Time For Martial Law...

[JimL]

Of course I would subjectively not want to be raped. Now what? Remember you need to make a non-circular argument for why that fact should prevent one from rapping another.

Because if whatever is considered wrong for you to suffer, is wrong for others to cause. If it isn't wrong for you to be robbed, then it isn't wrong for you to rob others. Morals are a two way street, if the effect is wrong, then the cause, the causer of the effect, did wrong. Why is it wrong, because the cause is to effect harm. Your argument seems to be that certain behaviors are wrong, or immoral, simply because there are arbitrary rules that say so.

[seer]

Because if whatever is considered wrong for you to suffer, is wrong for others to cause. If it isn't wrong for you to be robbed, then it isn't wrong for you to rob others. Morals are a two way street, if the effect is wrong, then the cause, the causer of the effect, did wrong. Why is it wrong, because the cause is to effect harm. Your argument seems to be that certain behaviors are wrong, or immoral, simply because there are arbitrary rules that say so.

Why? If one has the power and ability to gain or get pleasure from the harm of another why is that wrong? You are making a leap - I don't want A to happen to me therefore I should not do A to others. That should not is no more than an assertion on your part. It is your opinion about how it should work. An opinion I might add that has not been shared by many men over history.

[JimL]

Why? If one has the power and ability to gain or get pleasure from the harm of another why is that wrong?

Because then the same would apply to the other with respect to wronging you. Do unto others......

You are making a leap - I don't want A to happen to me therefore I should not do A to others. That should not is no more than an assertion on your part. It is your opinion about how it should work. An opinion I might add that has not been shared by many men over history.

It's an opinion based on reason that says it is in the best interests of all involved, the best interests of human society as a whole, that we do unto others as we would have done to ourselves.

[seer]

Because then the same would apply to the other with respect to wronging you. Do unto others......

That is an opinion Jim. Why should that matter? Remember the other golden rule: He with the most gold rules...

It's an opinion based on reason that says it is in the best interests of all involved, the best interests of human society as a whole, that we do unto others as we would have done to ourselves.

And why is the best interest of society a moral good? Like I asked earlier: Why is is human survival a moral good?

[Leonhard]

Leonhard how about we do a real world exercise. Why is rape morally wrong? I say because, primarily, it violates the law of God - God says it is wrong. What do you say?

Seer what is the point of this exercise? I'm not going to turn this thread into a lecture on moral philosophy for you. There's plenty of books to read for you if you want to study that.

I'm dealing specifically with the claim that I employed circular reasoning.

1. I've laid out how scholastic moral philosophy broadly works.
2. I've asked you to demonstrate any circularity - you haven't shown any.
3. I've explained the Munckhausen trilemma to you.
4. I've explained to you that there are other kinds of reasoning, and I've even gotten you to admit that observations aren't examples of deductive logic.

At this point you seem to be grasping at straws seer. We can apprehend truth through other means that deductive reasoning, especially we can see that human being (indeed all living things!) are ordered towards their survival. Every living thing on its own seeks to live. The difference between us and a tree is that we are rational. We can apprehend our ends. It is the ends that give us the reasons for doing what we should do.

I don't believe God arbitrarily decided that rape is wrong seer. I don't think that makes any kind of sense, that there is a possible world in which God commanded rape to be good and lo' it was. God decreed these laws because they express the truth He put into the world. As humans, by the very nature of what we are, rape is wrong. It isn't an arbitrary decision, it is essential and inherent. And in scholastic metaphysics, final causes are both real and we can apprehend them. So we can come to know of them.

In this there is no circular logic. Nor are any of the conclusions of scholastic moral philosophy arbitrary in and of themselves.

[seer]

I don't believe God arbitrarily decided that rape is wrong seer. I don't think that makes any kind of sense, that there is a possible world in which God commanded rape to be good and lo' it was. God decreed these laws because they express the truth He put into the world. As humans, by the very nature of what we are, rape is wrong. It isn't an arbitrary decision, it is essential and inherent. And in scholastic metaphysics, final causes are both real and we can apprehend them. So we can come to know of them.

In this there is no circular logic. Nor are any of the conclusions of scholastic moral philosophy arbitrary in and of themselves.

Leonhard, I don't believe that God arbitrarily makes moral law, these laws are grounded in His immutable moral character, and aimed at His purposes for mankind. But rape being wrong is based on a God given teleology for human sexuality and human purpose in general, no such purpose exists in an atheistic worldview. There is no objectively right or wrong way for humans to be, act, no overriding teleology or purpose for humans or human sexuality apart from God.

[JimL]

Leonhard, I don't believe that God arbitrarily makes moral law, these laws are grounded in His immutable moral character, and aimed at His purposes for mankind. But rape being wrong is based on a God given teleology for human sexuality and human purpose in general, no such purpose exists in an atheistic worldview. There is no objectively right or wrong way for humans to be, act, no overriding teleology or purpose for humans or human sexuality apart from God.

So, are you acknowledging that morals are reason based with respect to the nature of human existence?

[Leonhard]

So, are you acknowledging that morals are reason based with respect to the nature of human existence?

I don't think it would be fair to characterize seers position like this. The main disagreement between seer and me is about whether ends are extrinsic (imposed from the outside) or intrinsic (inherent to a being). In the former sense, you need to know of the external source in order to know what is right or wrong, in the latter you can study the thing in and of itself and discover it's true nature and derive morality from that.

Both of us however believe that atheism is incoherent in the light of this, but I'll save that for later.

[seer]

I don't think it would be fair to characterize seers position like this. The main disagreement between seer and me is about whether ends are extrinsic (imposed from the outside) or intrinsic (inherent to a being). In the former sense, you need to know of the external source in order to know what is right or wrong, in the latter you can study the thing in and of itself and discover it's true nature and derive morality from that.

Both of us however believe that atheism is incoherent in the light of this, but I'll save that for later.

Good point. I would say that you could in theory discover our true nature and perhaps work towards some basic moral facts apart from reference to God. But I would say that that nature still must be the handy work of God, whether acknowledged or not, since the forces of nature do not aim at purpose or ends - it is blind to these considerations.

[Leonhard]

Good point. I would say that you could in theory discover our true nature and perhaps work towards some basic moral facts apart from reference to God. But I would say that that nature still must be the handy work of God, whether acknowledged or not, since the forces of nature do not aim at purpose or ends - it is blind to these considerations.

Yeah pretty much, but it works more like a discovery of that fact, that God gave us purpose (knowing B you can demonstrate that A is true), rather than a transcendental argument (i.e you need to believe in A in order to be able to coherently believe in B).

It's the basis of St. Thomas Aquinas argument from morality after all, which was perfectly deductive.

But it is getting late so I'm going to bed.

[JimL]

I don't think it would be fair to characterize seers position like this. The main disagreement between seer and me is about whether ends are extrinsic (imposed from the outside) or intrinsic (inherent to a being). In the former sense, you need to know of the external source in order to know what is right or wrong, in the latter you can study the thing in and of itself and discover it's true nature and derive morality from that.

Both of us however believe that atheism is incoherent in the light of this, but I'll save that for later.

But, we do not know of an extrinsic, or external objective source of morality, or that morals even have objective reality. But we can decipher what behaviors are in the best interests of human beings and of society as a whole according to the nature of human existence as we perceive it. Thus an external source is not necessary in order that we discover or create for ourselves a moral framework of right and wrong based solely on reason. I understand that it is your belief that all of that comes from an objective source, but that is simply a belief, not a necessity of moral purpose.

[seer]

Yeah pretty much, but it works more like a discovery of that fact, that God gave us purpose (knowing B you can demonstrate that A is true), rather than a transcendental argument (i.e you need to believe in A in order to be able to coherently believe in B).

It's the basis of St. Thomas Aquinas argument from morality after all, which was perfectly deductive.

But it is getting late so I'm going to bed.

Right I said circular or assertion. The atheist would see our claims as no more than assertions. Good night!!!!

[JimL]

Right I said circular or assertion. The atheist would see our claims as no more than assertions. Good night!!!!

Exactly! Unsubstantiated, and unnecesary assertions.

[seer]

Exactly! Unsubstantiated, and unnecesary assertions.

Told you so!

[seer]

But, we do not know of an extrinsic, or external objective source of morality, or that morals even have objective reality. But we can decipher what behaviors are in the best interests of human beings and of society as a whole according to the nature of human existence as we perceive it. Thus an external source is not necessary in order that we discover or create for ourselves a moral framework of right and wrong based solely on reason. I understand that it is your belief that all of that comes from an objective source, but that is simply a belief, not a necessity of moral purpose.

Right yet you can not even make a non-circular argument that human survival is a moral good...