Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 04:55 PM
dd
(24-05-2014 04:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  True, however this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Because many people claim something to be true does not make it objectively true. One example, at one point in time many people believed that the earth was flat, however we know objectively that the earth is a sphere.

I think you mean an appeal to popularity, not authority.

Appeal to popularity is one kind of an appeal to authority.

Quote:I have not said that objective moral values and duties exist because many people think they do. The charge is therefore groundless.

No you claimed that because many people have some agreement on morality therefore morality must be objective. This is a non sequitur, because that conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Your argument has taken this deductive structure :

1) Many peoples are in agreement on many points of morality
ergo morality is objective

This conclusion does not follow from the premise.

If you put your argument in this structure it would be deductively valid:

1) If many people agreed on morality THEN morality is objective
2) Many people agree on morality
ergo morality is objective

However one is a false premise. It is not true that if people agree on morality that morality is objective. It is possible that many people could agree on morality and morality could could not be objective.

One of many other possible explanations, it could be circumstantially true, meaning true for the time being but false in another time or place. You have to demonstrate that morality must be objective, not just that it could be.

Quote:I have alluded to inductive reasoning and empirical observation that reveals that different societies which have progressed independently still adopt a strikingly similar core set of moral values. This is more plausibly explained by there being objective moral values and duties.

You haven't demonstrated this plausible or implausible because you haven't yet provided a valid argument.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Many peoples throughout history have had remarkable agreement on morality,

This serves only to reinforce my point.

I don't deny the premise "many peoples have very similar moral views", I dispute that this fact in any way supports or refutes your argument.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  One of many example, in Islamic nations practicing Shariah law the punishment for adultery is death. In the United States killing someone for the offense of adultery would be an injustice and likewise immoral.

In the United States adultery is like in Islamic nations, still seen as an immoral act. It is discouraged, not encouraged. It is seen not as a virtue but as a vice.

The respective governments may handle the issue differently, but this is only evidence that different governments have different ideologies on how certain immoral acts should be dealt with.

So this actually only serves to reinforce my point. In no culture or civilization will you find that it is deemed morally obligatory or good for a man to be unfaithful to his wife for selfish reasons and vice versa. And if a society did encourage this, the society would suffer from it, not be strengthened by it.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument and of the American view point on adultery. In Islamic nations woman are property to their husbands in the way that children are property to their parents. When a woman commits adultery in an Islamic nations it is an affront to her husband and she may be put to death. In American if a person commits adultery on their partner this is seen as a breach of trust and inherently dishonest. They are wrong in both societies, but for two different reasons.

The moral issue at hand however is not the act of the adultery but the act of the punisher. In America it is morally and legally wrong to kill an adulterer, in an Islamic nation practicing Shariah law it is both morally permissible and duty obligate. This demonstrates a fundamentally different view on adultery, justice, and killing between the two peoples.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  By both accounts, popular appeal is not evidence for objective morality.

I have not appealed to popularity at all. I have simply given empirical data that reveals that throughout history and throughout all societies there is a common underlying moral code that undergirds whatever respective system of applied ethics said societies may possess. This underlying moral code is best explained by the existence of objective moral values and duties.

This could be explained by the existence of objective morality. Your challenge is providing evidence that it is not only possible, but likely. In isolation, agreement amongst peoples on moral values neither proves nor disproves the existence of an objective moral code. In short you have not yet met the burden of proof, and you must provide more and better arguments and evidence.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  If someone says that the fetus is not a person, as just one of many possible examples, how are they factually in error?

[Image: header-right.png]

I know you did not intentionally mean to introduce a red herring but that is what this is.

The question of whether or not a fetus is a person is simply impertinent to my support for objective moral values or duties. The point being made was that BOTH pro-choice and pro-life proponents AGREE that murdering a person is wrong. They disagree on what qualifies as a "person".

So their disagreement is not on whether murder is acceptable (they both agree that it is not) but rather, is a fetus a person. Thus this cannot be used as a defeater for the support I gave.

Then I am confused. Is their no objective answer for the morality of abortion or is there? If there is, the one party is objectively right and one party is objectively wrong. Their only point of contention is their definition of "personhood", this would mean one persons definition of person hood is objectively true and the other is objectively false. Let me put this in a deductive form:

1) If morality is objective AND objective morality extend to abortion THEN either abortion is right OR abortion is wrong (given).
2) If two people disagree on abortion THEN they disagree on the definition of a fetus as a person or a non person (given).
3) if a person is wrong about abortion, their definition of a fetus as a person or non person is wrong (follows from 2).
egro if abortion is objectively right or wrong THEN there is one correct definition of a fetus as a person or non person (from 1-3).

Quote:
(24-05-2014 03:32 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Lets stay on topic Jeremy. If you want to throw punches at strawmen you will have to do it some place else. This debate is about what you, and only you, believe.

I am giving support for my view that it is more plausible that objective moral values and duties exist than not. You now must deal with my responses.

This debate has nothing to do with arguments either for or against a subjective moral view. Please stay on topic.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
24-05-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  No you claimed that because many people have some agreement on morality therefore morality must be objective.

I never made this claim. But since you think I have, simply reference it.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You haven't demonstrated this plausible or implausible because you haven't yet provided a valid argument.

The case is cumulative and takes into account several lines of evidence in the form of empirical observations.

Now if you have a hypothesis which you believe is more plausible than mine then by all means feel free to present it.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I don't deny the premise "many peoples have very similar moral views", I dispute that this fact in any way supports or refutes your argument.

Ok Michael, why do you dispute that what you clearly observe is more plausibly due to the existence of objective moral values and duties? Why do you dispute that?

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument and of the American view point on adultery. In Islamic nations woman are property to their husbands in the way that children are property to their parents. When a woman commits adultery in an Islamic nations it is an affront to her husband and she may be put to death. In American if a person commits adultery on their partner this is seen as a breach of trust and inherently dishonest. They are wrong in both societies, but for two different reasons.

Once again, you only reinforce my point. Adultery is wrong in both societies. The societies differ in their view of what women are. This in no way is evidence against the existence of objective moral values and duties. It is evidence that different cultures view women differently in relation to men.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The moral issue at hand however is not the act of the adultery but the act of the punisher. In America it is morally and legally wrong to kill an adulterer, in an Islamic nation practicing Shariah law it is both morally permissible and duty obligate. This demonstrates a fundamentally different view on adultery, justice, and killing between the two peoples.

It demonstrates that both societies see adultery as immoral which is the common underlying moral value of both societies. They differ in how they view women. If Americans viewed women the way Muslims do, then we would be doing what they do LOL...

This is not hard or mysterious.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This could be explained by the existence of objective morality. Your challenge is providing evidence that it is not only possible, but likely.

No Michael, I do not have to prove it is more likely. Only more plausibly true than not.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  In isolation, agreement amongst peoples on moral values neither proves nor disproves the existence of an objective moral code. In short you have not yet met the burden of proof, and you must provide more and better arguments and evidence.

I have provided five lines of support as examples of empirical data that make premise two more plausible than its negation which is all that is necessary.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Then I am confused. Is their no objective answer for the morality of abortion or is there?

I think in certain cases, abortion is moral. In certain cases it is not.

(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This debate has nothing to do with arguments either for or against a subjective moral view. Please stay on topic.

Who is this addressed to?

I am not arguing for moral subjectivism lol!
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 07:37 PM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 06:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  No you claimed that because many people have some agreement on morality therefore morality must be objective.

I never made this claim. But since you think I have, simply reference it.

That is exactly what you said right here.

(24-05-2014 03:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 02:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Excellence.

What is your argument then that morality is objective? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

I do.

Let us start with the following:

What convinces me is a cumulative case argument from empirical observation.

1) Different societies which have progressed independently still adopt a strikingly similar core set of moral values (i.e. with respect to lying, theft, murder, etc.). History is pretty clear on this.

2) Differences in tertiary moral codes often develop from an underlying difference in factual belief. For example, if a society adopts a law forbidding the killing of cows because they hold the cow to be sacred, and another society eats cows, the difference is in the status of the cow, not that killing sacred animals is morally permissible. Or a more applicable moral issue - abortion - can be discussed. "Pro-choice" proponents NEVER argue that murder is okay, they argue that a fetus isn't a person in the sense that it has a right to life. They argue about the facts of what constitutes a person, not that murder is okay in this situation.

If you don't hold this as evidence, then what evidence do you have to support your claim?

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You haven't demonstrated this plausible or implausible because you haven't yet provided a valid argument.
The case is cumulative and takes into account several lines of evidence in the form of empirical observations.

The observation that many peoples have similar moral framework is not adequate. Do you have more evidence?

Quote:Now if you have a hypothesis which you believe is more plausible than mine then by all means feel free to present it.

Rule 4:
Quote: You are not allowed to ask me what I believe

You are charged with taking a position and defending it. You need to provide evidence for your view. Do you have any more evidence?

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I don't deny the premise "many peoples have very similar moral views", I dispute that this fact in any way supports or refutes your argument.

Ok Michael, why do you dispute that what you clearly observe is more plausibly due to the existence of objective moral values and duties? Why do you dispute that?

It, in isolation, is not evidence for objective morality. You need to provide evidence that points directly at objective morality. At the moment, it is conceivable that your view point could be true, and your observation does not necessarily contradict that view point, but it is not enough to support it. You need to provide more. The burden of proof has not been met.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument and of the American view point on adultery. In Islamic nations woman are property to their husbands in the way that children are property to their parents. When a woman commits adultery in an Islamic nations it is an affront to her husband and she may be put to death. In American if a person commits adultery on their partner this is seen as a breach of trust and inherently dishonest. They are wrong in both societies, but for two different reasons.

Once again, you only reinforce my point. Adultery is wrong in both societies. The societies differ in their view of what women are. This in no way is evidence against the existence of objective moral values and duties. It is evidence that different cultures view women differently in relation to men.

How woman are viewed and treated in society is a moral issue. Under what circumstances it is or is not permissible to kill another human being is a moral issue. The type and severity of a moral wrong relative to a society is a moral issue. They differ on all accounts. If morality is objective, there should be an explanation for how come they differ. There should also be on view point that is correct and one that is incorrect, and it should be possible to objectively demonstrate which on is the first and which is the latter.

You are the affirmative. You claim morality is objective. Therefore you are charged with providing adequate explanation for all objections.


Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The moral issue at hand however is not the act of the adultery but the act of the punisher. In America it is morally and legally wrong to kill an adulterer, in an Islamic nation practicing Shariah law it is both morally permissible and duty obligate. This demonstrates a fundamentally different view on adultery, justice, and killing between the two peoples.

It demonstrates that both societies see adultery as immoral which is the common underlying moral value of both societies. They differ in how they view women. If Americans viewed women the way Muslims do, then we would be doing what they do LOL...

This is not hard or mysterious.

You are cherry picking here. Is it, or is it not, objectively, morally wrong to kill an adultor for the crime of adultery? If so, how do you know? How come Americans and Islamic nations going about it a different way? Why are they not both aware of the same objective moral proofs?

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This could be explained by the existence of objective morality. Your challenge is providing evidence that it is not only possible, but likely.

No Michael, I do not have to prove it is more likely. Only more plausibly true than not.

Those words effectively mean the same thing. If you like your ordering of them fine. Now do it. Provide more plausibility.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  In isolation, agreement amongst peoples on moral values neither proves nor disproves the existence of an objective moral code. In short you have not yet met the burden of proof, and you must provide more and better arguments and evidence.

I have provided five lines of support as examples of empirical data that make premise two more plausible than its negation which is all that is necessary.

You have provided one poor argument, for which I have raised many objections. Address those objections and/or provide another point.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Then I am confused. Is their no objective answer for the morality of abortion or is there?

I think in certain cases, abortion is moral. In certain cases it is not.

You think or you know? We are still talking about morality as if it is objective right? Wouldn't being objective imply that it is binarily true or false, right or wrong? Which is it?

Quote:
(24-05-2014 04:55 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This debate has nothing to do with arguments either for or against a subjective moral view. Please stay on topic.

Who is this addressed to?

I am not arguing for moral subjectivism lol!


Great. Then there should be no more references to subjective moral arguments and we can remain on topic.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
24-05-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
Michael I choose not to debate the issue any longer.

If you think that acts like child molestation are not objectively wrong and that its ok if someone thinks it is ok, then that is on you. For your own safety, I would keep that to myself if I were you.


I would say that if everyone thought that there was no obligation except to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted and however they wanted, then life would be unlivable and if the existential ramifications are such, then there is no reason to hold to the metaphysical position which defends it.

Consider this thread closed.
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 09:18 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 08:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Michael I choose not to debate the issue any longer.

Look! He's running away AGAIN!!!!!!



Quote:If you think that acts like child molestation are not objectively wrong and that its ok if someone thinks it is ok, then that is on you. For your own safety, I would keep that to myself if I were you.

[Image: Scarecrow.jpg]

LOL -- how fucking STUPID of you! Where does Michael endorse that point of view?

Quote:I would say that if everyone thought that there was no obligation except to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted and however they wanted, then life would be unlivable and if the existential ramifications are such, then there is no reason to hold to the metaphysical position which defends it.

[Image: the-Wicker-Man-6.jpg]


Quote:Consider this thread closed.

Run, coward!

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
24-05-2014, 11:48 PM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
(24-05-2014 08:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Michael I choose not to debate the issue any longer.

If you think that acts like child molestation are not objectively wrong and that its ok if someone thinks it is ok, then that is on you. For your own safety, I would keep that to myself if I were you.


I would say that if everyone thought that there was no obligation except to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted and however they wanted, then life would be unlivable and if the existential ramifications are such, then there is no reason to hold to the metaphysical position which defends it.

Consider this thread closed.

That is unfortunate.
Find all posts by this user
25-05-2014, 12:40 AM
RE: Debate the origins of morality and the bibles authenticity on morality:Jeremy Walker
I'm closing this thread since the debate has ended and both participants have had their last word.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: