The flaws of NT-based morality

[Roy]

Roy,
A note about a fallacy. You can be assured your opponent is loosing an argument when resorting to use of an ad hominem.

You can be even more assured that someone has lost an argument when they stop addressing the actual argument and revert to 'I am right and you are wrong'. For example:

Your failure to recognize truth is your problem.

P.S. You might want to learn what an ad hominem argument is.

[seer]

We are however obliged to obey the rules of society and these are grounded in our natural instincts to ensure the survival of the family and community so that the human species survives.

No we are not obligated to do any such thing. Are monkeys obligated not to rape or steal food for other group members? And their community and species survive just fine.

[Mountain Man]

We are however obliged to obey the rules of society and these are grounded in our natural instincts...

But you conceded that "," so how is this not a logical contradiction?

Let me spell it out for you again since you seem incapable of grasping any argument that isn't carefully spoonfed to you:

P1: The rules of society are grounded in our instincts.
P2: We have no moral obligation to obey our instincts.
C: Therefore, we are morally obligated to obey the rules of society?

This is an invalid argument because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

[Charles]

And yet your every question and argument says otherwise.

It seems to me that your "ought" is mainly based on self interest. Someone will hold us accountable and we will be rewarded or judged. Do you find that an "ought" must necessarily be based on such consequences and if so then how does it differ from pure self interest?

[Charles]

[...]P1: If atheism is true, our sense of morality is instinctive/derived from our instincts.[...]

What makes you assume that is the only option?

[Charles]

Since I've been using "ought" interchangeably with "morale obligation", that should have been more than enough for any reasonable person willing to do his due diligence to understand my arguments. Or if someone had bothered to simply follow the link I posted earlier and actually read it, they would have gotten it. I don't post links as an idle exercise.

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

And the obviously absurd part is that since nothing constitutes moral obligation in this line of reasoning apart from God then everything could and would be different if God decided otherwise. Torture could be ok. Killing could be ok. It all depends on God.

[Charles]

So you are you are still pointing to objective moral absolutes that you can not demonstrate exist?

What you fail to realise is that if they don't exist, then you are not going anywhere anyway. So you should read it again and try to undertand the demonstration.

[seer]

What you fail to realise is that if they don't exist, then you are not going anywhere anyway. So you should read it again and try to undertand the demonstration.

But they don't exist, and you never demonstrated otherwise. So where does that leave us? And since I still have God, universal moral truths, and the authority that goes with that, I think we are light years apart.

[seer]

And the obviously absurd part is that since nothing constitutes moral obligation in this line of reasoning apart from God then everything could and would be different if God decided otherwise. Torture could be ok. Killing could be ok. It all depends on God.

That is false Charles and you know it. The God of scripture has an immutable moral character, He can not (and I mean can not) act arbitrarily. He can not act inconsistently with His nature.

[Mountain Man]

It seems to me that your "ought" is mainly based on self interest. Someone will hold us accountable and we will be rewarded or judged. Do you find that an "ought" must necessarily be based on such consequences and if so then how does it differ from pure self interest?

All other things being equal, doing right simply because it is right seems morally superior to doing right only because you think you will be rewarded. For instance, a kid who returns a lost wallet without expectation of a reward versus a kid who returns a lost wallet only because he thinks the grateful owner will give him a few bucks; or a Christian who shows charity to his neighbor for no other reason than Jesus commanded it versus showing charity only because he expects to be rewarded in heaven.

It's the old philosophical question of whether it's wrong to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

And keep in mind that this line of reasoning doesn't give the atheist any reason to think he is obligated to act morally because he still can't account for the source of obligation that would compel him to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.

[...]P1: If atheism is true, our sense of morality is instinctive/derived from our instincts.[...]

What makes you assume that is the only option?

Ask Tass. It's his premise.

And the obviously absurd part is that since nothing constitutes moral obligation in this line of reasoning apart from God then everything could and would be different if God decided otherwise. Torture could be ok. Killing could be ok. It all depends on God.

As I've explained, God can not arbitrarily declare something moral. If it's contrary to his character and nature then it is immoral by definition. Therefore, it is literally impossible for God to declare moral any action that is contrary to his character and nature.

[seer]

As I've explained, God can not arbitrarily declare something moral. If it's contrary to his character and nature then it is immoral by definition. Therefore, it is literally impossible for God to declare moral any action that is contrary to his character and nature.

Charles already knew that, I have explained it a number of times to him. Why he keeps bringing it up is a mystery...

[Mountain Man]

Charles already knew that, I have explained it a number of times to him. Why he keeps bringing it up is a mystery...

I've explained it to him, too, and in this very thread, but he seems to have this habit of wandering away from a thread for a period of time and then returning with the exact same arguments as if they haven't already been addressed.

[seer]

I've explained it to him, too, and in this very thread, but he seems to have this habit of wandering away from a thread for a period of time and then returning with the exact same arguments as if they haven't already been addressed.

He must be suffering from the dreaded Shuny disease...

[JimL]

No we are not obligated to do any such thing. Are monkeys obligated not to rape or steal food for other group members? And their community and species survive just fine.

You evolved from the apes seer, you aren't still an ape.

[Tassman]

But you conceded that "," so how is this not a logical contradiction?

Let me spell it out for you again since you seem incapable of grasping any argument that isn't carefully spoonfed to you:

P1: The rules of society are grounded in our instincts.
P2: We have no moral obligation to obey our instincts.
C: Therefore, we are morally obligated to obey the rules of society?

This is an invalid argument because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.