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.
See more
See less

Are elephants people?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The absence of an ultimate law-giver would not preclude the absence of sub-ultimate law givers.
    Indeed, you could similarly argue that there is no such thing as the color 'blue' if there did not exist an ultimate law-giver to define what 'blue' is for us. And likewise, that would be a bad argument.

    As it turns out in practice, each language group defines it's own standards of 'blue' perfectly fine without God telling them. Interestingly, each group of language speakers has slight and measurable differences in which shades they point to as being most typical of that color and which they think are borderline.

    No greatest-authority needed on the subject, humans manage to agree upon their own standards perfectly fine.
    "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 Post

      As it turns out in practice, each language group defines it's own standards of 'blue' perfectly fine without God telling them. Interestingly, each group of language speakers has slight and measurable differences in which shades they point to as being most typical of that color and which they think are borderline.
      Yup. And in Japanese, without context, you won't know whether the speaker is referring to the blue of the sky or the blue of grass (given that the standard translation of ao is blue).  There are words that make the distinction when it becomes necessary, but ordinarily ao is the go-to. You might need to find a different analogy.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        The absence of an ultimate law-giver would not preclude the absence of sub-ultimate law givers.
        Okay, and what obligation do I have to obey any of them?
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
          That's beside the point. Nobody is claiming that nothing is immoral.


          I said nothing about moral absolutes.

          I simply pointed out that "everything is permissible" is false if there are some things not permitted by some people.
          You argued for moral preference, meaning no moral absolutes, meaning nothing is objectively immoral, meaning that everything is permissible regardless of how others might feel about it.

          And once again, you run face first into the wall of moral relativism, where your worldview necessarily commits you to a position that you apparently find intuitively incorrect.
          Last edited by Mountain Man; 06-22-2022, 06:19 AM.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
            Indeed, you could similarly argue that there is no such thing as the color 'blue' if there did not exist an ultimate law-giver to define what 'blue' is for us. And likewise, that would be a bad argument.

            As it turns out in practice, each language group defines it's own standards of 'blue' perfectly fine without God telling them. Interestingly, each group of language speakers has slight and measurable differences in which shades they point to as being most typical of that color and which they think are borderline.

            No greatest-authority needed on the subject, humans manage to agree upon their own standards perfectly fine.
            We're not talking about defining good and bad behavior but, rather, establishing the existence of moral duty. As Craig writes:

            First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

            https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...uments-for-god

            and

            If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

            https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...od-without-god

            If there is nobody to whom we are ultimately accountable, meaning that their judgments are, at least in theory, avoidable, then we have no obligation to them. It might be good, as in advantageous, for us to cooperate with members of society, but we have no moral duty to do so.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

              You argued for moral preference, meaning no moral absolutes, meaning nothing is objectively immoral, meaning that everything is permissible regardless of how others might feel about it.

              And once again, you run face first into the wall of moral relativism, where your worldview necessarily commits you to a position that you apparently find intuitively incorrect.
              The societal concepts of morality demonstrably change with the wind, usually being driven by noisy people who happen to find a way to become influential.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                Might doesn't make right, but in some sense, might makes the rules; the rules mean nothing if they aren't enforced.
                If might defines right (makes the rules) then it is might that makes right. What else is there?

                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 Post
                  No greatest-authority needed on the subject, humans manage to agree upon their own standards perfectly fine.
                  So why are you a Moral Realist? Why is the search for universal moral truths even necessary if the above is correct?

                  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 Mountain Man View Post
                    We're not talking about defining good and bad behavior but, rather, establishing the existence of moral duty. As Craig writes:

                    First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.
                    So, different people use different words. I personally use the words 'right/wrong' and 'good/bad' heaps and heaps, but barely ever use the word duty. And before you say "ah ha, atheist, that just proves it!" I would point out that the bible barely ever uses the word 'duty', or 'obligation' for that matter.

                    I, like the Bible, have zero interest in the concept of trying to connect morality with duty. That's a very Kantian idea.

                    I view morality as being about positive valuing of others, and hence goodwill toward them. Hence doing good to others = morality. But there's no notion of duty or obligation involved. The morality of an action is descriptive terminology, referring to the amount of benefit accrued to the receiver from the action, the level of goodwill toward the receiver by the doer, and how much the doer positively values the receiver. So every action has a level of morality that can be assessed in terms of the values, intentions, and consequences. Hence in my view morality has almost zero to do with obligations or duties.

                    I disagree with almost everything Craig says above. I don't agree that duties have to do with right or wrong. I do think that good and right mean the same thing and that bad and wrong mean the same thing. I don't think duty has to do with moral obligation. I reject basically all Craig's premises, and hence pretty much all his conclusions.

                    If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed.
                    Evolution gave us eyesight, and we presume that the world we see with our eyes is objectively true. Evolution gave us brains, and we presume that the physical laws we discover with them are objectively true. Why shouldn't the morality we discover through reasoning and social development be objectively true? He seems to have zero basis for the claim that evolution undermines morality in any way given it doesn't undermine anything else.

                    After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.
                    That seems completely and utterly irrelevant. To my view that has literally nothing at all to do with morality, and seems a complete change of topic.

                    If there is nobody to whom we are ultimately accountable, meaning that their judgments are, at least in theory, avoidable, then we have no obligation to them. It might be good, as in advantageous, for us to cooperate with members of society, but we have no moral duty to do so.
                    Well I've no interest in the fake concept of 'moral duty', as I've already mentioned above, and neither does the bible. Nor does your God's-judgement view get you there... God threatening to hit us with his big stick if we don't do as he says doesn't obligate us to do as he says. So your view obviously doesn't work.
                    Last edited by Starlight; 06-22-2022, 07:41 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 Dimbulb View Post
                      So, different people use different words. I personally use the words 'right/wrong' and 'good/bad' heaps and heaps, but barely ever use the word duty. And before you say "ah ha, atheist, that just proves it!" I would point out that the bible barely ever uses the word 'duty', or 'obligation' for that matter.

                      I, like the Bible, have zero interest in the concept of trying to connect morality with duty. That's a very Kantian idea.

                      I view morality as being about positive valuing of others, and hence goodwill toward them. Hence doing good to others = morality. But there's no notion of duty or obligation involved. The morality of an action is descriptive terminology, referring to the amount of benefit accrued to the receiver from the action, the level of goodwill toward the receiver by the doer, and how much the doer positively values the receiver. So every action has a level of morality that can be assessed in terms of the values, intentions, and consequences. Hence in my view morality has almost zero to do with obligations or duties.

                      I disagree with almost everything Craig says above. I don't agree that duties have to do with right or wrong. I do think that good and right mean the same thing and that bad and wrong mean the same thing. I don't think duty has to do with moral obligation. I reject basically all Craig's premises, hence his conclusions seem irrelevant to me.

                      Evolution gave us eyesight, and we presume that the world we see with our eyes is objectively true. Evolution gave us brains, and we presume that the physical laws we discover with them are objectively true. Why shouldn't the morality we discover through reasoning and social development be objectively true? He seems to have zero basis for the claim that evolution undermines morality in any way given it doesn't undermine anything else.

                      That seems completely irrelevant.

                      Well I've no interest in the fake concept of 'moral duty', as I've already mentioned above, and neither does the bible. Nor does your God's-judgement view get you there... God threatening to hit us with his big stick if we don't do as he says doesn't obligate us to do as he says. So your view obviously doesn't work.
                      You say you disagree with Craig and yet affirm everything he has said. Even if we allowed objective morality as a brute fact of nature, like the laws of physics, the atheist must necessarily reject the concept of moral duty, as you have done. He has no choice if he wishes to be consistent with his worldview. But in so doing, he reduces the concept of morality to nothing more than individual preference that is dicated solely by what is most advantageous to the individual at any given moment. This, however, creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of the atheist, because despite his best intellectual efforts, he instinctively recognizes that moral duty does, in fact, exist, yet he can't account for this from within an atheist framework.

                      As for your claim that the Bible does not concern itself with the concept of moral duty, what nonsense. There would be no point in God giving us the Ten Commandments if we had no obligation to obey them. Nothing in the Bible is presented as merely a suggestion.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        You argued for moral preference, meaning no moral absolutes, meaning nothing is objectively immoral,
                        You got it right up to this point.

                        meaning that everything is permissible regardless of how others might feel about it.
                        Wrong. If enough others are sufficiently against something to not permit it, then not everything is permissible.

                        And once again, you run face first into the wall of moral relativism, where your worldview necessarily commits you to a position that you apparently find intuitively incorrect.
                        And once again, you draw an incorrect inference from my position, and act as if that somehow reflects poorly on my position.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          If might defines right (makes the rules) then it is might that makes right. What else is there?
                          If right is a matter of opinion, then might can do nothing about it. IOW, society (with its rules and punishments) might be able to force me to behave in certain ways, but they can't force me to feel a certain way about it.

                          (Or at least if they can, through brainwashing or whatever, they could do the same to anyone who believes there is an objective morality, too.)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                            You got it right up to this point.


                            Wrong. If enough others are sufficiently against something to not permit it, then not everything is permissible.


                            And once again, you draw an incorrect inference from my position, and act as if that somehow reflects poorly on my position.
                            Nope. If nothing is immoral, then everything is permissible by definition simply based on the fact that you have no obligation not to do something even if everybody else thinks you shouldn't.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              If right is a matter of opinion, then might can do nothing about it. IOW, society (with its rules and punishments) might be able to force me to behave in certain ways, but they can't force me to feel a certain way about it.
                              If might does not define right then what does?

                              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 Mountain Man View Post

                                Nope. If nothing is immoral, then everything is permissible by definition simply based on the fact that you have no obligation not to do something even if everybody else thinks you shouldn't.
                                I suspect you and I are using different definitions of either "permissible" or "obligation" or both.

                                I find this happens fairly often when I'm in a discussion with someone who has a different worldview than I do.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X