A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 12:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The first part of the moral argument, the claim that objective morality exists... the second part of the moral argument -- that there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing this rule system.

In other words:

Premise 1: Objective morality exists.
Premise 2: For objective morality to exist, there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing it.
Conclusion: Existence of such a higher power.

Swap the order of the premises at will.

(12-05-2014 12:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It does not appear to be the one I am using.

(04-05-2014 06:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Goodness no. Atheists do have morals. They are no different than anyone else when it comes to thinking things like rape is wrong.

It is just that atheists when making such statements are being inconsistent with their denial of a transcendant moral law-giver. In the absence of such a One, there is no coherent ontology for objective moral values and duties.

Looks like it fits the bill to me. If this isn't the version you're using, what is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
12-05-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 09:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 12:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The first part of the moral argument, the claim that objective morality exists... the second part of the moral argument -- that there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing this rule system.

In other words:

Premise 1: Objective morality exists.
Premise 2: For objective morality to exist, there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing it.
Conclusion: Existence of such a higher power.

Swap the order of the premises at will.

(12-05-2014 12:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It does not appear to be the one I am using.

(04-05-2014 06:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Goodness no. Atheists do have morals. They are no different than anyone else when it comes to thinking things like rape is wrong.

It is just that atheists when making such statements are being inconsistent with their denial of a transcendant moral law-giver. In the absence of such a One, there is no coherent ontology for objective moral values and duties.

Looks like it fits the bill to me. If this isn't the version you're using, what is?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 09:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  In other words:

Premise 1: Objective morality exists.
Premise 2: For objective morality to exist, there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing it.
Conclusion: Existence of such a higher power.

Swap the order of the premises at will.



Looks like it fits the bill to me. If this isn't the version you're using, what is?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

Well as has been shown several times 2 does not exist and even if it did 3 does not follow. 1 is illogical.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
12-05-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:27 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

Well as has been shown several times 2 does not exist and even if it did 3 does not follow. 1 is illogical.

I would say:

1. Depends heavily on how you define "objective".
2. Cannot be proven, or at the very least has not been well proven, but this really depends how you fix the problem with #1.
3. Not even going to consider the implications of an unproven existence coupled with a poorly defined premise.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

Neither premise is consistent or justifiable.

Taking your failtacular implosion of a cosmological "argument" as a guide, you will defend your premises as inexplicably self-evident, refuse to even define your own terminology, and dance around the burden of proof as though it were a maypole.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
12-05-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 09:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  In other words:

Premise 1: Objective morality exists.
Premise 2: For objective morality to exist, there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing it.
Conclusion: Existence of such a higher power.

Swap the order of the premises at will.



Looks like it fits the bill to me. If this isn't the version you're using, what is?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

Not the exact same wording, different order for the premises, but pretty much the same argument. Other than you identifying the higher power much more specifically than I have (unless you're going with a very general definition of God), I don't see a significant difference.

So, I'll put the question from my original post to you directly. Precisely what do you mean when you describe moral values and duties as being objective? What is it that qualifies a moral value or duty to possess the status of objectivity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
12-05-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:48 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  So, I'll put the question from my original post to you directly. Precisely what do you mean when you describe moral values and duties as being objective? What is it that qualifies a moral value or duty to possess the status of objectivity?

It certainly can't mean self-evident or universal, as no such thing has ever existed with regards to human motivation. Nor can it mean merely most prevalent, as that changes with time.

For some reason the theistic conception only ever seems to be a transparent repackaging of in agreement with me. How compelling.

But perfectly in keeping with such an exclusive and narcissistic worldview.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
12-05-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 12:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What version of the moral argument are you referring to? It does not appear to be the one I am using.
Big surprise. Rolleyes

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 03:05 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 09:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  In other words:

Premise 1: Objective morality exists.
Premise 2: For objective morality to exist, there must be some higher power authoring or enforcing it.
Conclusion: Existence of such a higher power.

Swap the order of the premises at will.



Looks like it fits the bill to me. If this isn't the version you're using, what is?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists.
If God exists and defines morality, objective morality does not exist. That is, unless "objective" to you means "defined by God", but it doesn't mean that to me nor does it mean that in any normal usage of the word "objective".

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
12-05-2014, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2014 03:27 PM by djhall.)
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 02:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 02:48 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  So, I'll put the question from my original post to you directly. Precisely what do you mean when you describe moral values and duties as being objective? What is it that qualifies a moral value or duty to possess the status of objectivity?

It certainly can't mean self-evident or universal, as no such thing has ever existed with regards to human motivation. Nor can it mean merely most prevalent, as that changes with time.

For some reason the theistic conception only ever seems to be a transparent repackaging of in agreement with me. How compelling.

But perfectly in keeping with such an exclusive and narcissistic worldview.

The only logical meaning of "objective" based on the way they use it is "not derived from or by humans." Anything human in nature is met with the response that you are merely stating your preference, you culture's preference, or the preference of the vast majority of the human species which are all subjective and/or relative. Describing what makes the species thrive or happy or sociobiology is met with the response that you are making the logical fallacy of assuming that what is or what has been is what ought to be. To measure humans objectively you need a non-human standard.... ergo, god.

Of course, there isn't any reason to give a crap about the standards of a non-human when determining how humans should treat each other. So, god has to be all knowing and work in mysterious ways so we can't question the moral logic or accuracy, and all loving so we can't question the motives or claim they don't align with our own human interests, and be the giver of everything so we can't question the fairness of his punishments, and a bit vengeful and unforgiving so we don't think maybe we can just use our own judgment independently and see how it goes without risking punishment for that temerity.

Just add one human mind willing to suspend its own reason, free will, and judgment in favor of a promised reward so compelling that our human existence in our uncaring universe seems dull, empty, and even frightening by comparison, stir, and presto... instant Jeremy.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: