Total Posts:118|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God-less morality is illogical

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:06:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Should and Ought define obligation. Obligation is willfully designated by something intelligent and chained to something else intelligent. Therefore, obligation cannot exist if it isn't designated by anything. Objective morality must therefore be designated by something objective, intelligent and beyond mankind. So, if one doesn't believe in anything intelligent beyond the Universe, he can't actually believe his morals are objective morals.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:10:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:06:08 AM, 000ike wrote:
Should and Ought define obligation. Obligation is willfully designated by something intelligent and chained to something else intelligent. Therefore, obligation cannot exist if it isn't designated by anything. Objective morality must therefore be designated by something objective, intelligent and beyond mankind. So, if one doesn't believe in anything intelligent beyond the Universe, he can't actually believe his morals are objective morals.

and if one does believe in something intelligent beyond the universe..


There is No Reason whatsoever to abandon what you care about and become a slave to that being's will...
So, Either way, Objective morality is a farce.

(god might say I'm obligated.. and 'designate' something as "right".. but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give up my will)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:27:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My views on this are far from stable, but what I think right now is that whether morality is objective or subjective is unimportant. What matters is how far morality connects with reasons for action. If there's some fancy objective moral law designed by God or derived from human/divine nature or whatever, it doesn't matter unless people actually have good reasons to follow that moral law.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:31:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims. Or will you be one of those internet nihilists?

subjective morality, emotion, law etc. There are conditions under which you can use ought. (if-ought) Also, the general consensus on what is right and wrong comes from a generally agreed upon subjective premise. It is in the collective interest of society to create morals, follow them, and protect them through law and punishment.

That doesn't mean that it is objective. It can't be objective. That doesn't make any sense from any possible angle.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:40:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:27:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
it doesn't matter unless people actually have good reasons to follow that moral law.

indeed, and as I've said:
There is No Reason whatsoever to abandon what you care about and become a slave to that being's will...
So, Either way, Objective morality is a farce.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:41:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims.

That is not what I would do with my free time...

Doesn't sound enjoyable.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:43:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:27:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
it doesn't matter unless people actually have good reasons to follow that moral law.

Call it what you will, If it's not of Suggestive Force... How's it special?
Why's it deserve the name Morality?

B/c that's what you call it.. Ok, but it is what it is..
You can call it something fancy, put a dress on a pig..

but...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:43:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:41:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims.

That is not what I would do with my free time...

Doesn't sound enjoyable.

I'm glad your hedonism is there to stop you from committing atrocities.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:47:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:27:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
If there's some fancy objective moral law designed by God or derived from human/divine nature or whatever

also... I would be most sympathetic to an argument for "right" Action based in human nature.. As Mencius provides..

But Human nature is not uniform in the relevant manners.. Just Generally similar.

also, even if it were Uniform.. it wouldn't provide any Transcendental, all reasoning beings, type morality which people usually mean when they speak of Objective morality.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:47:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims. Or will you be one of those internet nihilists?

I also hate when people try to use emotion in an argument. Yeah, those are both terrible things, but aren't objectively wrong. You can't feed on people's impassioned reactions to prevent them from questioning something.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:48:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:31:44 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims. Or will you be one of those internet nihilists?

subjective morality, emotion, law etc. There are conditions under which you can use ought. (if-ought) Also, the general consensus on what is right and wrong comes from a generally agreed upon subjective premise. It is in the collective interest of society to create morals, follow them, and protect them through law and punishment.

That doesn't mean that it is objective. It can't be objective. That doesn't make any sense from any possible angle.

Great, will you be sticking pins in children or taunting rape victims soon then?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:49:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:43:59 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:41:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims.

That is not what I would do with my free time...

Doesn't sound enjoyable.

I'm glad your hedonism is there to stop you from committing atrocities.

I'm glad yours is there to do the same..

Or, if you truly only don't do such things b/c of your baseless delusions.. I'm happy you're a dummy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:50:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:48:34 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:31:44 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims. Or will you be one of those internet nihilists?

subjective morality, emotion, law etc. There are conditions under which you can use ought. (if-ought) Also, the general consensus on what is right and wrong comes from a generally agreed upon subjective premise. It is in the collective interest of society to create morals, follow them, and protect them through law and punishment.

That doesn't mean that it is objective. It can't be objective. That doesn't make any sense from any possible angle.

Great, will you be sticking pins in children or taunting rape victims soon then?

seriously,.. Can you please stop?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:54:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims.

I take it that you Would do such things.. But for the fact that you think you should serve the greatest good for all Right?

so.. if you thought you should serve the good of You..
You'd enjoy a life of torturing little children and rape victims.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 8:57:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:50:48 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:48:34 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:31:44 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims. Or will you be one of those internet nihilists?

subjective morality, emotion, law etc. There are conditions under which you can use ought. (if-ought) Also, the general consensus on what is right and wrong comes from a generally agreed upon subjective premise. It is in the collective interest of society to create morals, follow them, and protect them through law and punishment.

That doesn't mean that it is objective. It can't be objective. That doesn't make any sense from any possible angle.

Great, will you be sticking pins in children or taunting rape victims soon then?

seriously,.. Can you please stop?

Oh come on, you're a smart guy. You can see through "subjective morality" where truth apparently only applies to the speaker, law (Nazism), or emotion (as MR likes to rely on) as being sensible justifications.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:01:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If six million people decide something is moral, then another person comes in and says it is immoral, what is required for that one person to be right? If it is subjective, then he is right in his own thought. If it is relative, he is necessarily wrong until he changes his mind. If it is nihilist, then nothing. If it is objective, I don't know to be honest. He needs objective knowledge? Or does he just need to be right? But if that person is God, and says that adultery is moral, then adultery is moral, by most DCTists. But I still don't know what factor makes him right...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:02:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:54:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:24:58 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Then go stick pins in little children and taunt rape victims.

I take it that you Would do such things.. But for the fact that you think you should serve the greatest good for all Right?

so.. if you thought you should serve the good of You..
You'd enjoy a life of torturing little children and rape victims.

I've moved away from utilitarianism, but it wasn't for the "extreme cases" frequently cited (aren't you a bit of a utilitarian?)

But yes, if it was a choice between watching the world burn and poking a child with a pin my choice is made.

I've already been over this, but I can't really discuss much with you because you don't actually use reason. You aren't even honest about the implications of your moral philosophy, and now you use this as a way to say "heyyyyy lookit bieber he ain't that clean." Philosophy is at its heart the application of reason, and if you're unable to follow your philosophy to its logical necessities that speaks both for you and the philosophy.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:02:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:57:18 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh come on, you're a smart guy.

lol :)

C'mon! become one of us! We like you!!

You can see through "subjective morality" where truth apparently only applies to the speaker, law (Nazism), or emotion (**as MR constantly shows to be the case**) as being sensible justifications.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:05:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 9:02:40 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
But yes, if it was a choice between watching the world burn and poking a child with a pin my choice is made.

Sure.. but that's not what I was talking about...

I was saying that your Constantly thinking that nihilists would want to go around poking children with needles and/or other mean things Could only possibly be indicative of the fact that You are Really a Sadist and assume others would, if not for "Morality", care to torture people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:06:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:48:34 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Great, will you be sticking pins in children or taunting rape victims soon then?

Hmm. The moral intuitions that give rise to our emotional disgust at those things are evolved tools to help our species live in stable societies and reproduce safely. But why think those moral intuitions accurately reflect moral truth? If we wound the clock backwards, another intelligent species might have evolved with an entirely different set of moral intuitions. If you're going to use this as an argument for moral objectivity, how do you account for that?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:08:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 9:02:40 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I've already been over this, but I can't really discuss much with you because you don't actually use reason. You aren't even honest about the implications of your moral philosophy
How so? lol

and now you use this as a way to say "heyyyyy lookit bieber he ain't that clean."
no.. I'm saying your constantly saying Nihilists would poke children with needles is ABSURD and requires some explanation to make sensible.. the only one I can imagine is that you're sadistic.. and assume others would get enjoyment in the same way you would.

Philosophy is at its heart the application of reason, and if you're unable to follow your philosophy to its logical necessities that speaks both for you and the philosophy.

where's this dum dum?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:09:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 8:57:18 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Oh come on, you're a smart guy. You can see through "subjective morality" where truth apparently only applies to the speaker, law (Nazism), or emotion (as MR likes to rely on) as being sensible justifications.

morality is intersubjective..and it is based off of emotion. Human beings are so biologically and emotionally similar that we have common values and common interests, such as living and owning property. That's where morality comes from.

If morality is so objective, then tell me how it is that it changes from country to country, culture to culture, century to century, civilization to civilization? Tell me how it is that in 2012 the vast majority of the population touts the objective immorality of murder, but finds little to argue with in war. Tell me how it can so contradictory. Tell me how morality can still exist when we cease to exist? Tell me how it's even logically and grammatically possible for there to be "ought" with no "if". Tell me why it is that we even have the capacity to do wrong when we're not supposed to do wrong. Kind of like telling a fish not to swim isn't it?

Objective morality is a passion driven lie. This does not mean we will through caution to the wind and vandalize and murder. It simply means that it has a and less stable origination.

This is a matter of truth,...not necessarily what I want it to be.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:13:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 9:08:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and now you use this as a way to say "heyyyyy lookit bieber he ain't that clean."
no.. I'm saying your constantly saying Nihilists would poke children with needles is ABSURD and requires some explanation to make sensible.. the only one I can imagine is that you're sadistic.. and assume others would get enjoyment in the same way you would.

now, I don't really think you're sadistic.. ;)

I think this is just another absurd thing you say, and there's no good explanation for it but that you're silly.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:16:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 9:06:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/9/2012 8:48:34 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Great, will you be sticking pins in children or taunting rape victims soon then?

Hmm. The moral intuitions that give rise to our emotional disgust at those things are evolved tools to help our species live in stable societies and reproduce safely. But why think those moral intuitions accurately reflect moral truth? If we wound the clock backwards, another intelligent species might have evolved with an entirely different set of moral intuitions. If you're going to use this as an argument for moral objectivity, how do you account for that?

I don't and evolutionary impulses certainly don't account for the entire story. I'm not really using this as an argument for moral objectivity - just, that if one is going to be a moral nihilist they should at least be honest about the implications. If there is nothing wrong with the act you really shouldn't have a great difficulty doing it (practical considerations aside) never mind the hubris of condemning someone else for the act (suppose they thought genocide was right?) Seriously, take a step back. If there's nothing reasonably wrong with the act you should be able to override some of your primitive impulses as a rational being.

This will be my last post on the subject for a while, I have work today.
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:31:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Relativism directly combats this. Obligations, and absolute values such as a humans feeling the strong. Their need to perform a certain action (ie: ought) are more of moralities. Of course there doesn't need to be a god pushing a morality that is ridiculous. Humans make their own moralities relatively. Societies condone and enforce their own codes moralities to the people within them. People are then obligated to that morality through what they have learned. When violating that moral code, they face guilt. Maybe the action to them doesn't make sense to be wrong, but that's not the point. They feel guilt knowing that society doesn't condone that action, and feel guilt that they violated the moral code they have grown up learning their entire life.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:41:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@omgjustinbeiber

Clearly you are mis-informed on what a subjectivist actually is if you think that they condone evil things. Subjectivists can have their own moral codes while still agreeing that all that stuff is bad. We recognize that other individuals in the world do not have the same moral code than us. Literally that is all we are saying. Not that it is okay by any means.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:45:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So many spelling and grammar issues... I shouldn't type on my phone. >:-(
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2012 9:49:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/9/2012 9:16:08 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
If there's nothing reasonably wrong with the act you should be able to override some of your primitive impulses as a rational being.

There's something Reasonably Wrong with My Doing The Act.

That is, that I wouldn't care to.

That it would bring me Discomfort/Pain.

Why would I do that? Doing so, would be unreasonable... As it's reasonable to seek enjoyment and comfort and avoid pain/discomfort
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."