuals to 'test' through the courts whether I will or not.
Originally posted by Joel View PostYep. That's how the Civil Rights Act works in the U.S. It looks like you don't live in the U.S., so you may not be familiar with how things work here?
See: http://www.menswearhouse.com/ for that example of a national chain store devoted to men's clothing.
There are also bridal shops that sell only ladies' things.
There are also religious stores that sell goods related to only one religion.
And so on.
Bridal shops focus only on weddings, and only sell ladies' things. It is targeted solely at women. They are legally required to provide this service for anyone (including men) who wishes to purchase wedding dresses, but they aren't required to sell anything in addition to dresses.
Maybe the law is different where you live. In the U.S., bridal shops are not required to stock men's suits.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just silly Tass. First, if your standard of "social cohesion" is our guide then totalitarian rule is just as effective as anything else. So by your definition, it is a good thing. As a matter of fact Democracy is much more messy and factional.
And moving from where?
How do you know where mankind will be in a hundred years? Perhaps we all will be under Islamic rule.
The illusion of choice is not choice.
Now, for the umpteenth time, answer the question: Given you argue that humans are exempt from causal ‘determinism’, unlike the rest of the universe, exactly at what point in the evolutionary chain did humans obtain the freewill to override the consequences of antecedent states of affairs? I'm waiting.
So the the 1% are just doing what nature created them to do.
And Tass, you don't have any problem with nature - do you?
Yes, but we are just a meaningless accident of nature - so...
That the survival instinct is useless.Last edited by Tassman; 06-30-2015, 12:41 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNot just homosexuals but everyone concerned with equal civil rights for all citizens...and I believe it already has been tested and the cake shop had to pay up.The cake shop in the case were sued because they wouldn't make a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" for a rally. It was nothing to do with a wedding cake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostBecause for morality to make any sense it has to depend on the existence of sentient beings because they're alive and can suffer. This is logically deduced from the first paragraph:
Imagine a universe devoid of all life. In this universe there are stars shining, quasars pulsating, and septillions of rocks smashing into each other, but not a single specimen of life anywhere to experience it. Such a universe would also be a universe devoid of all morality. For if planets collide, stars explode, and back holes devour entire worlds and there is no life to be affected by these events, there isn't a moral component to this universe. So therefore we can say that at some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it. And the higher the level of sentiment of the creature, that is to say, the more conscious it is to respond and be aware of its environment, the more sensitive it will be to external actions that affect it. Therefore, it would logically follow that if morality depends on life, the more sensitive and consciously aware a living being is, the greater the moral concern should be with regards to actions that affect them.
As for the Euthyphro dilemma:
I'll let Joel handle this for now.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI think you mis-state the "standard response". The response is not just that God is loving, but that the objective standard that "loving is good" is also a property of God. The fact that God is loving is not the same thing as the standard that loving is good. But both are eternal properties of God.
It's the same thing with the laws of logic. They are neither arbitrary commands of God, nor a standard existing eternally apart from God, but are an eternal property of God. The fact that God is non-contradictory is different than the property of God that requires that "no contradiction is possible".
So sure, we can say that God conforms to the objective standard of morality (as well as the immutable laws of logic), and thus God is good (or logical) because He conforms to that standard. But neither does the standard exist independently of God. Both exist eternally in God.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:49 PM
|
6 responses
61 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:18 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-28-2024, 11:42 AM
|
17 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 12:04 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-28-2024, 10:24 AM
|
5 responses
73 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 03:22 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-28-2024, 10:22 AM
|
17 responses
118 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
![]()
by Terraceth
Yesterday, 04:22 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-27-2024, 01:08 PM
|
51 responses
315 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 10:03 AM
|
Comment