Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[The Thinker]

But it does mean that your option "(2) morality exists independently of god" is false.
For me to provide (like I did) an argument that is a counterexample to all 3 of your options, I do not need to make the stronger claim that "morality cannot exist apart from god". I only need to say that it's not the case that "(2) morality exists independently of god". Which is stated by my premise P1.
My argument is an example where all 3 of your options are false.

Joel, you are delusional. Here's what you're actually trying to tell me. You're trying to say "Morality is internal to God" such that morality cannot exist independently of god, while not claiming that "morality cannot exist apart from god". How is this coherent?? Either morality can exist independently of god or not. If not, you need to make an argument showing that morality cannot exist independently of god. And by morality here, we mean objective morality. Until you do this, you still face the dilemma.

I have no need to do that. The proposition "morality cannot exist apart from god" is not one of your 3 options.
What I have done is provide an internally consistent, non-circular position in which "morality does not exist apart from god", and your 3 options are false. If you can acknowledge that, we can go on to discuss the stronger claim of "morality cannot exist apart from god", if you like.

You simply have not avoided the dilemma. You cannot and have not shown that morality is internal to god such that it does not exist apart from god. There is no way out of this dilemma and your logic fails to try and get you out of it. There is no distinction between what you think is the stronger claim and the weaker claim. You must be able to show morality cannot exist apart from god in order refute my argument without showing morality to be arbitrary and making a circular argument. You have not. The reason why "morality cannot exist apart from god" is not one of my 3 options is because you cannot show that to be true without showing morality to be arbitrary and making a circular argument.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, this doesn't follow. Let's say that I end up on one of your horns, that doesn't mean that you have a case for objective moral values. You have to make the actual case. There may in fact be no objective moral facts. You certainly haven't demonstrated that there are.

There are 3 possibilities for us here:

(1) Objective morality depends on god
(2) Objective morality doesn't depend on god
(3) There is no objective morality

You must show (1) to be true in order to falsify (2) and (3). If you cannot show (1) to be true, either (2) or (3) are true, and neither of those are options you want to be true. So, Seer, you must be able to refute my argument to show that (2) and (3) are false without getting horned on the dilemma. Or you must admit that you cannot demonstrate (1) without getting stuck in a dilemma. Agree?

No I said:

You said:

So you already agreed that God's law would not be arbitrary

"God" here does not = Yahweh. You are assuming that any mention of god must be the god you believe in.

[seer]

There are 3 possibilities for us here:

(1) Objective morality depends on god
(2) Objective morality doesn't depend on god
(3) There is no objective morality

You must show (1) to be true in order to falsify (2) and (3). If you cannot show (1) to be true, either (2) or (3) are true, and neither of those are options you want to be true. So, Seer, you must be able to refute my argument to show that (2) and (3) are false without getting horned on the dilemma. Or you must admit that you cannot demonstrate (1) without getting stuck in a dilemma. Agree?

No Thinker I do not have to do any such thing. Let's say that I'm agnostic about objective moral values, and you claim that such values exist - it is on you to demonstrate how such values actually could exist. Unless that you want to withdraw the claim that objective moral facts, the ball is firmly in your court.

"God" here does not = Yahweh. You are assuming that any mention of god must be the god you believe in.

We are speaking generically, so you agree that if God had an immutable moral character then His law would not be arbitrary. So the theist is not impaled on the arbitrary horn.

[Joel]

1) It is a just law because the Community passed it

Obviously not!

Thank goodness.

or 2) The law is unjust (which would imply that there is a higher moral standard than the Community's statutes)?

No it wouldn't. It would indicate that the law does not meet the standards of the social mores of the day.

In the hypothetical scenario I'm talking about, this is a new Community Law (using your definition; thus it reflects the social mores of the day). Suppose that tomorrow the social mores of the day change such that the Community believes this to be a good law and passes it. Is the law therefore just? If not, that implies that there is a higher moral standard than the "social mores of the day".

To quote Laplace: "I have no need of that hypothesis".

Okay, so you do not believe in morality as objective facts.

[Joel]

Joel, you are delusional. Here's what you're actually trying to tell me. You're trying to say "Morality is internal to God" such that morality cannot exist independently of god,...

No, my premise P1 is that "Morality is internal to God" such that morality does not exist independently of god.
You keep arbitrarily shifting back and forth between "morality does not exist independently of god" and "morality cannot exist independently of god." Is that because you don't understand the difference between the two?

You cannot and have not shown that morality is internal to god such that it does not exist apart from god.

I have not shown that because I don't need to. Instead, I have assumed it as premise P1. Your "dilemma" is that I can't hold P1 without running into one of your 3 options. I've disproven that by counterexample, by giving an argument that assumes P1, is internally consistent, and is not circular.

Whether I can prove P1 is a different question.

There is no distinction between what you think is the stronger claim and the weaker claim.

!!!

Indeed, you do not understand the difference between the two? Well that is the problem we are running into in our discussion.

There is a difference between these three:
1) X is possible.
2) X is actual.
3) X is necessary.

If (3) is true, then (1) and (2) are true. But (2) can be true without (3) being true. And (1) can be true without (2) or (3) being true.
To focus on the difference between (1) and (2), if I flip a coin, it's possible that it will land heads-up, but that doesn't mean it will actually land heads up.
Just because it is possible for a piece of clay to be formed into a sculpture of an eagle does not mean it is actual that it is formed into a sculpture of an eagle.

Because (1) and (2) are not equivalent, their negations (~1 and ~2) are also not equivalent (in the same way):
~1) X is impossible.
~2) It is not the case that X.

So now let's substitute for X, the proposition "The moral standard exists independently of God".
Because (~1) and (~2) are not equivalent, the following are not equivalent:
~1) "The moral standard exists independently of God" is impossible.
~2) It is not the case that "The moral standard exists independently of God".

Adjusting these two into more natural English:
~1) The moral standard cannot exist independently of God.
~2) The moral standard does not exist independently of God.

The two are not equivalent. Do you understand the difference now?

[Joel]

If you cannot show (1) to be true, either (2) or (3) are true

The proposition "Seer is unable to prove X" would not imply "X is false."

[Tassman]

Well no, with higher primates those who are more aggressive and dominate actually prompt social cohesion by controlling the population. The same with human history.

Certainly, this is the origin of kingship, which dominated human history for millennia.

But within the established order the anti-social attitudes and behaviours you referred to are detrimental to community living, which is why society frowns upon them to the extent of legislating against them in some instances. This is true of ancient kingdoms or modern democracies.

[Tassman]

Thank goodness.

In the hypothetical scenario I'm talking about, this is a new Community Law (using your definition; thus it reflects the social mores of the day). Suppose that tomorrow the social mores of the day change such that the Community believes this to be a good law and passes it. Is the law therefore just? If not, that implies that there is a higher moral standard than the "social mores of the day".

It would be "just" as far as the specific community is concerned, e.g. it would have been self-evidently “just” to attack and slaughter rivals for their territory and females. This is standard tribal behaviour which we find among our fellow primates to this very day.

The fact that we no longer consider this to be an acceptable way to behave, unless one is a Muslim extremist, is indicative that the social mores of the day change over time. It does not necessarily indicate that an ultimate "higher standard" exists.

Okay, so you do not believe in morality as objective facts.

Not in the sense of moral codes being immutable, they’re demonstrably not.

[seer]

But within the established order the anti-social attitudes and behaviours you referred to are detrimental to community living, which is why society frowns upon them to the extent of legislating against them in some instances. This is true of ancient kingdoms or modern democracies.

That is nonsense, these "anti-social attitudes and behaviors" may be the very things that prompt social cohesion. The very behaviors that bring the control necessary for community living.

[JimL]

No, my premise P1 is that "Morality is internal to God" such that morality does not exist independently of god.
You keep arbitrarily shifting back and forth between "morality does not exist independently of god" and "morality cannot exist independently of god." Is that because you don't understand the difference between the two?


I have not shown that because I don't need to. Instead, I have assumed it as premise P1. Your "dilemma" is that I can't hold P1 without running into one of your 3 options. I've disproven that by counterexample, by giving an argument that assumes P1, is internally consistent, and is not circular.

Whether I can prove P1 is a different question.


!!!

Indeed, you do not understand the difference between the two? Well that is the problem we are running into in our discussion.

There is a difference between these three:
1) X is possible.
2) X is actual.
3) X is necessary.

If (3) is true, then (1) and (2) are true. But (2) can be true without (3) being true. And (1) can be true without (2) or (3) being true.
To focus on the difference between (1) and (2), if I flip a coin, it's possible that it will land heads-up, but that doesn't mean it will actually land heads up.
Just because it is possible for a piece of clay to be formed into a sculpture of an eagle does not mean it is actual that it is formed into a sculpture of an eagle.

Because (1) and (2) are not equivalent, their negations (~1 and ~2) are also not equivalent (in the same way):
~1) X is impossible.
~2) It is not the case that X.

So now let's substitute for X, the proposition "The moral standard exists independently of God".
Because (~1) and (~2) are not equivalent, the following are not equivalent:
~1) "The moral standard exists independently of God" is impossible.
~2) It is not the case that "The moral standard exists independently of God".

Adjusting these two into more natural English:
~1) The moral standard cannot exist independently of God.
~2) The moral standard does not exist independently of God.

The two are not equivalent. Do you understand the difference now?

The point I think is that if morals are objective then morals cannot be dependent upon a mind period. If morals are dependent upon a mind, then morals are not objective. Why? Because if they are dependent upon a mind, then they are not objective facts which exists in their own right, and if they are objective facts that exist in their own right then their existence is not dependent upon anything else. If your argument is that they are both, i.e. that morals are objective facts that exist in the mind of God, well then, the only reason that morals exist as objective facts in the mind of God is because they are objective facts first in themselves.

[seer]

The point I think is that if morals are objective then morals cannot be dependent upon a mind period. If morals are dependent upon a mind, then morals are not objective. Why? Because if they are dependent upon a mind, then they are not objective facts which exists in their own right, and if they are objective facts that exist in their own right then their existence is not dependent upon anything else. If your argument is that they are both, i.e. that morals are objective facts that exist in the mind of God, well then, the only reason that morals exist as objective facts in the mind of God is because they are objective facts first in themselves.

I don't think that Joel is claiming that morals (or God's law) are objective, in that they are mind-independent. Of course there is no reason to believe that morals can or do exist independently of minds.

[JimL]

I don't think that Joel is claiming that morals (or God's law) are objective, in that they are mind-independent. Of course there is no reason to believe that morals can or do exist independently of minds.

Correct, like you, I think Joel is claiming that morals are both objective facts as well as being dependent upon a mind which is itself a contradiction. If "murder is wrong" is an objective fact, then it is an objective fact in its own right and not simply because as an objective fact it exists as knowledge within an omniscient mind. If a moral, an objectively true fact, exists as knowledge within an omniscient mind, it exists there because it is an objective fact in its own right, not because of the mind in which it exists as knowledge. In other words if "murder is wrong" is an objective fact, then a mind, any mind, can do nothing to change that fact.

[seer]

Correct, like you, I think Joel is claiming that morals are both objective facts as well as being dependent upon a mind which is itself a contradiction. If "murder is wrong" is an objective fact, then it is an objective fact in its own right and not simply because as an objective fact it exists as knowledge within an omniscient mind. If a moral, an objectively true fact, exists as knowledge within an omniscient mind, it exists there because it is an objective fact in its own right, not because of the mind in which it exists as knowledge. In other words if "murder is wrong" is an objective fact, then a mind, any mind, can do nothing to change that fact.

Except there are no objective moral facts. At least if you define objective as mind-independent.

[JimL]

Except there are no objective moral facts. At least if you define objective as mind-independent.

There you go. Morals are not objective in themselves, nor are they objective in the sense that they exist in another authoritative mind, their objectivity stems from the fact of the relationship between life and the world in which that life exist. Problem solved. Morals are neither objective facts in themselves, nor are they purely subjective, i.e. contingent solely on ones discretion. They are derived of, and the result of, reason. I know, whose reason? We don't live in the world alone, we live together, and so the derived and agreed upon morals pertain to the collective which gives to them their objectivity, as well as their authority.

[Tassman]

That is nonsense, these "anti-social attitudes and behaviors" may be the very things that prompt social cohesion. The very behaviors that bring the control necessary for community living.

No, anti-social attitudes put social cohesion at risk which is why all social animals, including us, penalize such behaviour. Moral sentiments evolved as a way of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups.