Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 09:45PM

PDN wrote: »

And that explains why scientism falls flat on its face in the real world. Science is useful for measuring certain things, but it is not the only measure by which we live. Any philosophy that says to the oppressed, "Sorry, but since I can't scientifically measure justice, then your oppression is simply a subjective condition that is not, in its very essence, wrong" is a failed philosophy that offers little to mankind.

Okay, who was arguing for scientism?

PDN · 22-10-2011 09:51PM

Enkidu wrote: »

Okay, who was arguing for scientism?

Anyone who discounts the practical application of 'goodness' as an objective term, on the basis that "you cannot demonstrate its truth in a scientific fashion."

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 09:52PM

PDN wrote: »

Anyone who discounts the practical application of 'goodness' as an objective term, on the basis that "you cannot demonstrate its truth in a scientific fashion."

Fair enough. I'd prefer to understand Christian theology though, could I have an explanation of what it is about God's properties that means they shouldn't be contravened.

PDN · 22-10-2011 09:58PM

Enkidu wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd prefer to understand Christian theology though, could I have an explanation of what it is about God's properties that means they shouldn't be contravened.

According to Christian belief, God, as the supreme Being and Creator, has defined every quality and characteristic in the universe. He determined every scientific quality (eg the speed of light, the atomic weight of each substance), he determined every logical possibility and impossibility, and he determined moral values of what is good and what is evil. Therefore, when we look at an oppressed human being, we do not see their condition as morally neutral - subject only to preferences in the way that we might prefer yellow to blue. We should see their oppression as a violation of objective moral truths such as love, justice and dignity - things that have actual worth.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 10:00PM

PDN wrote: »

I do have an alternative - namely, that even if Stalin and I disagree, that there is an objective morality that makes one of our opinions worth more than the other.

Worth more to who?

You still end with you believing what you believe and Stalin believing what he believes. You are in exactly the same place you would be if you didn't assert your position was objectively true.

PDN wrote: »

This means that we can validly believe that one moral view is better than another - even if no-one agrees with us!

And? What does that get you?

Does Stalin care that you believe your moral opinion is better than his? Do you care that he believes his moral opinion is better than yours?

Again you are still just going to believe what you believe and work to the world you would prefer.

PDN wrote: »

We can have the self-respect of saying, "I believe I did the right thing there." rather than saying, "Well I know I did something different from Stalin there, but deep down I know that my course of action was no better than his murder of millions of people, because right and wrong don't actually exist."

A moral nihilist wouldn't say that (see Morbet's comment about straw men).

A moral nihilist would say "Well I did what I did based on what I consider important and valuable even if Stalin doesn't agree with me"

PDN wrote: »

It appears that moral nihilism says, "Saving a drowning child is no better than murdering millions of people. I might prefer it, just as I prefer yellow shirts to blue shirts, but it is no better."

It is better to you.

The only thing that matters is what you prefer. You do not want the baby to drown, thus you stop the baby drowning.

How "better" that is objectively, or to anyone else, is irrelevant. You would do it anyway even if it turned out that objectively babies drowning is perfectly fine.

But of course no one who believes babies shouldn't be drowned would believe in the existence of an objective morality that says it is ok they should be drowned in the first place.

PDN wrote: »

I have not seen anything from a moral nihilist in this thread that offers any alternative to that.

There is no alternative to that, that is already how the world works.

We lock up criminals because we don't want to be mugged and we don't want others to be mugged. We make laws preventing murder because we don't want to be killed. We don't want others to be killed. We out law slavery because we don't want people to suffer slavery. We out law rape because we don't want people to suffer rape.

You can say if you like that all that is objectively "better" than the alternative, but that is largely meaningless. We would do them anyway even if they weren't better.

This goes back to my point about what you would do if you found out that yes in fact slavery is totally in line with the objective standard of the universe?

Would you go "Oh ok, I was wrong, slavery is ok".

Or would you instead do what you prefer because you prefer that no one can take slaves?

I suspect the latter. The objective moral standard always ends up looking like the subjective one in the end. Funny that

lmaopml · 22-10-2011 10:03PM

Enkidu wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd prefer to understand Christian theology though, could I have an explanation of what it is about God's properties that means they shouldn't be contravened.

It's not about what 'should not be contravened' - it's about the value of those laws and whether they are the 'ought' compass!

G.K Chesterton wrote..

A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive
things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative
morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The
silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and
compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive
and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of
the words "yes" and "no". To give the answer "yes" to one question is
to imply the answer "no" to another question. To desire the
construction of something is to desire the destruction of whatever
prevents its construction. This is particularly plain in the fuss
about the "negative" morality of the Ten Commandments. The truth is
that the curtness of the Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom
and narrowness of a religion but of its liberality and humanity. It is
shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted
precisely because most things are permitted and only a few things are
forbidden. An optimist who insisted on a purely positive morality
would have to begin by telling a man that he might pick dandelions on
a common and go on for months before he came to the fact that he might
throw pebbles into the sea. In comparison with this positive morality
the Ten Commandments rather shine in that brevity which is the soul of
wit.

If there are 'grey' areas it's absolutely a non arguement to say there are 'no'
areas even worthy of discussing without ultimately admitting that there are 'grey'
areas that are judged by black and white ones that 'exist'.

Sorry about the 'font' thing...it's a boards thing with copy and paste -
and my lack of the objective truth on how exactly it should be done....(jesting)

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 10:04PM

PDN wrote: »

he determined moral values of what is good and what is evil.

This is the bit I don't understand, how does he/it determine what is good or evil, i.e. how does he work it out. I know he is atemporal so it's not like it took him time to work it out, but hopefully you know what I mean, what is the logic behind his determination? Or maybe you're using determination in a different way.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 10:06PM

PDN wrote: »

And that explains why scientism falls flat on its face in the real world. Science is useful for measuring certain things, but it is not the only measure by which we live. Any philosophy that says to the oppressed, "Sorry, but since I can't scientifically measure justice, then your oppression is simply a subjective condition that is not, in its very essence, wrong" is a failed philosophy that offers little to mankind.

A - Subjective morality

I don't want you to suffer and be oppressed so I'm going to help free you.

B - Objective morality

I don't want you to suffer and be oppressed but I'm wrong to think this because the objective standard of religion X says it is ok that you are oppressed, so unfortunately there is nothing I can do.

Explain how A is the failure? :pac:

PDN · 22-10-2011 10:08PM

Enkidu wrote: »

This is the bit I don't understand, how does he/it determine what is good or evil, i.e. how does he work it out. I know he is atemporal so it's not like it took him time to work it out, but hopefully you know what I mean, what is the logic behind his determination? Or maybe you're using determination in a different way.

Who knows? I don't know what his logic was in choosing the speed of light either.

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 10:11PM

PDN wrote: »

Who knows? I don't know what his logic was in choosing the speed of light either.

What I mean is, is he supposed to have figured it out by reasoning the most perfect form of morality or something, which he is capable of because he is omnipotent.

(EDIT: We choose the speed of light by the way)

strobe · 22-10-2011 10:23PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

In watching Strobes position falter (whether he acknowledges it or not), I'm reminded of flotsam washing up a beach. There's the initial sense of an unresistable force advancing. Then some rather pathetic looking detritus left uselessly hanging.

(no offence Strobe)

(None taken.)

I haven't taken a position yet btw. I'm not making an argument for any stance on morality here. I don't have a side I am on. Like I said, I'm just trying to determine the reality of the thing. Get my head around the concepts that are involved. I have nothing emotionally (or otherwisely) invested in anything here (I'm not sure the same can be said of everyone posting), the truth is what I seek, whatever that may be.

Care to describe the position you think I have taken and expand on why you think it is faltering Skep?

PDN · 22-10-2011 10:25PM

Enkidu wrote: »

What I mean is, is he supposed to have figured it out by reasoning the most perfect form of morality or something, which he is capable of because he is omnipotent.

That would make more sense if you dropped the word 'most'. According to Christian theology, there is one perfect morality, all others are imperfect. Just as there is one perfect knowledge.

(EDIT: We choose the speed of light by the way)

No, I'm pretty sure we don't. We might choose what terms we use to describe it, but that is not choosing the speed itself (an objective fact that is not altered whether we choose to express it as miles per millisecond, or inches per century).

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 10:31PM

Enkidu wrote: »

What I mean is, is he supposed to have figured it out by reasoning the most perfect form of morality or something, which he is capable of because he is omnipotent.

(EDIT: We choose the speed of light by the way)

You are essentially asking Euthyphro's dilemma, does God command something because it is good (thus goodness is a concept above God that He merely reflects) or is it good simply because God commands it (which makes good and evil arbitrary and meaingless).

Good luck getting an answer :pac:

strobe · 22-10-2011 10:34PM

PDN wrote: »

That all depends on whether you use 'good' as having an objective meaning or not. If you simply mean 'I personally like it better' then I don't see the point of arguing for or against it, no more than I would ask you to present arguments for your choice of favourite colour.

I doubt if you can put forward any convincing argument without anchoring them in the notion that morality and ethics can be objectively good or bad.

So you didn't have an actual question, just a statement of fact (according to you) phrased as a question?

Doesn't really move the discussion forward PDN.

It's just you shouting "my favourite colour is blue!".

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 10:38PM

strobe wrote: »

So you didn't have an actual question, just a statement of fact (according to you) phrased as a question?

Doesn't really move the discussion forward PDN.

It's just you shouting "my favourite colour is blue!".

Actually it is him shouting "blue is the best colour I don't care if you disagree with me"

Essentially the same thing of course for all practical meaning of course.

PDN · 22-10-2011 10:40PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Actually it is him shouting "blue is the best colour I don't care if you disagree with me"

Essentially the same thing of course for all practical meaning of course.

Keep saying it often enough and you might believe it yourself - but I'm waiting (not very hopefully) for something a bit more reasoned than repeated bald assertions.

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 10:41PM

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm pretty sure we don't. We might choose what terms we use to describe it, but that is not choosing the speed itself (an objective fact that is not altered whether we choose to express it as miles per millisecond, or inches per century).

I know we do, it's a special relativistic fact. It's not actually a speed objectively, in choosing it's value we are also giving it the units of speed.

PDN wrote: »

That would make more sense if you dropped the word 'most'. According to Christian theology, there is one perfect morality, all others are imperfect. Just as there is one perfect knowledge.

Well if he reasoned it, aren't you on the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. God wills something because it is right (rather than the definition of right being that he willed it), but he figured out what is right rather than it being coterminous with him. Of course he did so perfectly (he attained "the morality"), but still standards are logically separate.

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 10:42PM

Zombrex wrote: »

You are essentially asking Euthyphro's dilemma, does God command something because it is good (thus goodness is a concept above God that He merely reflects) or is it good simply because God commands it (which makes good and evil arbitrary and meaingless).

Good luck getting an answer :pac:

Oh I know, what I'm basically trying to figure out is how Christianity (or at least PDN's version) avoids the two horns.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 10:50PM

PDN wrote: »

Keep saying it often enough and you might believe it yourself - but I'm waiting (not very hopefully) for something a bit more reasoned than repeated bald assertions.

I've already showed how. Perhaps you want to explain what the practical difference is between

I'm stopping you drowning your baby because I believe this is the correct thing to do based on my understanding of the objective standards of the universe that comes from the religion I decided to join when I was 19 years old

and

I'm stopping you drowning your baby because I don't want you to drown your baby.

PDN · 22-10-2011 10:59PM

Enkidu wrote: »

I know we do, it's a special relativistic fact. It's not actually a speed objectively, in choosing it's value we are also giving it the units of speed.

Ok then, I choose the speed of ten miles per hour. The speed of light is 10mph. Believe that if you wish.

Well if he reasoned it, aren't you on the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. God wills something because it is right (rather than the definition of right being that he willed it), but he figured out what is right rather than it being coterminous with him. Of course he did so perfectly (he attained "the morality"), but still standards are logically separate.

Nope, there's no horn and no dilemma. If God is perfectly holy, as Christian theology maintains, then there is no difference. He determined standards of good and evil that are consistent with His nature.

We, as created beings, deal with what is. We deal with the universe as it exists, not as we imagine it might have been. We deal with morality as it is, not how we imagine it might have been.

To be honest, the Euthyphro Dilemma is a very poorly constructed smokescreen, designed to divert attention away from the emptiness of a philosophy built on a moral nihilist position. Moral nihilists know that, exposed to any kind of rigorous examination, their philosophy will be rejected by most people who see moral values as important. Therefore they try to shift the ground to discussing why God did what He did - in itself an unanswerable question.

The fact that the so-called dilemma is being raised here suggests to me that we are not going to be offered any coherent answers from the moral nihilists as to why choosing to save a baby's life should be better (other than mere personal preference) than murdering millions of people.

I prefer to go to bed - which, according to the moral nihilists, is therefore the (entirely subjectively) right thing for me to do.

Goodnight.

lmaopml · 22-10-2011 11:00PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I've already showed how. Perhaps you want to explain what the practical difference is between

I'm stopping you drowning your baby because I believe this is the correct thing to do based on my understanding of the objective standards of the universe that comes from the religion I decided to join when I was 19 years old

and

I'm stopping you drowning your baby because I don't want you to drown your baby.

Lol, you are discussing a grey area Zombrex. I would like you to explain the 'why' though..exactly what is your 'why', 'I don't want you to' drown your baby based on? and 'why' should anybody care about 'why' is it wrong according to you? Is it 'wrong' or only wrong sometimes? and exactly why?

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 11:34PM

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, the Euthyphro Dilemma is a very poorly constructed smokescreen, designed to divert attention away from the emptiness of a philosophy built on a moral nihilist position.

I don't think so. I think it's a genuinely good problem. No offence, but you seem to respond to everything like it's an attack. The Euthyphro Dilemma could be a good problem, that Christian theology has a solution for. I mean Plato (or whoever) didn't come up with it as a "smokescreen", but as a genuine philosophical question.

PDN wrote: »

Nope, there's no horn and no dilemma.

Convincing argument.
A lot of Christian theologians worked on the problem and came up with various answers. A lot agreed with you that the dilemma was false. Even if moral nihilism is totally false it's still an interesting philosophical issue to consider. It's a bit harsh to dismiss a major question in Western philosophy as "poorly constructed". Again the use of "shifting the ground", e.t.c. is completely defensive language. I am asking about the Euthyphro dilemma, not to defend moral relativism, but to learn about Christian theology. I would be interested to hear the answer, I even expect it to be a consistent one. Instead of explaining it though you burst into it being a "smokescreen", as obviously a problem that's occupied some of Europe's greatest minds is a "poorly constructed smokescreen" that only idiots use to "divert attention away" from their own philosophy. Your responses are just defence/offence instead of discussion.

PDN wrote: »

Ok then, I choose the speed of ten miles per hour. The speed of light is 10mph. Believe that if you wish.

Don't be silly. According to relativity the "speed of light" is a nonsensical statement, there is simply a dividing line between spacelike and timelike separated events, which is not a speed. However since humans see space and time as separate we perceive this as a speed.

lmaopml · 22-10-2011 11:42PM

Enkidu wrote: »

I don't think so. I think it's a genuinely good problem. No offence, but you seem to respond to everything like it's an attack. The Euthyphro Dilemma could be a good problem, that Christian theology has a solution for. I mean Plato (or whoever) didn't come up with it as a "smokescreen", but as a genuine philosophical question.

Convincing argument.
A lot of Christian theologians worked on the problem and came up with various answers. A lot agreed with you that the dilemma was false. Even if moral nihilism is totally false it's still an interesting philosophical issue to consider. It's a bit harsh to dismiss a major question in Western philosophy as "poorly constructed". Again the use of "shifting the ground", e.t.c. is completely defensive language. I am asking about the Euthyphro dilemma, not to defend moral relativism, but to learn about Christian theology. I would be interested to hear the answer, I even expect it to be a consistent one. Instead of explaining it though you burst into it being a "smokescreen", as obviously a problem that's occupied some of Europe's greatest minds is a "poorly constructed smokescreen" that only idiots use to "divert attention away" from their own philosophy. Your responses are just defence/offence instead of discussion.

Don't be silly. According to relativity the "speed of light" is a nonsensical statement, there is simply a dividing line between spacelike and timelike separated events, which is not a speed. However since humans see space and time as separate we perceive this as a speed.

Moral nihilism is a universal negative. Yet no person bases their arguement on the negative, at least openly so, on this forum, in honesty? Moral or no..! Nihilism has no foundation in current reality, adverse as it may be..it sets by its very nature a 'fantasy' of existence that is not the reality, with no proof, no basis, no hope..where there is hope, is reality, and IS morality. Inexplicable morality is the 'actuality' that exists. No getting around it.

strobe · 23-10-2011 12:59AM

PDN wrote: »

I'm waiting (not very hopefully) for something a bit more reasoned than repeated bald assertions.

Well, exactly man. (aren't we all?).

Whenever you're ready...

Zombrex · 23-10-2011 01:21AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Lol, you are discussing a grey area Zombrex.

Drowning babies is a grey area? :pac:

lmaopml wrote: »

I would like you to explain the 'why' though..exactly what is your 'why', 'I don't want you to' drown your baby based on?

Empathy mostly and value of human life.

lmaopml wrote: »

and 'why' should anybody care about 'why' is it wrong according to you?

They don't have to care, they simply have to not do it.

lmaopml wrote: »

Is it 'wrong' or only wrong sometimes? and exactly why?

No I never am happy to allow you to kill your baby and I will always try and stop you.

Zombrex · 23-10-2011 01:36AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Moral nihilism is a universal negative. Yet no person bases their arguement on the negative, at least openly so, on this forum, in honesty? Moral or no..! Nihilism has no foundation in current reality, adverse as it may be..it sets by its very nature a 'fantasy' of existence that is not the reality, with no proof, no basis, no hope..where there is hope, is reality, and IS morality. Inexplicable morality is the 'actuality' that exists. No getting around it.

Which is why everyone shares a common universal system of morality, just like electricity, gravity and atomic forces.

Oh wait, no we don't.

Fanny Cradock · 23-10-2011 02:33AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Which is why everyone shares a common universal system of morality, just like electricity, gravity and atomic forces.

Oh wait, no we don't.

Or just like truth...

Oh, wait! We don't all agree on what is true in a given situation. Therefore, there is no truth (apart from this statement, of course).

strobe · 23-10-2011 03:40AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Or just like truth...

Oh, wait! We don't all agree on what is true in a given situation. Therefore, there is no truth (apart from this statement, of course).

Lol wut?

==========
==========

Is that not just all completely neither here nor there?

What's your angle? Truth might not exist so lets pack up our bags? That's no fun. That's no fun at all, at all.

Fanny Cradock · 23-10-2011 11:56AM

strobe wrote: »

Lol wut?

==========
==========

Is that not just all completely neither here nor there?

What's your angle? Truth might not exist so lets pack up our bags? That's no fun. That's no fun at all, at all.

If you don't believe that truth exists (which itself is a claim to truth that causes the claim collapse under the weight of it's own self-refutation) then you really are on a slippery slope to Lord knows where. But, hey, you might have fun on the way down.

Please try and understand I was responding to Zombrex assertion that because we don't share a common understanding of morality (and I would contend that there are some universal truths understood by just about everyone) then there must be no objective morality. If you follow that train of thought and apply it to truth then not only are you denying that objective morality exists you are also cutting the rug out from all authority, including any statements the nihilist makes about truth and morality.

Zombrex · 23-10-2011 12:32PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please try and understand I was responding to Zombrex assertion that because we don't share a common understanding of morality (and I would contend that there are some universal truths understood by just about everyone) then there must be no objective morality.

That is funny, I didn't make that assertion so I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond to it

I was responding to Imaopml that moral nihilism doesn't exist because morality is inexplicably actual.

Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Comments